[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[ian glendinning]

Scott

You said
"the origin of [GOF Physicalism] is a consequence of the Munchhausen fallacy"

What ? Where do you get that ? (Totally irrelevant to our debate, just
another new side issue I believe, but what ?) Haven't we already
agreed that no metaphysics can provide a hole-free fundamental basis
for its own bootstraps, only a "working basis" on which the rest of it
is coherent ?

(BTW - the origin of "bananaism" was my e-mail, you are bringing your
physicalist baggage to bananaism.)

You said
I didn't think we had moved on. Weren't we disagreeing on whether
Occam applies to our disagreement? On how what is pragmatic depends on
one's agenda? On how the importance of a hole also depends on one's
agenda?

Exactly - that's what I said - you appeared to suggest "economy of
explanation of the hole in one's metaphysics" was not an issue. (Then
changed the subject several times.) Stick with just that for 5 or 6
mails please.

(ie Stop telling me I have problems with mystical or religious
metaphors - I don't, OK - you just assume it. Science is full of 'em,
science is one of 'em, etc.)

Ian