From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Justifying Views related to Valid Proof?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:45:23 GMT

In article <dabrowsk.711735554@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>I'm afraid that Ken Arromdee's reply terminates our discussion. As usual
>(multiple examples available on request) he replied to the first letter
>of my article. He did not answer any of my questions. He ignored all my
>and repeated his questions which were answered (maybe not fully, I can't
>tell) in the text he deleted without any reference to the content of my
>reply. His strongest argument was that he "doesn't reply because I don't
>reply" though in my last post I took my time to explain, point by point,
>how his "criticism" (that I talk only about positive assertions and that
>I ignore the truly negative ones like "no gold", "no AIDS") is mistaken
>because I dealt with EXPLICITELY these two statements (I repeated my two
>examples and I gave a third, each time taking care to write how a "No X"
>or "no belief in X" changes from being negative as clearly requiring no
>justification to being positive as clearly requiring justification). 

Gee, that's nice.  Not.

I did in fact reply to your example.  Of course, I combined it with
elaboration on my own example, pointing out that the answers are similar.

You don't _ignore_ negative assertions like "no gold", "no AIDS".  But you
insist that sometimes they're not really negative assertions, and I dispute
this.

>Second, the subject of "objective evidence". Ken asserted that objective
>evidence can be explained away in my world view and I told him why this
>isn't so. To avoid the standard exchange of empty words I requested (for
>the second time I guess, but I've already lost count because Ken ignores
>ALL or virtually all my specific questions) that Ken backs his assertion
>with a specific example.

If I give an example, you can reply that my example only shows that you can
explain away one thing; it doesn't show you can explain away everything.  In
fact, any possible example can only demonstrate your ability to explain away
one thing, not everything.

Of course, Ken deleted and ignored this. More,
>he also deleted my examples how his point of view ALLOWS HIM to explain
>objective evidence away. He responded with an example how his world view
>may CHANGE under the objective evidence (BTW, exactly as mine would).

The example I gave of the latter is in fact also an example of the former.

>I will NOT reply any more, Ken. Please prove that, after all, you are
>able to read and quote this statement if you want to say your last word.
>I have to write this request explicitely because you were one of the two
>posters who ignored a similar request in my Intro file. Others did not. 
>Bye, Ken.

You may, if you wish, not address things I say.  But fairness does not dictate
that I respond to this voluntary decision on your own part by doing the same
to you.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism