Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Sorities, Properties and The Extensional Stance
Message-ID: <jqbE2HIvx.96w@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <850583038snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <jqbE2Fo3x.ICG@netcom.com> <850677696snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:28:45 GMT
Lines: 68
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:50022 comp.ai:42794

In article <850677696snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqbE2Fo3x.ICG@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com "Jim Balter" writes:
>
>> In article <850583038snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
>> David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Terms like "small" and "rich" are but zero order abstractions  of 
>> >*relations*  ("smaller  than",  "richer than" -  and  as  I  have 
>> >pointed out elsewhere (with the  help of Quine, 'properties'  are 
>> >indeed  intensional, and as such  prone to lead to all  sorts  of 
>> >metaphysical   abuse,  or,   in the hands of  those  above,  just 
>> >*abuse*,  since they are, despite their attempts to make  out  to 
>> >the contrary, still lost in the quagmire of "folk-psychology" and 
>> >all of its attributive idioms.
>> 
>> Since, as Longley has frequently admitted, he is not *distinguished* from me
>> in being "still lost in the quagmire of 'folk-psychology' and all of its
>> attributive idioms", his "since" simply doesn't work.  Yet he repeatedly uses
>>  the  fact  that I call him a hypocrite or  refer  to  what  he 
>> thinks.....
>
>and so on and on and on....
>
>It's hardly *my* stance, it's a professional, scientific  stance, 

The "since" that I referred to is an example of Longley's illogic, not
something professional or scientific.

>and  I have documented the evidence in support of it.

Longley seems incapable of distinguishing between evidence in support of P and
evidence in support of P->Q.

>Sniping  at 
>little things I have posted here out of context is just silly.

They weren't out of context, and even if they were it wouldn't follow that it
was silly.

>The whole point of referencing material and talking extolling the 
>merits of extensionality is that truth is independent of what one 
>'believes.

But what one believes to be the truth is not.  An epistemological problem that
Longley doesn't seem to even comprehend, let alone address.

>To that extent, it really does not matter whether I or 
>*you* are right or wrong, what does matter is whether the  thesis 
>presented has the status expected of scientific theses.

And what sort of status is that?

>I  readily  acknowledge  that I am as prone  as  anyone  else  to 
>biases, distortions, and logical weakness of intensionality, when 
>I  am not working professionally. I'm NOT making a  statement  of 
>personal, but professional behaviour. 

Ah yes, Longley becomes free of all these when paid to do so.  I wonder how
much he gets for posting his professional something-beyond-opinions to c.a.p.

>What I *have* endeavoured to do is to sketch some important lines 
>of research which I think demand special professional  investment 
>both in academia and in the applied fields. 

But that's not all you have done.
-- 
<J Q B>

