> CM: To the contrary, we have ample facts to warrant the judgment
> that Pat's lunch partner is irrational (with respect to his
> belief about what his god expected of him):
> CM: 1. He believes he is obligated to kill Rushdie and would
> in fact do so if presented the opportunity.
> CM: 2. Either he is certain about his obligation to kill Rushdie
> or he is not.
> CM: 3. If he is certain, then he is irrational, as it is impossible
> to have certain knowledge about what invisible beings expect
> of us.
> CM: 4. If he is not certain, then he is irrational, as he willing
> to commit murder on the basis of a belief (namely, that he
> is obligated to kill Rushdie) that he does not know with
> any certainty to be true.
> CM: Either way, Pat's lunch partner is irrational.
> Let us extrapolate CM 3 to a general premiss of fallibility:
> 3. Any human being who thinks to be certain about anything is
> Extracting the general rules of the other premisses,
> we have just established that all war is irrational.
> That seems like enough work for one week ...
> The (Dept. of) Defense Rests --
> TGIF !!! (01)
I'm down with your conclusions, but of course your "general premiss
of fallibility" neither follows from nor is assumed by my argument. (02)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)