Re: The Question of Starting Point Premises, and the Burden of Proof for Non-Naturalism

From: Chris Cogan (ccogan@telepath.com)
Date: Sat Jul 08 2000 - 12:34:41 EDT

  • Next message: Chris Cogan: "Jones and his "Gimme-that-old-level-playing-field-so-I-won't- have-to-prove-my-outrageous-claims" blues."

    At 06:21 AM 07/07/2000, you wrote:
    >Reflectorites
    >
    >On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 18:27:10 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
    >
    >CC>One common view of reason is that, though reason can prove a conclusion on
    > >the basis of given premises, and it can prove those premises on the basis
    > >of still more premises, we eventually arrive at premises that cannot be
    > >proved on the basis of any further premises, and that *these* premises are
    > >simply *assumed.*
    >
    >This is not merely a "view". This is a *fact*!

    I find it interesting that you re-affirm the position I was refuting here
    and then, in much of the rest of your post, criticize *me* for
    misrepresenting your position. Do you or do you not mean "simply
    *assumed*"? If you do, then my criticism stands and I'm not misrepresenting
    your view. If you don't, then my criticism does not apply to your view, but
    then you shouldn't get upset at *me* for taking you at your word when you
    say that starting point premises *are* simply assumed.

    You *seem* to mean, judging from the basis of the rest of your post,
    something quite different from what you say in the passage above.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 08 2000 - 12:36:11 EDT