--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <jstein@> wrote: > > > [snip] > > > 3) Judy: "And apparently completely missed the fact > > > that the "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to > > > successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted > > > because attention was paid to it." > > > > > > 4) Me (a Mullah Nasrudin story): "A friend noticed > > > that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle > > > crumbs on his doorstep. 'Why do you do that, friend?' > > > : 'To keep the lions away' : 'But there aren't any > > > lions here?' : 'See, it works!'" > > [snip] > > > > Go back to Judy's assertion at (3). Note that it is a > > > bald assertion. There is no presentation of evidence. > > > > > > That's why the Nasrudin story is to the point. The > > > Nasrudin story is a charming way of presenting what > > > would otherwise be a dry point. Viz: > > > > > > :: The failure of a catastrophic scenario to > > > materialise can never IN ITSELF count as justification > > > for any steps we may have taken to avert it :: > > > > Since I never said it did, we can add "non sequitur" > > to the "thought-stopper" charge. > > The point is NOT "that you said it". Rather it is that as you > said nothing ELSE other than *what amounts to that*, the logic > of Nasrudin applied to you. > > > > (Think priests praying to avert the end of the world > > > next Thursday and then telling you smugly on Friday > > > "we told you so"). > > > > > > But in the absence of evidence - that is all Judy's > > > asserion at (3) is. So, in other words that's what the > > > Nasrudin story is - it's a request for evidence. > > > > Well, no, it's not a request for evidence. It's an > > implicit assertion that there can *be* no evidence. > > That's why I called it a thought-stopper. > > You need to explain that. "Implicit" looks supicious. You mean > something like "it doesn't outright say this, but it means > this"? > > How so? How EXACTLY does the Nasrudin tale "implicitly assert" > (whatever that means) that "THAT THERE CAN *BE* NO > EVIDENCE"? Now that there... Yes, that WOULD be a "thought > stopper"! Except that it does NOT entail or assert any > such thing. > > There is a threat: Lions, Y2K, The end of the world, whatever. > We do something: Scatter crumbs, spend billions, do some chants > Time passes: No lions, no computer disaaster, no end of world > > If we just say "see, we averted the disaster", The Nasrudin > tale is reminding us about some missing steps: Evidence that > the threat existed in the first place and that the measures we > took fixed the problem. That's all. Nothing else. It does NOT > say implicitly or explicitly "that there can *be* no evidence" > (as you put it). If it did it would be crazy. > > So it is no "thought stopper". So there is no "intellectual > dishonesty". > > Let's boil the cabbages once more: > > You said: "The "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to > successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted > because attention was paid to it." At that point that's ALL > you said. > > The priest said: "The "alarmism" resulted in actions (chants) > to successfully defang the world's end. It was a real threat, > averted because attention was paid to it.". > > So enter Nasrudin - a request for evidence (no thought > stopper). You wouldn't accept the likes of that from > apocalyptic priests (as it stands). Why is YOUR case any > different? > > Of course you have NOW said more, and linked to an article > that looks for the white teeth in the Y2K's rotting corpse. > Fair enough. You've also added this: "...as for the countries > that did little or nothing and had no major problems, that > doesn't prove anything, given the vast differences between the > size and complexity of their infrastructures and the degree of > the dependence of those infrastructures on electronic > information technology". > > I'm underwhelmed by that point I'm afraid. Actually Dutton had > said plenty on this in any case. e.g. "It must have been > galling for computer-conscientious Germans to observe how life > continued its pleasurable path for feckless Italians, who had > generally paid no attention to Y2K". > > Italy, eh? Insufficently complex infrastucture and dependence > on IT? Come on! > > Finally, you say this. > > > "You have a habit of leaving lots of stuff on the table. > > You tend to pick out a tidbit here or there to address > > in such a way that the original discussion gets derailed > > and sidetracked. It's hard not to see that as deliberate. > > And once again you see monsters in the dark shadows that just > aren't there. "Deliberate!". The explanation is much more > dull. Time does not allow all these things to be pursued at > once, especially if we're to try hard to get to the bottom of > an issue. I suppose my focus has been (rightly or wrongly) to > begin by trying to slay your imagined monsters before settling > down to a nice chat. Hence the title of this thread. >
Anybody taking bets on how many more posts will be exchanged before she calls him a liar? The over/under should be pretty low even though she *has* pulled the dishonest card already. :-)
