>Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 16:43:00 -0700
Very good. The same way reason does it...how does reason do it,
anyway?
>From: "David McFadzean" <morpheus@lucifer.com>
>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.
>>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
That depends on what your purpose is. What is our purpose
in making these rules?
>>terms, or by reinterpreting old terms according to a new frame of
>>reference.
>
>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?
>>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.
Hmm...how about this:
[shrug]
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------