>Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:21:36 -0500
>From: "Eric Boyd" <6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca>
>Subject: virus: equivocation
Reed:
>>Sure, but if you'll look back a Jake's posts, he points out that
>>pan-critical rationalism is a great way of creating a resilient
>>self-consistent worldview...interrogate each link, replace those
>>which are flawed, test the whole...in other words:
>
>to here???
>
>>"Reason is a disciplined way of thinking, its purpose is to maintain
>>and strengthen belief in ones current model of the world."
Let us say you were making a reasoned argument, the thesis of which were some principle A like "people should be nice to each other, whatever the circumstances".
You could conduct, as a logician or a debater, a formal process of proof:
F ---> E ---> D ---> C ---> B ---> A
In this case, F is the premise and the other statements are part of a serial chain proof. This is a weak argument becuase if any link is refuted, the premise is not supported:
F ---> E ---> D C ---> B ---> A
Thus, as a reasonable person, you might choose to reinforce weak links:
F ---> E ---> D ---> C ---> B ---> A F ---> G ---> H ---> I ---> B F ---> J ---> K ---> C F ---> L ---> D
This is a reinforced argument, in this case the premise is still weak, but the foundation is much stronger. For instance, in this arguement, should the same link be broken, the premise is still supported:
F ---> E ---> D C ---> B ---> A F ---> G ---> H ---> I ---> B F ---> J ---> K ---> C F ---> L ---> D
According to this path:
B ---> A
F ---> G ---> H ---> I ---> B
Reason is a process of assembling stronger, more resillient arguements. Thus:
"Reason is a disciplined way of thinking, its purpose is to maintain and strengthen belief in ones current model of the world."
>Is it just me, or do they flatly contradict each other?
It's you.
>i.e. I'm accusing you of equivocating on the word "maintain" in order
>to balance these definitions.
>
>I hate equivocation.
Me, too. But I will invoke resonant meaning when it is the simplest possible way to communicate my meaning. I cannot make a simpler argument, and still support my thesis.
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------