tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post4934851009843689561..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Sacrificing the fine-tuning argument to the argument from evilAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-78545195544216021432023-05-10T11:57:40.101-05:002023-05-10T11:57:40.101-05:00Looking at a some comments from an "Why Evolu...Looking at a some comments from an "Why Evolution is true," on the Sean Carrol and William Lane Craig debate, they show these as the primary points made by Carrol:<br /><br />-We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible.<br /><br />-Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.<br /><br />-Apparent fine-tunings may be explained by dynamical mechanisms or improved notions of probability.<br /><br />-The multiverse is a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation.<br /><br />-If God had finely-tuned the universe for life, it would look very different indeed. [Carroll considers this his most important point. Here he goes into not only the cosmos, but the nature of human culture which, Carroll avers, comports much better with naturalism than with theism.]<br /><br />Using your approach interestingly enough far from Sean's "most important point" being his strongest, it completely undercuts his previous ones. If atheists are allowed to say that the universe would look different if intelligently created, then why aren't theists allowed to say the universe is fine tuned? As you say the points essentially cancel each other out and in sense he's trying to have his cake and eat it too by simultaneously saying "we can't say the universe was fine tuned" but at the same time "obviously the universe isn't fine tuned." <br /><br />We could essentially say, fine your right on points 1, 3, and 4, but you can't have your "most important point."B-rad777https://www.blogger.com/profile/09281286289368146138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-53873549992105026752021-07-06T15:55:07.419-05:002021-07-06T15:55:07.419-05:00
What is the argument from nomic regularity?
<br />What is the argument from nomic regularity?<br />Sergio silvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01935333115247898301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-70877664402540941302012-12-29T10:40:34.303-06:002012-12-29T10:40:34.303-06:00"even if one does not take particular theisti..."even if one does not take particular theistic arguments as apodeictic (I think one should do that in the case of the cosmological argument)"<br /><br />Alex- I've seen elsewhere that you endorse the B-Theory of time. It has always seemed to me that in order for the cosmological argument to be apodeictic one must adopt an A-Theory of time. On this view, I do find the cosmological argument quite convincing, however I fail to see how given the B-Theory the argument is sound much less certain. Maybe I'm missing something big, but I've always thought that the universe must have a beginning because one cannot traverse an actual past infinite, however on the tenseless theory of time such an observation is irrelevant. Thoughts?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679639962688545263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-26765062982394232972012-10-02T13:08:43.137-05:002012-10-02T13:08:43.137-05:00@March Hare
"I would not accept evidence of...@March Hare <br /><br />"I would not accept evidence of a miracle as a miracle, but if more and more evidence accumulated I'd start tending towards belief in them. However, there exists no such evidence that would come close to count in any scientific sense any more than evidence for fairies, horoscopes or ghosts." <br /><br />1) Just to reiterate, because I think you're working with some bad assumptions. There is no easily distinguishable thing that we should call a scientific method. As a previous poster said, a general philosophy of science course would address this. Your argument's reliance on a conflict between scientific method and miracles is confused because of your assumption that there is an easily distinguishable scientific method. You then alluded to observability and testability as necessary conditions for science. As one poster already mentioned, there are many scientific claims that are neither directly observable nor testable. Even if I grant that effects of historical phenomenon could be tested (which I don't as evolution and cosmology are simply untestable in the way that you are using the word), you've just opened up your seemingly tight constraints on what the scientific method is. You've just allowed for historical hypotheses confirmed by arguments based on what you can observe now. Besides having just borrowed from philosophy (or principles of theoretical justification) you also sound more like a historian than your view of a scientist. On that view, if a miracle occurred in history but is not now also occurring, why think that historical evidence for such a claim doesn't count? That's odd and inconsistent. The bottom line is that science cannot be defined by necessary and sufficient conditions. Much of science is outside your rigid constraints. Once opened up to allow for paradigmatic examples of science (things we consider unquestionably to be scientific theories) that go outside the boundaries of observability and testability you find that things not usually considered science can survive the challenge for evidence.<br />2) But much more importantly, why think that miracles need to be scientifically verifiable at all? I take it that evidence for the truth value of some claims exists that is not scientific. There are statements or states of affairs that we all can agree on whose truth values are not determined by science. "I love my wife" is not scientifically verifiable. "In 1989 my brother and I stopped talking to one another for 3 days straight" also isn't. Either these statements are (i) something that science can confirm because you've allowed more than observability and testability (namely, historical evidence from the testimony of other individuals) -or- (ii) historically verifiable but not scientifically verifiable. Either way, the claim that anything worth knowing comes from science looks pretty bleak. I would just reiterate what elliott said; please so some reading on miracles. If you're up to it, see Craig Keener's work linked here - http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525. It's a philosophical defense of historical and modern day miracles, based on both testimony and argument.Second Breakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04768188410225110584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-37466657597561007012012-09-30T11:27:44.774-05:002012-09-30T11:27:44.774-05:00I'm going to stick to the KISS principle - Kee...I'm going to stick to the KISS principle - Keep it Simple Sailor. I know I risk coming across as a rivalist tent preacher; however, I believe that this is very important for anyone anywhere to keep in mind at all times. And I really do mean that "at all times part". That is totally crucial. Here is a very practical and easy to apply rule of thumb. Evil in order to exist needs Good. Evil cannot parasitize an absolute perfect Good because there is no imperfection by which to enter. Evil exists by parasitizing a lesser good because there is an imperfection by which to gain a toehold. Wherever good exists there will always be some form of evil. It will be like this until the Second Coming. Wherever there seems to be some possitive force for good at work, you can be sure of one thing, evil is not too far behind and it's hiding somewhere in the background. When you experience a great spiritual growth phase such as a deeper level of conversion or an increased freedom in your spirit, do not be surprised if suddenly you find yourself hit by all manner of temptations and troubles. It is naive and dangerous to think that this won't happen. This is an attack by the devil. If you are aware of this, you will not be easily caught off guard.<br /><br />The best line of defense against this is to love God above all things. You must love God more than anyone else, any person, any creature. This includes family and your closest friends. Because if you love God (absolute perfect Good) above all other persons and creatures (lesser goods), you then have a powerful resistance to evil because you will be giving it no foothold.<br />Dagmara Lizlovshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744785407281199347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-34990629817073581882012-09-29T13:58:05.657-05:002012-09-29T13:58:05.657-05:00"Compatibilists and incompatibilists tend to ..."Compatibilists and incompatibilists tend to disagree on what the nature of free will is. But a disagreement on what the nature of X is is not a disagreement on whether X exists. Thus, we can imagine Cavendish and some other chemist disagreeing on whether water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. That would not be a disagreement on whether there is water."<br /><br />My comment up above was referring to the discussion about free-will, sorry.<br />Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-41358985976622782472012-09-29T13:55:35.001-05:002012-09-29T13:55:35.001-05:00Richard Swinburne has a new book coming out in Mar...Richard Swinburne has a new book coming out in March of 2013 that will go heavily into this subject.<br /><br />Alex are you going to get this book when it comes out?<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Free-Richard-Swinburne/dp/0199662576/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1348944764&sr=8-10&keywords=Richard+swinburneCornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-71487366592443139692012-09-29T13:53:34.108-05:002012-09-29T13:53:34.108-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-28322686206176429962012-09-28T20:20:27.881-05:002012-09-28T20:20:27.881-05:00Alex:
Here is another take on the argument from e...Alex:<br /><br />Here is another take on the argument from evil. While not quite like yours, I think it runs parallel or approaches evil from a different angle. The article is found at the Catholic Educator's Resource Center. It's title is "Narcissism and the Dynamics of Evil" by Douglas McManaman. Here is the link: <br /><br /><br />http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0933.htm<br /><br /> Dagmara Lizlovshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744785407281199347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-89447031866884137782012-09-28T07:19:28.443-05:002012-09-28T07:19:28.443-05:00Compatibilists and incompatibilists tend to disagr...Compatibilists and incompatibilists tend to disagree on what the nature of free will is. But a disagreement on what the nature of X is is not a disagreement on whether X exists. Thus, we can imagine Cavendish and some other chemist disagreeing on whether water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. That would not be a disagreement on whether there is water.<br /><br />See this <a href="http://philpapers.org/rec/INWHTT" rel="nofollow">nice paper by van Inwagen</a> (you can also google for: van Inwagen how to think about free will, and get a free preprint off his website) which forcefully makes the point in the case of free will.<br /><br />In any case, the comments have strayed too far off-topic and I will now be somewhat ruthless in deleting comments in this thread that don't relate more tightly to the point of the original post.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-49153634742205101782012-09-28T05:02:41.810-05:002012-09-28T05:02:41.810-05:00Alex, I think you're (intentionally?) conflati...Alex, I think you're (intentionally?) conflating terms.<br /><br />Free will, as described by compatibalists, is entirely different from libertarian free will, whatever you try to claim on your Leibnizian Cosmological Arguments paper.<br /><br />Compatibalists are also entirely mistaken if they think going round the loop one more time makes for free will that isn't deterministic.<br /><br />The problem is people like Dennett (who is wrong on a lot) makes the claim that an entity that can rationally assess outcomes before making a decision is both deterministic in making that assessment but also 'free' - free from what, Dennett? Free from the necessity of making the same decision other similar creatures might make? Big deal - no-one claimed that they couldn't.<br /><br />If people ain't happy with Harris, then here's the first one google threw up: http://aegean.psychology.uiowa.edu/labs/iapl/iAPL_people/cathleen_moore/pdfs/enns_et_al_in_press_chapter.pdf<br /><br />The key point here is that some people jump all over a link to Harris when it isn't even Harris' work I'm talking about and it's a side issue on the also side point of our intuitions being completely out of sync with reality in a lot of cases, even one as basic as vision. But no, citing Harris mentioning someone else's work is 'jumping the shark'. Unknown, you appear to have enough knowledge to rise above such things.<br />March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-50131315121010363792012-09-27T21:09:18.253-05:002012-09-27T21:09:18.253-05:00All that said, please, let us keep the conversatio...All that said, please, let us keep the conversation on substantive issues rather than on who thinks what and is competent in what. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-34477021379099914582012-09-27T21:06:40.072-05:002012-09-27T21:06:40.072-05:00The Psychology Today claim is "If we have fre...The Psychology Today claim is "If we have free will, we can consciously make decisions that are not determined by the physics and biology of our brains." That's a contentious claim rejected by the majority of contemporary philosophers. In fact, it's rejected by the <a href="http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl" rel="nofollow">59% of contemporary philosophers</a> who think freedom is compatible with determinism.<br /><br />Now, I happen to think the Psychology Today claim is correct. I even grant what they say next: "It's a philosophical and religious concept that has found no support in science". But to conclude that it's an illusion, as they seem to, they'd have to move from "FW is not supported by science" to "The denial of FW is supported by science", and that's unjustified.<br /><br />There also seems to be a prevalent assumption in neuroscience that free will would have to involve <em>conscious</em> decision. Why think that? (Rhetorical question: On the authority of Descartes?!)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-35762679912790321592012-09-27T20:49:23.958-05:002012-09-27T20:49:23.958-05:00Research supports the idea that reasoning skills a...Research supports the idea that reasoning skills are area-specific. For instance, people are rather better in detecting the same formal fallacies when they concern material familiar to them. <br /><br />There are even philosophers who are good in one field but when they try to work outside that field, they aren't any good.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-71427630731091000512012-09-27T17:47:00.473-05:002012-09-27T17:47:00.473-05:00As long as we restrict the principle enough. Obvio...As long as we restrict the principle enough. Obviously being bad at math does not imply being bad at english. However, if you sound rather crazy on matters outside of your discipline, then is it not reasonable to cast doubt (to some degree) on your ability within the discipline? All things being equal, I would much prefer an expert from area X who hasn't made inane comments about other areas.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00348481837698400252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-46267290403059725292012-09-27T17:38:14.094-05:002012-09-27T17:38:14.094-05:00Right. Except, that isn't particularly relevan...Right. Except, that isn't particularly relevant in the Harris case. It's not that he's wrong (whatever view is... he is pretty muddled), but rather he's just very confused (if rather annoying) in reasoning about free will. So, a more apt principle you would want would be something like: thinking poorly about A does not imply thinking poorly about B. But, that seems rather implausible.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00348481837698400252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-8320094879963763442012-09-27T13:19:20.241-05:002012-09-27T13:19:20.241-05:00Just because someone is wrong on topic A does not ...Just because someone is wrong on topic A does not mean they are wrong on topic B.<br /><br />It should be pointed out that I was referencing his point about visual continuity where, as a neuroscientist, I assume his opinion is worth more than yours or mine.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-74805447448058172372012-09-27T13:12:03.165-05:002012-09-27T13:12:03.165-05:00March Hare:
By mentioning Sam Harris (in a positi...March Hare:<br /><br />By mentioning Sam Harris (in a positive light) on free will you have just jumped the shark.<br /><br />http://agencyandresponsibility.typepad.com/<br /><br />I struggle to think of one person who both does influential work on free will and moral responsibility and also takes Harris seriously.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00348481837698400252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-13707308421038570992012-09-27T13:05:09.283-05:002012-09-27T13:05:09.283-05:00[Good is] "how much God is glorified"
Th...[Good is] <i>"how much God is glorified"</i><br />That could cover an awful lot of things that I, and most people, would consider rather horrific.<br /><br />I think we can skip the whole omnibenevolent issue since it's not one you're pushing hard and not one I'm particularly interested in.<br /><br />You misunderstand what I mean by how miracles would rock science. Miracles would be testable and discoverable by the scientific method, but that method would itself not be (as) reliable as any (in)consistency of results could be angels, demons, fairies, leprechauns, god messing with us. It would still be the best way to try and understand the world and its laws, but nothing could be taken for granted. Whereas we currently assume results are the result of purely natural processes. If any strange results are seen then they are investigated and may ultimately yield a supernatural answer, but none yet have.<br /><br />Tests for free will? Here's a generally accepted view of it:<br />http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/free-will<br />And here's wiki's take on it:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will<br /><br />[History] <i>"there doesn't seem to be any repeatability in the evidence"</i><br />It's not about repeatability of the event, but about the repeatability of tests run on the available evidence. (Also the agreement of tests on different pieces of evidence.)<br /><br />Yes, I've considered what you asked, and it has some validity, but we get better at things through learning, practice and experience which means we get more confidence in our judgements and they become more reliable.<br /><br /><i>"Finally it seems to me that we should trust our (defeasible) intuititions in situations until we're given some reason not to. "</i><br />Agreed, but tentatively. The thing is there is lots of evidence available and so we can, if not abandon our instincts, at least put them in their place.<br /><br />Vision, I point you towards Sam Harris who also argues against libertarian free will:<br />http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-and-free-willMarch Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-88864229016295507562012-09-27T11:34:02.161-05:002012-09-27T11:34:02.161-05:00The world is full of surprises. :-)The world is full of surprises. :-)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-7332832586107112642012-09-27T11:27:51.177-05:002012-09-27T11:27:51.177-05:00One problem with this sort of view (that the fine-...One problem with this sort of view (that the fine-tuning argument and the argument from evil are both strong but roughly balance out) is that it should be surprising that there be distinct arguments/pieces of evidence strongly pointing in opposite directions.<br /><br />If fine-tuning really is very strong evidence for God, fine-tuning would have to be very unlikely given ~God. If evil really is very strong evidence for ~God, it would have to be very unlikely given God. So whether or not God exists, something very surprising is happening.<br /><br />An alternative explanation would be that at least one of the two arguments is not nearly as strong as is commonly supposed.Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908428123363294967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-46457937970724829122012-09-27T11:15:25.128-05:002012-09-27T11:15:25.128-05:00Ah yes, I misunderstood what you meant by "go...Ah yes, I misunderstood what you meant by "good for inhabitants". I agree with you that creatures' well-being is one of the factors that goes to determining the goodness of a world, however I'm not entirely sure if it is the main factor. The main factor could be how much God is glorified.<br /><br />How I understand "good on balance" is as follows: for any evil if there is morally sufficient reason for allowing it (perhaps a greater good came of it) then that evil is not counted against the goodness of that world.<br /><br />Now when it comes to deciding which worlds to actualise, it seems to me to be very plausible to deny that there is in fact a single "best possible world". This leaves us with two options: either there are a (probably large) number of maximal worlds, each of which is different but equal in goodness or there are no maximal worlds either. In the former case the being could simply actualise a subset of the maximal worlds as the multiverse. In the latter case, it happens to be that whatever world we pick there will always be a better world (similar to how there is no greatest integer). In this case an omnibenevolent being wouldn't be required to create the best possible world or a maximal possible world since those worlds don't exist. All it would be required to do is to create a good (on balance) world. But in this case the multiverse could be made up of a collection of these good worlds.<br /><br />I'm not really sure how you distinguish between omnibenevolent and benevolent. I take omnibenevolent to be all-good, ie. having all and only good moral properties (compassion, love, mercy, justice, etc.) Given this definition I have no problem thinking that God is omnibenevolent.<br /><br />Now while I agree that history uses something similar to the scientific method, there doesn't seem to be any repeatability in the evidence: either we have the artifacts (maunscripts, tablets, etc.) or we don't. It's not like we can perform some experiement on them to test our hypothesis or anything. I don't see what stops the evidence for a miracle (in principle) being like any evidence we'd have in a courtroom (eye-witness testimony, medical/scientific considerations, video footage, etc.)<br /><br />I'm curious how we expect to be able to show any signs of libertarian free will with an experiment? I understand libertarianism to hold to two theses: the principle of contrary choice and the principle of self-determination. Now the first principle *can't* be shown using experiments because it involves truths relevant to possible worlds other than the actual world, but surely experiments can only inform us about the actual world? Similarly I have no idea how an experiment would be set up to test for self-determination.<br /><br />Have you considered arguments along the lines that if we are causally determined by scientific laws then can't be rational (since we don't decide anything for a reason, but rather because of prior conditions and laws), meaning we undercut the rationality of our very belief in this determinism?<br /><br />Finally it seems to me that we should trust our (defeasible) intuititions in situations until we're given some reason not to. In fact, it seems that our starting points for any field of study (axioms, if you will) can only be based on what we think is most intuitive (or self-evident). As for your examples: (1) isn't vision analogue and therefore continuous? (I'm genuinely curious) (2) just because our understanding of how objects have solidity has changed doesn't mean our intuition that they are solid has been shown wrong and (3) yes I guess this is a case where our intuitions were wrong (along with the whole of quantum mechanics too) :)<br /><br />In general, with regard to science and miracles I suggest reading Dr. Pruss' other posts (http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/search/label/miracles) or Dr. Craig's work (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-miracles-a-historical-and-philosophical-perspective)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-45972329330561214442012-09-27T09:25:26.848-05:002012-09-27T09:25:26.848-05:00Okay, with more patience... and altered to hopefu...Okay, with more patience... and altered to hopefully clarify a couple of follow up points that the original had left unclear.<br /><br />@elliottroland<br /><br />1. If a world being 'good' doesn't depend on the well-being (nb. not necessarily happiness) of its inhabitants then where does "good on balance" come from? I assume the well-being of the omnibenevolent creator which leads us to...<br /><br />2. If world A is in any way superior to world B then an omnibenevolent creator would refrain from creating world B and re-create world A, otherwise it ain't omnibenevolent. More worryingly though, adding your statement in 2 to the idea that variety/creator's glory is good for the creator we end up in the situation where a world that is slightly bad for the inhabitants would be created because the additional variety creates a good for the creator that is slightly more than the bad for the inhabitants. I think that bad and good are not on the same scale so can't be simply cancelled out in this way... However, it appears we both agree that omnibenevolence is a modern contrivance that is not logically necessary and should be dropped forthwith.<br /><br />3. The evidence for evolution etc. is available to all and the tests run on it are repeatable. When one encounters a crime scene the murder isn't repeatable, but the evidence is available to all (in principle) and DNA, fingerprints, angle of wound entry etc. are all objective and reproducible to anyone who sees the same evidence. History does use the scientific method quite a lot, philosophy notsomuch... However, anything that makes claims on the real world is subject to the scientific method from miracles to evolution to economics. The reason science would be undermined is that in a universe with miracles each experiment run would be subject to the whims of supernatural entities and so would be much less likely to be accepted.<br /><br />4. Humans are subject to the same laws. External entities (god, devil, angels, etc.) are not. To answer your question, every experiment ever run has failed to show even the faintest sign of libertarian free will. If you wish to pursue the intuitive angle I'll point you towards continuity of vision, solidity of objects, consistency of time and other incredibly strong but incredibly wrong intuitions.<br />March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-16674201551330709072012-09-27T07:46:08.711-05:002012-09-27T07:46:08.711-05:00My apologies. Since my comment was in response to ...My apologies. Since my comment was in response to March Hare's, I shall wait for him to repost, lest I inadvertently misrepresent him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-57480720728024660702012-09-27T07:16:36.660-05:002012-09-27T07:16:36.660-05:00With regrets I've had to delete two comments. ...With regrets I've had to delete two comments. (I then had to delete a comment of mine replying to one of the comments, as it was unfair to reply to a comment that in hindsight I had to delete.) <br /><br />Each comment made substantive philosophical points, which is why I regret deleting it. However, both also contained some material whose tone and/or content (e.g., sarcastic invective in one of the cases) was not conducive to intellectual discussion.<br /><br />I will be happy to accept comments containing the same philosophical points made in a more scholarly tone.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.com