From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2000 - 08:42:42 MST
'What is your name?' 'Menno Rubingh.' 'Do you deny having written the
following?':
> I think I can prove the fact that Dynamic Optimism can also be viewed as a
> method of logical THINKING that can be used very profitably and perfectly
> legitimately as a tool for reasoning, in a similar way as the Scientific
> Method.
> (Briefly: Each hypothesis A that clashes with Dynamic Optimism is not useful
> to an individual believing in hypothesis A, in a similar way as each
> hypothesis B clashing with the Scientific Method is not useful to an
> individual believing in hypothesis B. Hypothesis A is therefore 'false' in
> the same way, and for the same reasons, as hypothesis B is 'false'.)
If I read this argument correctly, all you seem to be saying here is that
any statement which "clashes" with Dynamic Optimism is false. While this
IS entailed by the truth of Dynamic Optimism, if by "clashes" you mean
"logically contradicts," the claim seems so trivial that I'm not sure
you're saying anything other than "Dynamic Optimism is right."
Maybe you mean something broader with your use of "clashes"? Or perhaps
you think there are an interesting set of beliefs which "clash" with
dynamic optimism? If so, it remains to be shown what those beliefs are.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:14 MST