From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:13 AM
To: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: JH: The Design Argument

I will again confine my posting to the philosophical substance of your
article, except to clarify one item up front.

"Paul Filseth" <pgxf@lsil.com> wrote 

> > I note for our readers that you have not responded
> > at all to my two earlier emails rebutting your previous complaints
> > about my practices.
> 
> Stop making false statements about me.  I sent you a detailed
> reply on Jan. 21.

I did indeed receive your Feb. 12 resend, but a check of my
incoming mail logs confirms that I received no such
original email.

> > I've given URLs for specific philosophical usage of 
> > 'supernatural' that my definition
> > explains, but for which you offer no alternative explanation.
> 
> Do you claim your philosophers have a good reason to use whatever
> interpretation of "supernatural" it is you think they use?

When I see philosophers on opposing sides of the debate
of whether X exists use (and even casually elaborate on
if not formally define) the term X in a way that is consistent
both with its dictionary definition and with my definition,
then I take that as additional prima facie evidence that
such definitions are adequate for making the debate
meaningful.

> Terms that have a big impact on the
> debate and can't have their meanings functionally identified by
> pointing at examples of their referents should not be presumed
> meaningful in philosophy.

Which of course is one way of not saying that they should
not be presumed meaningless.  It sounds like we are
approaching violent agreement here...

> They should be analyzed.  Philosophy is
> supposed to be into questioning, not presuming.

Yep, violent agreement.

-- 
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net