From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Sun Sep 29 2002 - 20:02:09 MDT
lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
>Well, all right. But honestly, I think that everyone
>here is an honest seeker of the truth. Every liberal
>> Regard for truth is demoted to 'how can it help
>> me win', which is contempt for truth.
>
>Again, I don't see anyone here who has contempt for
>the truth. But yes, I admit that their minds work
>in such a way that they want to win. I want to win.
>I suspect that XXXXX are wrong, and that my side is
>right, but I immediately qualify that by saying it's
>because we have differing *values*. That's the
>hypothesis anyway.
I'm puzzled as to what you think value differences between truth seekers
explain.
Can you hypothesize any value differences, other than differences in
how highly people value truth, that would explain what looks to me like
an ideological debate between you and Robin in the thread found around
http://www.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q01/4302.html?
Or do you claim that that dispute was fundamentally different from the
kind of disagreement we see in left-right debates?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you call me a truth seeker.
My desire for the truth and my desire to prove that my prior beliefs were
wise sometimes conflict. I wouldn't be surprised if were possible to
demonstrate, for example, that having bought stock in a company causes
me to hold a higher opinion of that company than I would otherwise hold.
That would seem to demonstrate that I sometimes subordinate my desire for
the truth to another of my goals. If so, would you stop calling me a
truth seeker? Or would the fact that I place a positive value on the
truth be enough for you to label me a truth seeker?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Free Jon Johansen! http://www.rahul.net/pcm |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:20 MST