From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jarek's Challenge (was: We will see Return of Jesus!)
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:13:38 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC

SUMMARY: I say why my approach seems more intellectually appealing to me
         than mathew's. I quote in full length one of his old articles. 

In <sLkkoB8w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew clearly explained the meaning of
his comment (thanks). This explanation, however, made me to pursue the
matter a bit further:

-mathew:
>"Reasonable behaviour is that which is sensible, moderate, not absurd,
>tolerable, viewed as such by most people."
>
On the other hand, in one of his previous posts matthew said that his
behavior is NOT reasonable (see the file appended to this article). I
guess that my behavior IS reasonable (anybody who thinks otherwise is
kindly requested to support his opinion with solid arguments). I think
that any reasonable approach is more intellectually appealing than any
not reasonable one, thus I submit that my "I believe BECAUSE I WANT TO
and AT LEAST I consider it reasonable" is more intellectually appealing
than mathew's "I don't believe but I HAVE NO BECAUSE FOR THAT and EVEN 
I consider it not reasonable"...


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET

================= THE QUOTED ARTICLE FOLLOWS ===========
INTRODUCTION: mathew claimed that he uses no 'zero-order propositions',
      ie. no such statements which form the basis of his world view and
      which cannot be supported in any non-circular way.
========================================================
Subject: Jarek, I think I've worked out the problem...
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible)
Date: 10 Dec 91 17:53:17 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Jarek re-posts the "CIY article" and my reply to it.

Having read them both again, I think I know why he thinks I'm going back
on something I said earlier.

Jarek:
> STEP (B):
> 
> Even a mathewist cannot reasonably work without zero-order propositions.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^
mathew:
> True, but I will just point out that they can be assumed out of 
> necessity, not believed.

I've underlined the key word.  REASONABLY.

I agree that to behave in a REASONABLE way (ill-defined, note), I need
to have zero-order propositions.  However, I don't have to behave in a 
reasonable way.  It is therefore incorrect to say that I have to have
zero-order propositions.

So to summarize, Jarek:
When you thought I was saying "I must have zero-order propositions", I was
actually saying "I must have zero-order propositions if I am to behave in
a way which I consider reasonable".

So I'm not going back on what I said earlier.  (Or at least, not yet. :-)

You can calm down now.


mathew
[ Is anyone else reading this stuff still or should we go to e-mail? ]

-- 
Another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices.
Message to Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy!
===================== END OF QUOTED ARTICLE ===========
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14120 sci.skeptic:13025