[lit-ideas] Re: Faith
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 19:08:54 -0400
I had asked Eric Yost how he would determine 'solid content' (Eric's
words) without, at some point, doing a headcount. In response, Eric
points out cases where mere headcount doesn't determine truth or
quality. Of course, this isn't a response to my question since it
doesn't get us anywhere close to determining what 'solid content' might
be. I will try again.
I agree with Eric that mere headcounts do not guarantee us truth or
quality. What I would like to know is how Eric gets to 'solid content'
without, at some point, doing a headcount. To get this going in the
right direction, I will suggest that a scientific theory is not
acceptable without there being a headcount in some form. This headcount
might include peer review in journals and the more ephemeral 'accepted
by most scientists'. Can a theory be considered 'solid' without this
kind of headcount? Is a theory scientifically 'solid' if it doesn't
pass peer review? I would furthermore argue that 'headcounts' are
necessary for any form of discourse that aspires to 'solid content'. My
final point would be that 'headcounts' are not a matter of numbers but
an indicator of the coherence and veracity of that which aspires to
'solid content'.
Again, I would like to know how Eric determines 'solid content' without,
at some point, doing a headcount.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
