Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Emperor's New Clothes
Message-ID: <397@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Jul-85 14:51:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.397
Posted: Sun Jul 21 14:51:19 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Jul-85 04:44:53 EDT
References: <1311@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 40

> A good many of us know that this is in no way an unrepresentative
> statement.  So we would expect that in the reply to Charley, we would
> see some reason and logic exemplefied.  But instead we find:
> 
> > Because we happen to like those things.  Don't you?  Don't survival,
> > continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living?
> 
> Thus, all the talk about objectivity, examination of presuppositions
> clung to in order to bolster a preconceived desired conclusion,
> wishful thinking, etc., etc. (many of you as well can no doubt mimic
> the usual phrases), is a complete smokescreen.

Why? This would be correct if Rich maintained that objectivity was the
sole arbitrator, in all cases. I got the impression that his view point
was basically that objective claims demand objective evidence. This
does not exclude subjective evidence from being useful in cases where
the claim is only presented as being subjective. 

I note with interest that the correctness of his statement, in itself,
has not been challanged.

> Truly, Emperor Rosen has no clothes.  When pushed back to his real
> reasons, he says:  "because we like them".
> 
> Because we like them.  Because we *like* them?  Yes, BECAUSE WE LIKE
> THEM!
> 
> Pro......FOUND!!
>
> This is no more than the sanctification of desire.  Instead of "might
> makes right", Rich says we should follow "like makes right".
> 
> Any three-year-old could tell you that.

This type of argument sounds familiar. I wonder where I heard it before?
You arndt taking lessons in philosophy 301 now, are you? :-)

> Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--

Padraig Houlahan.