[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion Hirschfeld implications

Dear Fred,

On 25-FEB-1998 04:54:19.0 orion said to VCBROWN
   > Sorry, Virgil. Knowledge is not just a matter of putting everything 
   > in nice arrangements. It4s a matter of testing the theories which give 
   > existing arrangements meaning. If the theory fails, then the jury is 
   > simply out to lunch until a new theory unites our perceptions and is 
   > subjected to rigorous testing. And so on. 
	But it is a natural inclination of people to make connections
between diverse encounters. And for many the jury is still out. There has 
been no directed verdict that said that the Essene theory was a failure.
Until that time plaintiff may not expect the defendent to cease and de-
	I, for one, will continue to use the Essene theory until a new
"paradigm" better fits the facts. In times past I have mentioned that 
a certain objection you may have had has been a problem since the very
beginning of DSS research. Yes, there are problems with the theory; so 
what's new? 
	What is needed is a new theory that explains the facts better than 
the old. Golb attempted to do this. Ian attempted to do this. But I think
you hurt your case by not proposing an alternative theory. The human mind
likes to make connections.

   > We can show what is *not* 
   > the case, but not, obviously, what is. But for that very reason, once 
   > a given arrangement has been cashiered, there is no retreat back to 
   > it, and no logical defence of it possible.
	Part of the problem, I think, is the methodology that you use.
Consider what you have written above. We can show what is *not* the case
by showing what is. I do not understand this. You can show what A is by
showing that it is not B. Okay, what is B? Do you know what B is? I'll
tell you what; it certainly is not C. <G>
	Tell me what you know, Fred, not what I can not know.

Virgil Brown