Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Rosen on reason, etc.
Message-ID: <311@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Apr-85 10:02:31 EST
Article-I.D.: cvl.311
Posted: Tue Apr 16 10:02:31 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 03:04:22 EST
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 21


> You complained
> about our being "wedded" to the idea of an absolute truth.  It is
> reasonable to assume that if you complain about such things, you don't
> agree with the concept.  Of course, obviously it depends what mood you
> were in, whether or not you chose to believe in it at the moment of
> reading/writing...

I think what she is saying is not that she assumes that there is no
absolute truth. She is saying that she dosn't assume that there is one.
Just like you and god, no? As you were saying, in the absence of
evidence for something you should not assume it exists.

Of course the statement "there is no absolute truth" cannot be
absolutely true, but that dosn't make it absolutely false either. After
all the statement "this statement is false" (which logitions went to
great trouble to eliminate frome discusion) is neither true nor false.
At least not in any absolute sense.

					Ralph Hartley
					rlh@cvl