From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 11:12 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: JH: The Design Argument "Paul Filseth" wrote > > > > I note for our readers that you have not responded at all > > > > to my two earlier emails > > > > I did indeed receive your Feb. 12 resend, but a check of my > > incoming mail logs confirms that I received no such original email. > > if you hadn't jumped to conclusions, and had simply > written "I note for our readers that I have received no response from > you..", you could have successfully shared the information you had > without making a false statement about me. Probably 99% of the emails sent by most people I know get to their target mailbox on the first try. When I receive no response from you, I think it's reasonable to say "you have not responded". If you think otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree. > > > Do you claim your philosophers have a good reason to use whatever > > > interpretation of "supernatural" it is you think they use? > > > > When I see philosophers [..] > > then I take that as additional prima facie evidence that [..] > > I asked if you claim that *they* have a good reason for what > they do. If "have a good reason to use" means "can be presumed to be aware of possible charges of vagueness or meaninglessness in use of", then yes. If "have a good reason to use" means "have written up somewhere defenses against every possible charge of vagueness or meaninglessness in use of", then no. I note that you did not dispute (but may not agree with) my claim that when philosophers on opposing sides of the debate of whether X exists use (and even casually elaborate on if not formally define) the term X in a way that is consistent both with its dictionary definition and with my definition, then that is prima facie evidence that such definitions are adequate for making the debate meaningful. > > > They should be analyzed. Philosophy is supposed to be into > > > questioning, not presuming. > > > > Yep, violent agreement. > > So you are capitulating on the claim you made that I was > disputing: "A term used ordinarily and repeatedly in the > philosophical literature should be presumed to be meaningful." I stand by my claim. I am not claiming that no term used ordinarily and repeatedly in the philosophical literature can ever have its meaningfulness questioned. > > > supernatural: having a diameter greater than six inches. > > > [..] > > > That which has not been shown to be impossible is possible. > > > > Paul here again offers no substantive argument against my > > position. > [..] > Your position, in your own words, is "As I understand it, you claim > to know of no definition of 'supernatural' that doesn't make its use > oxymoronic in the philosophical literature I've cited." The position I was referring to was my claim that the philosophical usage of 'supernatural' is meaningful when that term is taken to mean its ordinary dictionary definition, especially as elaborated by me and by the philosophers I've cited. > I do, in point of > fact, know of definitions that don't make its use oxymoronic in the > philosophical literature you've cited. I submitted such a definition > as proof that I know of one If you consider the above-quoted definition to be a substantive argument against the position I referred to, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. > This was not a context in which offering a substantive > argument against any of your positions > would have been appropriate. Then let's note that you neither agree with my relevant positions nor offer any substantive argument against them, and be done. I've here asked you no questions and made no claims about what your positions are, except to note disagreement with (but not argue against) what MIGHT be your position. Let's note that any lack of response by you to this posting does not constitute any agreement by you with any of my positions or with any of my conditional descriptions of what might be your positions. I will take any response by you as an invitation to continue the discussion, despite your fascinating characterization of my role in it as "following [you] around and pestering [you]". -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net