humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <84a83782-2365-4be3-9be8-
5ee5efda716a@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, fredweiss@papertig.com
says...
> On Apr 11, 12:03 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> > In article ,
> > m...@myinboxisbroken.com says...
>
> > > Why does one need a process that "*cannot* be wrong"?
> >
> > Because that's what certainty (in my sense) requires. If you favor a
> > certainty that can be wrong - as Fred does - then you don't need a
> > method that cannot be wrong. Indeed, all you need is a coin to flip.
>
> Of course there is a rather large range of other possibilities between
> "cannot be wrong" ("in his sense") and coin flipping - a distinction...

Of course - it's the distance between 50% and 100%. The issue is to
find a principled choice in the range between them. Why not be quiet
for a bit and let's see if Mark can come up with something to help you -
he's a clever guy.

> He chooses to ignore that, just as he ignores everything else - except
> of course his mantras which he repeats like a broken record.

Far from ignoring it, I just explained it to you.

> In the meantime, it is still the case that cows *cannot* jump over the
> moon.
>
> I am *certain, Fred* of it.

You can be certain of whatever you like, especially since you can be
certain and wrong. BTW, no one is claiming that a cow can jump over the
Moon.

> Of course, if Gordon, TeaCup, or any of the other pill Poppers have
> evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to look at it. I don't

Why, if you are "certain"? What's the point of your certainty?

> claim omniscience. If some new fact should emerge bearing on the
> subject, it would have to be considered. But in the absence of said
> fact, it is the case that one can be *certain, Fred* of it.

So, once again, you go back to the definition of certainty that you have
claimed to reject: all the evidence in favor and none against. And you
try to blame the lack of progress on me! Shame, shame.

--
Gordon