occam;178202 Wrote: > Perhaps the well reasoned and plausable conclusion from this > non-empirical thought experinment is not entirely correct...... > > I find the following link particulary interesting as an adjunct when > reading this forum - > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
Occam-- I apologize for the tone of my response. It was intemperate, at best. However, my basic point, IMHO, is valid. Regardless of _whose_ argument you were dismissing, you were doing it by implicitly claiming that it was an instance of a known logical fallacy/rhetorical overreach, without specifying which one it was. Your claim that the link to a list of logical fallacies was merely informational (sorry for the jargon) strikes me as disingenuous. You have to assume that your interlocutor will take whatever you say as relevant to the discussion at hand. That being said, the only direct relevance your link would have would be to name the fallacy which the argument you are opposing instantiates (yech-- I'm mixing programmerese with undergrad-philosopht-majorese -- shoot me now). That unfortunate mouthful being said, I don't really see how you could claim that your provision of that link was purely "informational" (to use another puke-inducing piece of jargon-- sorry again). PF-- Notice the difference between your and Occam's response to opaqueice. Occam's was civil and respectful. Your (and philnyc's) response seems childish in comparison. --Michael -- totoro squeezebox 3 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ totoro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5935 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32231 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
