Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article , Vince Hart says:
The problem with Pascal's wager is that you don't know the requirements,
i.e., you don't know that a "belief is, in the end, a belief."

Nor do I know if the universe is 4 dimensional or a 3 dimensional hologram,
and I can never know. But I don't need to, because for practical purposes
its indistinguishable.

If a person says they have a belief and acts like they have a belief, then it
is indistinguishable.

"God does not play dice with the universe."
--Albert Einstein

"Einstein, don't tell God what to do."
--Niels Bohr

Mr. Bachler,

With all due respect, I doubt that you have understood what Vince Hart meant.

I believe in what can be measured.

Have you ever studied quantum mechanics? :-)

"He lies somewhere here."
--Werner Heisenberg's epitaph

--Nick

Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article , Nick says...
Mr. Bachler,
With all due respect, I doubt that you have understood what Vince Hart meant.

With all due respect, I probably did.

'He is so far a true philosopher, as to be a contemner of all ordinary rules
of hours and times.'
--Walter Scott (The Antiquary)

Mr. Bachler,

If Vince Hart believes that you have understood his meaning, then I am
willing to accept his judgment on the matter.

Most of the arguments advanced in this thread (not only yours) seem 'naive'
insofar as they might imply that their writers are not well-acquainted with
the relevant past discussions in philosophy.

'For there was never yet philosopher
That could endure the toothache patiently.'
--William Shakespeare (Much Ado About Nothing)

--Nick

Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article , Nick says...
Most of the arguments advanced in this thread (not only yours) seem 'naive'
insofar as they might imply that their writers are not well-acquainted with
the relevant past discussions in philosophy.

I think your comment highly naive. Many of the people in this thread are
probably much better read than you anticipate.

Mr. Bachler,

I sincerely hope that many writers here have indeed read more than some of
their posts (not only in this thread) have tended to suggest.

Real life eventually intrudes to cause one to specialize in day to day work.
But I think several are familiar enough with classic philosophy to get around.

I expect that you should know much more than I do about the backgrounds of
many writers in this thread.

On the other hand, Sam Sloan, who claims to be able to read many languages,
just "explain(ed) your screwball ideas on various subjects" by the fact that
"you are a Christian". So does literacy necessarily confer wisdom? :-)

"Dorian is far too wise not to do foolish things now and then."
--Oscar Wilde (The Picture of Dorian Gray)

--Nick

(Nick) wrote in message . com...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article , Nick says...
Mr. Bachler,
With all due respect, I doubt that you have understood what Vince Hart meant.

With all due respect, I probably did.

'He is so far a true philosopher, as to be a contemner of all ordinary rules
of hours and times.'
--Walter Scott (The Antiquary)

Mr. Bachler,

If Vince Hart believes that you have understood his meaning, then I am
willing to accept his judgment on the matter.

You pose a very interesting question Nick. Kevin's posts do not seem
to be responsive to my criticism of using Pascal's wager as a
foundation for faith. This might suggest that he really did not
understand what I meant. On the other hand, he did know exactly where
to snip my post in order to remove the part that most clearly
identified one particular flaw in Pascal's wager leaving a statement
of mine without sufficient context, which he then used to push the
discussion in an altogether different direction. Such precise
snipping suggests that he understood my meaning fairly well.

Such snipping is one of Kevin's standard tricks. He frequently
resorts to it when someone refutes one of his arguments. One of its
great virtues (for Kevin) is that it frequently annoys his opponent
into some sort of angry response, which allows Kevin to whine about
being attacked thereby further avoiding the issue.

Vince Hart





Most of the arguments advanced in this thread (not only yours) seem 'naive'
insofar as they might imply that their writers are not well-acquainted with
the relevant past discussions in philosophy.

'For there was never yet philosopher
That could endure the toothache patiently.'
--William Shakespeare (Much Ado About Nothing)

--Nick

..
Note: I am adding this one to my "book:"


I think your comment highly naive.


Will that comment make it into the next episode of "Nick is so great, he's a
legend in his own mind"?

"sandirhodes" wrote in message
...
OK folks, we're on!!
I, for one, have been waiting for this confrontation for months.
I knew it was only a matter of time. Let's get ready to rum-bllle!!!

You might be disappointed. Is your ticket refundable? :-)

Kevin Bachler might enjoy arguing for argument's sake, but I don't intend to
argue with him about whether or not God exists or Christian beliefs are true.

My modest proposal is simply that some writers here could make better use
of their time if they would read more of 'the relevant past discussions in
philosophy' before they write more in this thread.

Should not someone study the historical development of chess opening theory
before one attempts to write something new about a chess opening? I think so.

"My father's religion would have been unsatisfactory without a hell."
--E.W. Howe (The Story of a Country Town)

--Nick

Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article , Nick says...
(snipped)
On the other hand, Sam Sloan, who claims to be able to read many languages,
just "explain(ed) your screwball ideas on various subjects" by the fact
that "you are a Christian". So does literacy necessarily confer wisdom? :-)

In relation to Sam Sloan, nothing would confer wisdom.

Mr. Bachler,

'Nothing'? Not even divine intervention? Surely, Sam Sloan's existence
cannot be evidence that God is not omnipotent, can it? :-)

I believe that Sam Sloan was wrong to have written what he did (above) to you.
On the other hand, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess"), who has been obsessively
'trolling' me for months, seems to believe that I am being unfair to Mr. Sloan.

I have some thoughtful, humane Christian friends, whom I respect and trust.
I hope that you will understand that any differences between us are *not*
motivated by any personal animus against the fact that you are a Christian.

'Mankind asks ever of the skies to vision out what lies behind them. It is
terror for the end, and but a subtler form of selfishness--this it is that
breeds religion.'
--H. Rider Haggard (She)

--Nick

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in
message ...
Note: I am adding this one to my "book:"
I think your comment highly naive.

Will that comment make it into the next episode of
"Nick is so great, he's a legend in his own mind"?

How many readers does Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") believe will ignorantly
accept it as a certain fact that Kevin Bachler's comments always must be the
final authoritative word on every subject? :-)

'When I hear nonsense talked, it makes me physically ill not to contradict.'
--Margot Asquith (1864-1945)

--Nick

Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article , Nick says...
Most of the arguments advanced in this thread (not only yours) seem
'naive' insofar as they might imply that their writers are not
well-acquainted with the relevant past discussions in philosophy.

I think your comment highly naive.

'Ideas exist that can be accounted for by no established laws.'
--Charles Brockden Brown (Wieland)

Mr. Bachler,

In the interests of clarity, my usage of 'naive' (as in 'naive set theory')
was describing 'most of the arguments advanced in this thread' as implying
some unfamiliarity with 'the relevant past discussions in philosophy'.

I doubt that most writers in this thread have been educated as academic
philosophers. And I have been around enough discussions among academic
philosophers to know that they tend to make arguments that seem quite
different from 'most of the arguments advanced in this thread'.

My modest proposal is simply that some writers here could make better use of
their time by reading more of 'the relevant past discussions in philosophy'
before they write more in this thread.

Should not someone study the historical development of chess opening theory
before one attempts to write something new about a chess opening?

Many of the people in this thread are probably much better read than you
anticipate.

How could you presume to know what I 'anticipate'? Did you read my mind?

Later, you wrote: "What I said is that I *suspect* that *several* of the
posters are *better read*." (than you believe that I 'anticipate')

There seems to be some inconsistency between that statement and your previous
statement (which evidently implied that you *knew*, not just *'suspected'*):
"*Many* of the people in this thread are *probably much better read* than you
anticipate."

Here are two points of comparison:
1) "Many of the people" vs "several of the posters"
2) "...are probably much better read" vs "...suspect...are better read"

Hence, your latter statement seems to make a weaker assertion.

Real life eventually intrudes to cause one to specialize in day to day
work. But I think several are familiar enough with classic philosophy
to get around.

Who are these writers who have been well-educated in philosophy?

In the light of Mr. Hart's reply to Mr. Bourbaki, can you cite several
*specific examples* posted by the "Many" in this thread which clearly
demonstrate that not a single one of these "Many" is naïve with respect
to "the relevant past discussions in philosophy", as Mr. Bourbaki put it?

Since I did not claim that any of the posts to date would clearly demonstrate
that, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. What I said is
that I suspect several of the posters are better read.

No, as I have just shown (above), you previously wrote an evidently stronger
assertion about the philosophical knowledge of "many people in this thread".

1) Your original position to me: "I think your comment highly naive."
2) Now your revised position: "I did not claim that any of the posts to date
would clearly demonstrate that" (I made a "highly naive" comment).

So you cannot provide any evidence from "the posts to date" to support (or
"clearly demonstrate") your criticism that I made a "highly naive" comment.
Of course, any evidence from the posts written *after* my original allegedly
"highly naive" comment should *not* be admissible because I could *not* have
known about it when I wrote that comment.

3) Now your revised position: "...I *suspect* several of the posters are
better read."

So you only *suspected*, but you did not *know*, before you criticised me.

I believe that it was unwarranted for you to have criticised my comment,
which was intended to encourage most writers herein to read more of 'the
relevant past discussions in philosophy', as "highly naive" when you cannot
provide any written evidence to support your contention and when you have no
definite knowledge (beyond that you merely "suspect") about your original
claim that "many of the people in this thread are probably much better read
(in philosophy) than (I) anticipate".

Can you post examples which clearly demonstrate that *you* are not
similarly naïve, for that matter?

Yes.

Do you really believe that this thread's arguments are comparable to those
that would tend to be made at a symposium of academic philosophers?

"A man's thoughts is like the winds, and nobody can't answer for 'em for
certain."
--Charles Dickens (Dombey and Son)

--Nick

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in
message . com...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Nick wrote:
Most of the arguments advanced in this thread (not only yours) seem
'naive' insofar as they might imply that their writers are not
well-acquainted with the relevant past discussions in philosophy.

I think your comment highly naive. Many of the people in this thread are
probably much better read than you anticipate. Real life eventually
intrudes to cause one to specialize in day to day work. But I think
several are familiar enough with classic philosophy to get around.
Kevin L. Bachler

In the light of Mr. Hart's reply to Mr. Bourbaki, can you cite several
*specific examples* posted by the "Many" in this thread which clearly
demonstrate that not a single one of these "Many" is naïve with respect
to "the relevant past discussions in philosophy", as Mr. Bourbaki put it?

Since I did not claim that any of the posts to date would clearly
demonstrate that, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so.
What I said is that I suspect several of the posters are better read.

Yes, you did.

Dear Mr Houlsby,

Actually, Kevin Bachler originally made an evidently stronger assertion about
the "*many people* in this thread (who) *probably are much better read*".

You did it, however, in the context of having described Bourbaki's suggestion
as "naive", but you conspicuously failed to support this charge.

"Conspicuously failing to support" their charges against me has been a
universally consistent characteristic of trolls such as Tim Hanke, Stan Booz,
"Briarroot", Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess"), and Lance Smith ("Liam Too").

If you can do all of these things, then you may be on your way to
justifying your having described Mr. Bourbaki's comment as "highly naive".

As far as I know, Kevin Bachler has failed to justify his criticism of my
comment.

If you cannot, then you begin to look almost as foolish as I have looked,
several times, in these groups.

As far as I know, according to several writers here, Kevin Bachler already
has appeared foolish on at least several occasions in these chess newsgroups.

'A man cannot begin to think, but causes for thought crowd in upon him.'
--Samuel Richardson (Clarissa)

--Nick