Date Posted:11:46 Author: Mike Drake - 12 Jun 2001 Subject: Re: Taking the Discussion Further In reply to:
ketch - 12 Jun 2001
's message, "Re: Taking the Discussion Further" on 11:45
1. "This is Just Your Assumption, Nothing More."
No, it wasn't an assumption at all - it was a conclusion. If you read the note again, you will find that the argument is valid (and sound too, I think).
2. "The 'Erroneous Assumption' is Your Opinion Only."
Yes, with qualification: your "only" makes it sound as if my opinion hasn't been argued for. Anyway, I should have written something like ". . .only if you grant [what I think I have shown is the clearly] erroneous assumption that. . ."
3. Cause of Death
No (and I mean no) objective medical basis has been provided to support the claim that the cause of death could not be heart failure (as was officially pronounced), stroke, or some other natural pathology.
Nonetheless, for the sake of the present discussion (which isn't about incorruptibility), I'm entirely comfortable with setting this issue aside.
4. The Woeful Skeptic's Irrationality and Prejudice
Overall, I think I have been comparatively careful to acknowledge errors pointed out to me. Strange, then, that you would open your post by your remarks about the "prejudice and irrationality" that skeptics "often" exhibit.
If you are intimating that my contributions (in whole or in part) are irrational or prejudiced - as opposed to merely mistaken - I would ask that you expressly say so, and specify the allegedly offending remarks.
