Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: : Premises, Circularities

["Justin Schwartz" <jkschw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> A contemptuous comment.

R, this is not the first time you have taken my rejection of your pet theory
as a personal attack. In the world of scholarship, it is normal for people
to disagree sharply about fundamentals, and even to think the ideas and
reserach programs of others as fundamentally misguided, without taking it
personally. What do you think about my Hayekianism? No doubt that I have my
head screwed on backwards. I don't take it personally as long as you press
serious objections.

> You're not persuading us not because we are true believers but
> because your reasons (redundancy, transformation problem) are not as
> strong as you think they are.

Perhaps not. My fundamental objection is that the program isn't going
anywhere. I think it's a waste of time.  But I also think that a lot of
people--maybe you--are attached to it not because it's so explanatiorly
powerful, but because, as Doug says, it's a sort of a pledge of allegience
to the red flag.

jks
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.