>I'm saying that the circularity of an argument lies on
>a continuum. Very tight circularity (e.g. The Bible is true because
>it says so in the Bible) is a logical fallacy. But if the circularity
>is extremely complex and indirect (like the body of scientific
>knowledge)
>then it is not a logical fallacy (e.g. we know the age of the universe
>because we know the speed of light, and the distance of stars, and the
>nature of our instruments, and ... thousands if not millions of steps
>...
>which are eventually, in the long run, self-referential).
This is a KEY insight! If you didn't read it the first time, read it
now!
Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.425.688.8600
CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA USA
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
Do you know what a "meme" is? http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>