🚀 go-pugleaf

In article Jys@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com, wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
> In <l3j2ftINN3p8@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM (Jon Roland) writes:
> >Complexity does not re-define physical law, but does affect the ability
> >of human beings to apply it to situations about which they have to make
> >decisions. The key qualifying phrase on "complex systems" in the above
> >quoted paragraph is "of which we are a part".

> Nice debating tactic, there.  When someone shows that the
> postulate underlaying your thesis is bunk, and invalidates
> your entire chain of reasoning down to your conclusion, just
> change the subject and hope nobody will notice.

A more complete answer to this post is found in my previous post
"RE: Thirty-Seven Percent Rule" of 15 June 1992, 02:26:06 GMT.

Your own position is based on the incorrect premise that marginal physical
material processing costs are the only costs that affect the argument,
and your misinterpretation of my position as based entirely on that cost.
It is not. You are assuming that my conclusions are derived in much the
same way as those of others whose understanding of the underlying physics
and economics is not as well-grounded, and who are not as well-prepared to
argue their positions. You have apparently become accustomed to being able
to successfully attack their derivations and thereby gained confidence in
the Rightness of your views. Beware. These issues are not well understood
by anyone, and someone who is too sure he is right is almost certainly not.

The emotional intensity of your responses indicates that you have a large
emotional stake in being right, and have largely lost your objectivity
in these matters. We should be a community of scholars who are prepared
to be patient with those with whom we disagree.

You should conduct this debate more like John McCarthy does. We may often
disagree, but we do so in a way that reflects mutual respect for the
integrity of our debating partners and our common need to work together
for mutual enlightenment.

And I suspect John McCarthy may be a little less certain of the rightness
of some of his own positions than he was a month ago, before he began to
read some of my postings. If they have helped him think about these subjects
in new ways, and come to better understand the situation, even if it 
strengthens his previous positions, then it has well-served its purpose.

---

jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net
Jon Roland
Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A,
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141