Hello Dale!

On Tuesday December 05 2006 00:02, you wrote to me:


 MVDV>> Observations can be selective. I can say the saem about
 MVDV>> you. I have never seen you admit to being wrong either,

 DS>    I'll quote two such admissions from another echo in another
 DS> message.

An echo that I read? Well, I may hacve missed it. Or forgotten. Just like
you may have missed or forgotten me admitting to an error.

 MVDV>> despite the fact that I have observed you to be wrong on
 MVDV>> many occasions.

 DS>    Name two, other than the two I quoted elsewhere :-}}
 DS>    BTW, two is not the same as many.

I think there is no point in that. It will simply lead to a repeat of the
yes/no discussion we had then. Other than that I do not keep archives.

 DS>>    IMO, his biggest flaw is that he cannot accept what others say
 DS>> without observing the "evidence" directly himself.

 MVDV>> Correction: without being given the opportunity to *verify*
 MVDV>> the facts  myself. I do not always have to see it myself.

 DS>   Slight difference in interpretation, but verification is what you
 DS> have said.

Of the *facts*, not the evidence.

 DS>    I'll readily accept that rewording, but I'm not sure how
 DS> you would verify evidence yourself without observing it though.

Often there are many ways to verify fatcs. Reviewing presented evidence is
just one way. An alernative is to be given the opportunity to gather
evedence onself or have a third party collect it. Sometiomes the facts
speak for themselves.

Example: I do not need to see satellitie pictures to verify the fact that
the earth is not flat. Standing on a beach at a very calm clear day with a
pair of binoculars will provide verification.

 MVDV>> But I insist on there being a way for independant
 MVDV>> verification of the facts and not having to resort to just
 MVDV>> take someone's word for it.

 DS>    The difficulty comes in how that independant verification happens
 DS> and what independant authority you will trust.

I never accept something as fact on authority. Period. Facts must be
verifiable independent of authority. I do not necesarily have to do the
verification myself, but it must be possible in principle to do so. The
possibility of independant verification ensures that if what is claimed is
false, that truth will emerge eventually.

Without a possibility of falsification something can not be accepted as fact.

 MVDV>> And that, IMNSHO is not a flaw. If everyone would have the
 MVDV>> same attitude we would not get involved in disasters like
 MVDV>> Iraq.

 DS>   I'm not sure how you jump to that conclusion.  But I will not
 DS> discuss Iraq in any public forum.

But you cannot stop me from explaining why I bring up Iraq.

Iraq is prime example of how things can go very wrong when people accept
something as fact on authority alone. George Bush would not have been able
to go through with his plan of invading Iraq if he had not gotten support
from his people for it. In order to get the support he fabricated the lie
that Iraq was a direct danger because there was a madman in charge who was
in posession of WMD's and who was willing to use them.

Had there been more people like me in the US who had demanded to see the
evidence for the presece of WMD's or otherwise be given an opportunity to
verify GWB's claim before giving their support to the invasion, things
would probably have turned out different.

Not accepting things as fact on authority is not a flaw. On the contarty.
Gullability is a flaw. A fatal flaw as Iraq demonstates.


 DS>>    His next biggest flaw is that he does not admit when he is
 DS>> wrong,

 MVDV>> Even Careol confirms that you are wrong in that. Now will you
 MVDV>> admit it?

 DS>     If you mean xxCarol, I see a message from her to Ward which gives
 DS>     that impression, but have no verification of any such admission by
 DS>     you.

See next message. 

 DS>> but creates complex, hypothetical and spurious arguments to
 DS>> relentlessly defend his untenable position.

 MVDV>> In those cases you just think I am wrong, but in reality
 MVDV>> you simply fail to understand the issue.

 DS>   Which is typical of your spurious arguments and attempts at
 DS>   deflection.

Which is a typical reaction of someone who has difficulty admitting that
sometimes he is wrong when he says I am wrong.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315