From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 25 2002 - 02:10:15 MDT
David Lubkin wrote:
> At 07:13 PM 4/23/2002 -0700, jeff davis wrote:
>
>> Fine. Let him be a loon. That is not the issue. The issue is whether
>> the alleged loon's evidence is credible.
>
>
> No, it's not. That someone makes an assertion does not imply that it is
> worthy of investigation, response, or rebuttal. That the assertion has
> significant consequences if it is true does not change this.
Huh? It was stated that the only important thing was wheter
there is good enough evidence from this person you branded a
loon about this matter. There is no arguing with that. Even
someone who often acts like a loon may ocassionally have a valid
case. Any contention that just questioning whether I own
government at least in part conspire to produce some or all of
the events of 9/11 automatically makes one a "loon" would make
the asserter of such an automatic judgement look like a loon.
Just because something is monstrous to even consider as possible
does not mean it is acceptable to automatically dismiss and
label any who consider it or advocate it as true as a "loon".
>
> Because part of the evidence is who is the messenger and what
> credibility they have. If someone with a strong reputation for
> intellectual honesty, integrity, objectivity, past relevant
> accomplishment, analytical skills, pertinent expertise, etc., says
> something interesting, it's worthy of attention. As these factors are
> removed, and negative factors are added, their assertions become less
> and less worthy of consideration.
>
The messenger is NOT the evidence. So in short, from the above,
if someone has already impressed you as a reasonable human being
his evidence is better than the same evidence presented by
someone who has not so impressed you? Where is the objectivity
in that?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:39 MST