Hi, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: >> > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily. > > On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: >> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational >> arguments. > > If it's true that gerbils can't form rational arguments (not much doubt > that they can't express rational arguments, but that's not your claim), > then the mere ability to form rational arguments (or, even better express > those arguments) qualifies as demonstrating evidence.
Umm, that logic works here because the meta-argument and the meta-meta-argument are actually about the same topic (rational arguments). In real-world examples, it is quite easy to sustain the Gerbil Hypothesis: you simply assert that the conclusion the supposed gerbil arrives at is invalid. We've had quite a few examples of this kind of argument on -devel recently. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]