[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Over-The-Rhine Digest V2 #804
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:30:26 -0400 "Chris Emery"
<chris.emery at ecoutlook_com> writes:
>> Boy oh boy, didn't we just open up a can of worms. That kind of
>thinking
>> just won't hold water. It's what we here call a self-defeatig
>absurdity.
>
>That's what we here call a 'straw man argument'.
You're gonna hafta explain to me how that is a straw man argument.
>Kelvin's first assumption. Can we have a mathematical proof? Or at
>least
>a side of the debate that doesn't rely on 'faith'?
Why do you think that 'mathematical proof' would help. That would be
relying on some objective truth, would it not? The way I see it, if
there's no truth, there's no math.
>> It doesn't come from the human mind, individual or objective, but
>exists
>> before and outside of us. Finally, it doesn't cease to be truth
>just
>> because some very educated people coose to play games with it and
>doubt
>> its existence.
>
>Second assumption. With an intangible concept like this, shouldn't
>we
>define "truth" first?
>
I dunno, you tell me.
>Comparing "higher truth" to the physical concept of gravity is like
>comparing apples and Spiderman comics.
Oh, so now you want to make a distinction between different types of
truth. I don't think you can do that. Principles or characteristics of
truth used when dealing with physical concepts don't change or become
inoperable when you're dealing with intangibles.
>
Anyway, thanks for the challenge, Chris. It's good for me.
Kelvin
________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use --
Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web!
Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh.