Posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:39:35
In reply to Re: Public Expression of Religion Act , H.R. 2679, posted by special_k on March 30, 2006, at 20:34:34
well bah ignore the reviews.
my understanding was that he refused to play the justification game (to come up with a convincing story)
and so he was convicted.
i was just thinking that there might be ideally a very good justification indeed it is just that nobody happened to come up with it at the trial.
so i want to talk about ideal justifications (the best possible justification) rather than actual justifications.
also... as dinah convincingly pointed out sometimes things might be improvable / indeterminate.
in which case... people could converge on a probability judgement (ie that there is .5 probability that phi is infinate and that there is .5 probability that phi is finite though maybe you don't like these disjunctive beliefs)
yuk.
sorry if this is uninteresting...
poster:special_k
thread:624709
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060322/msgs/626841.html