virus: Re: virus-digest V3 #63

Reed Konsler (
Mon, 8 Mar 1999 16:46:03 -0500

>Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:43:00 -0700
>From: "David McFadzean" <>
>Subject: Re: virus: Haven't we been around this bend before?
>I would first like to hear how you think faith *creates* the model.
>That seems to be a key issue.

Very good. The same way reason does does reason do it, anyway?

>>Rule #2: Each player has the right to change their mind as quickly
>>or as slowly as they choose.
>I will wait to read your response to TheHermit's points on this.

My response is no response. I see the points he makes, but I still this is a crucial rule to avoid coercion.

>>Rule #3: Changing of a mind may be accomplished either by changing
>>terms, or by reinterpreting old terms according to a new frame of
>Agreed, but I can see a potential problem. What if we end up
>redefining "faith" or "reason" to such an extent that they wouldn't
>be recognized outside this discussion? Does it matter?

That depends on what your purpose is. What is our purpose in making these rules?

>>Rule #4: The meaning of a word is context dependent, not intrinsic.
>Agreed, so long we attempt to make the context explicit when
>there seems to be confusion.

Of course. The purpose of exposition is to create an explicit context supportive of the thesis.

>Rule #5 (proposed): Players shall endeavor to avoid logical fallacies
>in their statements. about this:

Rule #5: Players shall endeavor to express themselves as simply as possible to convey their point, but no simpler.

The thing which makes me hesistate is that, as you know, "logical fallacies" are often very good decision making tools. Take "argument from authority" or "poisoning the well". These thing happen, and to mutual advantage. They ar fallacious in the pristine, cold world of formal logic but very useful in the hot, passionate living world.

But, players shouldn't lie or try to confuse intentionally and without purpose, I agree. Intentionally and WITH purpose...hmm...



  Reed Konsler