----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:14 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Dave Land wrote: >> I wonder if we couldn't have more effective discussions here if we said >> things like "I couldn't find a compelling justification the invasion" >> instead of "the invasion was unjustified." > >> The former asserts one's own observation, not subject to contradiction >> (ha!), while the other asserts an opinion as though it were truth, >> subject to lengthy and quarrelsome debates. >Well, why though? Isn't everything we state that is less than 100% >provable an opinion? Isn't it valid to read in the phrase "In my >opinion..." before any declaration, at least of values or judgments? >Obviously that wouldn't work for things like math ... [In my opinion] 2 >+ 2 = 4. But isn't it self-apparent that when I say the Iraq war is >unjustifiable, I am issuing my own opinion on the topic? But, the words actually do mean different things. Let me make two statements I consider true about Iraq and one that I consider false. <true> The actions of Hussein against his own people were unjustifiable George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was mistaken <end true> <false> Invading Iraq was an unjustifyable action <end false Let me reword what I just wrote. I do not believe that that a reasonable, ethical person could support Hussein's actions against his own people. I do think a reasonable ethical person could have supported the war in Iraq, but I believe such a person was mistaken. So, before the war, Gautam and I each thought the other was honestly mistaken, but still reasonable people of good will. I was trained to use these nuances in discussion to convey my meaning more clearly. It's worthwhile in physics debates, because it allows the differentiation between crackpot theories and theories that one considers problematic and theories that one can see the basis for but one's intuition opposes. Finally, I have difficulty with the idea of just three states: Yes, No, and Uncertain. There is a great deal of difference between a 0.1% chance and a 99.9% chance, although both are uncertain. Language that reflects the degree of confidence helps foster rational discussions which can foster a greater understanding by the participants. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
