RE: virus: Faith, Logic and Purpose

Robin Faichney (
Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:18:39 -0000

> From: David McFadzean[]
> I have no problem with "working hypotheses" so long
> as there is a good reason to believe them if they
> are ever called into question.
But who decides what's a good reason? Do you
think anyone would cling to a belief for what *they*
considered to be bad reasons? Isn't the problem
not that there's this thing called "faith" that you
think is bad and others think is good, but that
people disagree on what's a good reason for

As so often, eventually you just have to face the
need to get your hands dirty, by descending
from generalisation to specifics. You believe
in accepting what's said on good authority,
don't you? (You can't check *everything* out!)
Well, some folk think their local preacher is a
good authority. Arguing about "faith" won't
help them. Discussing their preacher, and
what he says, with them, in depth, just might.
Get specific!

> What do you call
> the category of assumptions for which there is no
> good reason?
A matter of opinion.