RE: playing at suicide

From: Lawrence DeBivort (
Date: Sat Jan 12 2002 - 15:11:06 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T. Smith: "Video Captures Sept. 11 Horror in Raw Replay"

    Received: by id PAA13293 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:38:39 GMT
    From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: RE: playing at suicide
    Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:11:06 -0500
    Message-ID: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
    Importance: Normal
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Precedence: bulk

    > GRANT: <<I am defending my theory because the only way to test it against
    > ideas
    > is to defend it. My objective, though, is not to sell it, but to test it.
    > The parts of it I can't defend I will discard.>>

    Consider this: What if nobody bothers to 'refute' your theory or any of its
    parts, and you take this non-response to confirm its validity? And, what if
    someone attacks your theory, but you are unable to defend it even though it
    is correct? Does your methodology for 'knowing' not leave you vulnerable to
    1) the degree of interest people have in examining it, and 2) the level of
    your own skill in defending it?

    Is your formulation truly the best way for 'knowing what you know'?


    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 12 2002 - 16:04:29 GMT