Re: Intelligence and Statistics

From: JPL Verhey (matterDELminds_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:07:22 +0200

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LV7Z6tH+OsVBFwXq@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <4156b154$0$44096$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, JPL
> Verhey <matterDELminds@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:kADC$jEfSpVBFwCi@longley.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article <41560f1e$0$44069$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, JPL
>>> Verhey <matterDELminds@hotmail.com> writes
>>> <DL>
>>>>> What you need to grasp is that it certainly isn't mental. Sadly,
>>>>> after
>>>>> all this time, you simply don't understand why. That tells
>>>>> everyone
>>>>> something about your "intelligence", and that, really, is pretty
>>>>> much
>>>>> all that I'm really interested in illustrating.
>>>>
>>>>Again only making statements. No arguments. No discussion.
>>>>
>>>>Bravo DL for your contributions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Plus ca change....
>>>
>>> What you want is indeed *argument* and that's precisely what many
>>> neurotics here want.
>>
>>Right.. I meant "argumentation", explanation etc.. Forgive me, as you
>>know Dutch is my mother tongue and mistakes slip in. So you can stop
>>your own abusive language now and try to behave.
>>
>>I offer you a serious, non-abusive normal discussion of Quine - take
>>it
>>or leave it.
>>
>>
> OK, let's see how serious. What you said had nothing to do with
> international language problems, your English seems as good as anyone
> else's here. The fact is that Zick, Cutman and Michaels etc make much
> the same "mistake" that you do. What I have had to say about the
> poverty of "argument" is very much why I keep pointing people to "Two
> Dogmas", in that context, to the first sections on analyticity.
>
> I think you should make the effort to read what I write *not* as
> "abuse" but as my efforts to be "critical". There's an important
> difference.
>
> By all means discuss Quine, but I suggest you do it with Zick, Cutman,
> Michaels etc. A discussion between you, using the text as a referent
> and drawing on other material on the net would probably prove far more
> useful and productive to all. I suspect that if you tried to "discuss"
> it with me, at least at the moment, you'd probably read what I said as
> abusing or undermining your efforts.

Neve mind, I just rather do some private reading then.

>
> What I've done is draw on Quine, Skinner, Meehl (and many others) to
> make some points which I don't think they individually ever made, or
> if they did, they didn't make explicitly - possibly because they saw
> no need. Perhaps the most useful clue there is the first quote from
> Quine with which I open "Fragments". The reason why I've made
> reference to him and others is not to cite them as intellectual
> authorities (although I could certainly do worse), but to provide
> others here with some of the context which I think is required to
> critically evaluate what I have to say.
>
> --
> David Longley