Re: still lying after all these years -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:31:08 10/19/04 Tue
Author: Brian Karcher
Subject: Re: still lying after all these years
In reply to: Nick T. 's message, "still lying after all these years" on 11:54:04 10/19/04 Tue

>The paragraph directly above Baghdad Brian's quote
>reads

Let's look up a little higher, then, to the title of the author's concluding section:

Truth and validity have the final say

And let's look all the way to the beginning:

Abstract:

"The following paper discusses general notions of rationality and their relation to deception; in particular how accepted notions of validity and truth are involved in deception. The paper introduces a theoretical account of communication and deception, and presents two controversial arguments that draw the different issues of this paper together."

Isn't the point of the article to present the author's two arguments, which the author summarizes in the statement I quoted? That's what the author says in the Introduction:

"The final section returns to rationality, and controversially proposes that deceptive communication can be taken as an example of rationality, and that all communication is deceptive communication."

Brian.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]