Hi Bruno Marchal 

I'm trying to recall (but can't) a particular author 
who often writes what appears to be a text, but it's 
really only an introduction. He never gets to the point
he seemed to be headed toward.

Others seem to have gone to the same composition class.
I have read entire books where the author talks "about"
a subject, but never gets to the meat of the subject.

IMHO the only crucial rule of composition (or of writing a play
or a poem or a letter or any essay) to me is 

"Show me, don't tell me".


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
12/29/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-29, 07:07:24 
Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove 




On 29 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Stephen P. King wrote: 


On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: 

On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: 
On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: 

On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
Hi meekerdb 

Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove 
the solipsism puzzle ? 


Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other people, they 
create a model in which other people are like themselves, they test the model 
and it works. Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the 
scientific method is. 

Brent 

Hi Brent, 

    This is how things actually work! We don't need to have an exact definition 
of this or that, we operate with FAPP models and 'as if' definitions, we don't 
need exactness, so why is it treated as so important? I invite you to check out 
any of Jon Barwise' books, I like The Liar the most. It is a nice change of 
pace from the ordinary treatments of logic and semantics and might help you 
understand this issue of 'as if'. 


What makes you think I don't understand it? 

Brent 


    Oh, well good, please go on and finish the point that you where making with 
: "Everybody solves it [the solipsism puzzle] by the scientific method: they 
observe other people, they create a model in which other people are like 
themselves, they test the model and it works. Problem solved - except for 
people who don't know what the scientific method is. ... " 




Stephen, 


Frankly. 


You cannot make a comment by saying "read that book and you will understand". 
You must make your point explicit (and you can add: see that book which 
inspired my point). If not, you are just saying "I know, you don't", and you 
stop to appear like the beginners/student you pretended to be. You appear as 
the one using argument per authority. 


I would be Brent, I would be rather angry. You did this to many other people 
(including me) too, and it just doesn't work. Always make your point explicit, 
and refer to the book or paper if you have use some idea there, but gives the 
idea explicitly. If not, it is an authoritative argument of the form "I know 
better than you". Only bad philosophers and fundamentalist do this. 


In this precise case, I don't follow your point, and I don't see how Barwise's 
book can help. Nor do I see that book as a change from ordinary logic. 


Bruno 




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to