From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 00:13:34 MST
Samantha writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> > Brett Paatsch claims that the two extended statements
> >
> > A. "I believe that life begins at conception. I believe
> > that any other points we might choose are essentially
> > arbitrary and uncertain. And I believe that this is
> > a view founded not in religion, not in faith, but on
> > the logic of the matter.
> >
> > B. "My working hypothesis is that human existence begins
> > at conception, and I contend that this is a view founded
> > not in religion, not in faith, but on logic."
> >
> > are not equivalent. I claim that they *are* equivalent.
> >
> > Who is correct?
>
> I don't see them as precisely equivalent. The use of "working
> hypothesis" in the place of "belief" at least implies that the
> speaker is open to that working hypothesis being incorrect, that
> they are critically evaluating it.
Thank you for your analysis. My working hypothesis is that
your analysis is in substantial agreement with Eliezer's.
> Using "belief" on the other hand may or may not leave room for
> such critical consideration. It might be blind or absolute
> belief held to be beyond questioning.
That's possible, of course. It's also possible that the speaker
of B has chosen this wording to avoid being candid. I myself
chose this wording just now, "My working hypothesis is that
your analysis..." because a number of people are apt to read
it more sympathetically this way.
Me saying "I believe that your... ", would be---to them
---not at all equivalent. Politicians should take note!
Lee
P.S. I should take a sec to credit you with the first use
in this discussion of the phrase "working hypothesis".
> Perhaps we can upgrade even the uncritical to say, "this is my
> working hypothesis!" :-) - samantha [Wed 1/8/2003 12:59 PM]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST