At 10:06 AM 11/09/2000, you wrote:
>Reffectorites
>
>On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 23:00:41 -0600, Chris Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>CC>If they are
> >simply assumed, then what reason have we for thinking that the argument is
> >sound?
>
>[...]
>
>It would help if Chris actually read what I say: Here it is again:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:21:22 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> >This is not to say that one's ultimate premise cannot be critiqued - it can
> >and be replaced by another ultimate premise. To that extent Chris is
> >misconstruing what Johnson (and I) are saying by prefacing "assumed"
> >with "simply". The process at arriving at an ultimate premise does not have
> >to be simple, but in the end an ultimate premise must indeed be assumed.
>
>[...]
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I repeat, ultimate premises are not "*simply* assumed". But they are assumed.
Chris
I used the phrase "simply assumed" because you yourself have used it in a
much earlier post. If that is not what you mean, fine.
But, as I will show in another post, even the qualifications you give at
the end of your previous post are not enough to save your position, or to
invalidate mine.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 07:30:14 EST