OKNovember 10 2002 at 4:28 PM
|Sirian (no login)|
from IP address 188.8.131.52
Response to Induction and Deduction
Nits accepted. My beef remains the "based on logic" claim, as if slapping that label on the opinions makes them bullet proof. Following from your clarifications, opinions are not ever "based on logic". They are based on premises.
Pete is very thorough in forming and presenting his arguments. I agree with many of his opinions, but that doesn't draw much attention. Where we disagree boils down largely to views based on different premises about the true nature of human beings, and most of that lies outside the realm of empirical proofs. This issue is different. There is a clear contrast between where his premises lead him and where mine lead me, in an area that extends into the observable realm. In looking at the evidence, I see more support for my view on suffrage than for his.
Part of Pete's justification for his views is that they derive only from empirical data and conclusions he draws from them. If the observable empirical causes are the only ones, then they ought to lead him to accurate conclusions. In this case, they have not. There are more causes than he is considering. He can presume those unknown factors are all empirical, but that is speculative. As long as he clings to an insistence on rejecting all spiritual concepts, he will remain stuck in the elitist point of view, always blaming the particular elite as "not elite enough" to get the job done right. That's a trap, an endless excuse that can be used to prop up a failed idea instead of discarding it.
- About Flawed Premises - Occhi on Nov 12, 8:27 AM
- Pursuit - Sirian on Nov 12, 3:08 PM