Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Equality through Reaganomics ? M
Message-ID: <7800838@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 30-Nov-85 14:24:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800838
Posted: Sat Nov 30 14:24:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Dec-85 20:20:44 EST
References: <110@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 40
Nf-ID: #R:ubc-cs:-11000:inmet:7800838:000:1908
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 30 14:24:00 1985



[Mike Huybensz  ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh]
>> >>Of course there are other factors involved [...]
>> >>That is why I added the (?).
>> 
>> "Science begins and ends with a question".

>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?  

GOD FORBID (er... just between us atheists).
But if science does that, we may do well to emulate her.
Posing a question for discussion may produce better (or at  least
different) results than simply giving your answer for others to 
refute or agree. A couple of good substantive points have already
been made on both sides with respect to my (?) title. (BTW: does the
preceding imply - *because* I ended it with with (?) ? Who cares?)
I didn't stick in that "science" quote to prove anything,  but
simply  because  I  like  it, as a kind of epigraph. The quote is
probably inexact. It's from Karl Popper, but I couldn't place it.

>>[a passage using the expression "large mind" (in answer to smtg
>>on "small minds" by another poster) and with some flames in it]

>My idea of large minds includes avoiding statements and  attribu-
>tions  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.

Guilty as charged. Flames breed flames;  attributions  of  intent
are among the worst kind. Inquiries about individuals' "intellec-
tual honesty" are of the same kind. A *meta-subject* - about what
stuff  is proper to post, or to object to - was, I think, a legi-
timate (if boring) new subject of debate - if only it was treated
calmly.  I  just  posted  a  note  on "What is Fit to Print". Any
flames of mine you see will pre-date this response.

			Jan Wasilewsky