Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 15 2003 - 19:37:23 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD out of our depth"

    Platt:Tell that to the mother and father who lost a son in battle. Or, tell
    that to your pharmacist next time she fills a prescription for you.

    Interesting, of course, over time the meaning of a death can change,
    the first world war or Vietnam certainly have been reassessed and therefore
    perhaps a life sacrificed might become one wasted or vice versa.
    Also medicine is a bit statistical and risky, 99 people get better
    1 dies, was truth different for the one?

    regards
    David M
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:45 PM
    Subject: Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

    > Matt:
    >
    > Matt complains:
    > > I'm sorry to everyone who wants me to continue on in my explanation of
    > > the redescription of the subject/object polarity into intersubjective
    > > agreement. I thought my most recent explication was bordering on pretty
    > > good, I'm quite happy with it, but Platt just doesn't seem to get it.
    > > Which is fine, but it doesn't really make me want to continue in trying
    > > to explain it to Platt when I doubt the fact that he will ever get it.
    > > If somebody else wants to pick up the conversation, I'd be willing to
    > > answer other people's questions and interjections, but I don't see the
    > > point with Platt. I've been around the pole so many times with this one
    > > person, that I just don't see the point.
    >
    > The fact that you've been "around the pole" many times not only with me
    > but with DMB and Paul would suggest to a reasonable person that your
    > ability to communicate leaves something to be desired. To blame the
    > victim of your prose for lack of understanding is to reverse the
    > responsibility from writer to reader.
    >
    > One way to assure mutual understanding is to use words as commonly
    > defined instead of insisting on your own definitions. Case in point:
    >
    > Matt
    > > And no, as I said later, direct sensation does not provide
    > > justification. "Justification" has to do with reasoning, not showing.
    >
    > You definition of "justification" is not the common one: From Merriam-
    > Webster:
    >
    > 1 a : to prove or SHOW to be just, right, or reasonable (emphasis
    > added)
    >
    > Another case in point of eliciting confusion:
    >
    > Matt
    > > No justification of truth by direct sensation--only change in belief.
    >
    > Without explaining the difference as you see it between "truth" and
    > "true belief," this reader is left wondering what you mean in making
    > this distinction.
    >
    > A final case in point:
    >
    > Matt
    > >Your
    > > use of "perceptions" is confusing because I doubt you are using it the
    > > way I'm using it, so I'm not sure what page you are on.
    >
    > Your confusion at my meaning of "direct perceptions" illustrates why
    > it's important for a writer to chose his words carefully so as keep
    > confusion by a reader to a minimum and to anticipate possible
    > misinterpretations. In this case, mea culpa.
    >
    > Matt's conclusion:
    > >Truth will always be a muddle.
    >
    > Tell that to the mother and father who lost a son in battle. Or, tell
    > that to your pharmacist next time she fills a prescription for you.
    >
    > Anyway, the statement is contradictory on its face. You cannot appeal
    > to reason in matters of justification as you do above, then turn around
    > and deny reason when you make a self-contradictory statement. It's this
    > sort of flip-flopping that puzzles those who question your views.
    >
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 15 2003 - 19:56:00 GMT