Bill writes:
>
> what i have been leading up to is this: gil says i insulted him by saying he
> was mainstream but still maintains the popperian line that testing is
> achievable using objectified data.
For what it's worth, this representation is doubly inaccurate.
First, I never said that "testing is achievable using objectified
data." I said there was a meaningful distinction between fact and
value, which is something quite different (as the subsequent
discussion has confirmed); in particular the statement doesn't
suggest that data are "objectified". Second, I didn't say I was
insulted by Bill's inference that I was "mainstream" (also "non-
progressive", in his original broadside); I said that argument ad
hominem, which Bill used, besides being fallacious, is insulting--
characterizing the argument, not the relationship between these
particular arguers. I was not writing in a state of high dudgeon.
Finally, also for what it's worth, "maintaining a popperian line"
doesn't imply "being mainstream", though it may be a symptom of that
malady.
Gil [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
