Omar wrote:
*In other words, Donal is asking us to defend inductive probability (regardless of whether or not we endorse it otherwise) on the basis of clearly insufficient inductive evidence. Something like challenging one to fight a box match on condition that his hands are tied on his back.
That's pretty much how I see it.However, in the lines from my post Omar quotes it appears that I wrote 'for the life of me, I see now argument.' This might be misconstrued as someone's trying
to say, 'I now see argument,' as if the words were coming from a lovable but primitive Disney character; I meant though, that I saw _no_ argument. Robert Paul, messing about with words, under threatening skies, somewhere south of Reed College. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html