dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
> To Allan, George and Joel:
>
> May I suggest that there is no point in responding to Bryan Cross? It
> appears that he KNOWS the untruth, and the untruth has bound him
> irretrievably. Allan, for example, made a relevant point, which was
> dismissed on the basis of Humpty Dumpty semantics. Doesn't this suggest
> irremediable ignorance?
>
> Dave
Dave,
I didn't dismiss Allan's point. I was rather sympathetic to his points. He
and I have a different working definition of MN; it turns out that by
merely pointing that out, I became guilty of "Humpty Dumpty semantics"
(whatever that is). Should you resort to the silent treatment and ad
hominems, I will simply point out the fallacious nature of such responses.
You still owe me proof that ID proponents define 'design' as "direct divine
action". If you can't support your claim, retract it. If you find some
notable ID proponent who has defined 'design' as "direct divine action", a
check for $20 will be in the mail to you, and I'll post a retraction to the
list. Since I am willing to retract, if you are unwilling to retract, then
whose state is irremediable? As a philosopher (and a Peircean-type
fallibilist at that), I'm going to continue to focus my attention on
discovering the truth about these issues. In this process, I have found it
helpful not to assume that my interlocutors are ignorant, irrational,
irremediable, or irrecusable. I generally learn the most when discussing
issues with those who see things very differently than I do (e.g. my
atheist friends), and I suspect that this general observation holds for
others as well.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 04 2000 - 19:01:57 EDT