virus: The Faith Argument (Did i post?)

J. Houston Williams (prefect@tricon.net)
Fri, 23 May 1997 22:38:08 -0400

Folks -- a lurker e-mailed me and asked why I hadn't responded to David
McFadzean's response to my private e-mail to him which was reposted here. I
can't find it in my <in> box, but i do have a copy that claims it was sent.
Has anyone seen it?

If it was indeed posted, I'll e-mail the lurker a copy. If not, I'll post
it here...

It starts:

----------
Nicities. Now that that's done with, let's just jump right in, shall we?

:-)

At 07:19 PM 5/21/97 -0600, David wrote:

>Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "sufficient proof"? I think
>it perfectly reasonable to provisionally accept something as true when
>there are no better explanations available, and I wouldn't call that
>faith in any sense.

A difficulty; what is sufficient for one person is not sufficient for
another. I'll define "sufficient proof" as "enough proof that most people
in a certain pool can consider the issue at hand to be proved...."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Williams prefect@tricon.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various Artists: Raising the Tide of Mediocrity for Two Years
http://www.3wave.com/~prefect/