Re: virus: Re: virus-digest V3 #60
Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:36:53 EST

In a message dated 3/5/99 11:06:38 AM Central Standard Time, writes:

<< Reed:
>>>Why should we value [science and reason]? What difference does it make?
>I don't think it is a question of why we should value it. We do. The
>that we do probably have some connection into our evolutionary nature, both
>biological and cultural.

That sounds like an article of faith. "We hold these truths to be self-evident".
In the begining their was "The Word". You are saying that science and reason are natural and "why they are valuable" is not a comprehensible question. Is this question one you could potentially question? If so, will you do so now?
Why should we value science and reason?>>

You have altered the meaning of my response. I was responding to ""Why should we value IT? What difference does it make?" And in that sentence, I took "it" to mean "grand justificational edifice".

I know that you are just overly excited to find anything in my posts that might have the slightest indication to you that I have some article of faith. Both you and Tim seem to be on this quest. But every declaratory sentence does not mean it is an article of faith. Perhaps you would like me to sprinkle those "IMO's" thoughout my posts.

Sorry, but I generally don't do that. They are just a waste of time and space, and you shouldn't need reminders like that. If you really want me to, I will, but I can't promise that I will be religious about it. The "IMHO's" are just plain obnoxious to me. Very few people's opinions are truly humble, and those that are generally don't need to be reminding people about it. Besides, I don't really care how humble somebody is. Humility is over-rated.