Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Equality through Reaganomics ?
Message-ID: <840@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Nov-85 13:26:38 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.840
Posted: Wed Nov 27 13:26:38 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 21:13:12 EST
References: <7800672@inmet.UUCP> <7800738@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 38

In article <7800738@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes in defense of the
lines prefixed by "> >>":

> >>Of course there are other factors involved [...]
> >>That is why I added the (?).
> 
> "Science begins and ends with a question".

Oh, boy, it's not often that I get to thump this fallacy of argument.

#5 "Evasion of a sound refutation of an argument by the use of a sophistical
formula" [also known as bumper-sticker thinking.]  (Page 173 of "How to Think
straight" by Robert Thouless, in the chapter "Thirty Four Dishonest Tricks of
Argument".)

Are you trying to tell us that your methods of analysis, article writing,
or opinion formation are science?  Or are you trying to tell us that
appending a question mark to what you write makes it science?  Hey look,
I just wrote two scientific sentences!  Wait till I tell my mom!

> I addressed them to the large minds, to give them something  that
> perhaps  *disagrees*  with  their  beliefs.  You know, people big
> enough to *change their mind* once in a while.
> I am selling nothing. I say what I think, especially if it is un-
> popular.  I  can afford to, not having a herd of "small minds" to
> keep to a party line.
> This, apparently, is all you think about. Pity.
> I seek to enlighten, with facts and ideas. You strive to control,
> suppress,  and  direct, for everyone's good, to be sure. I do not
> wish you luck.

My idea of large minds includes avoiding statements and attributions of
intent (and other such fallacious meta-subjects and red-herrings), and
sticking to the basic subjects of the debate.  We all make those mistakes
sometimes: let's try not to continue.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh