Kenneth Allen Hopf wrote:
> Well ... I have just returned from the Popper Centenary conference in
> Vienna, which I must say was quite good. One of it's benefits was that it
> emphasized, at least for me, what a complete waste of time it is for for me
> to answer your silly posts.
I tend to agree, since you have not been able to define "fallible justification".
Until you can produce a viable definition of this term, I agree that there is little
point in your trying to answer my arguments.
As for your charge that my posts are "silly", I take this as a tacit admission
that you are unable to answer them.
Also, you have repeatedly asserted that there is *no rational basis* for our
continuing reliance on well-corroborated laws of nature such as, e.g., Newton's
laws of mechanics and gravitation.
I cannot imagine anything more "silly" than that.
> The passage repeated above was the first bit I
> read, and it immediately prompted me to disregard the rest of that post as
> well as the other five you have sent to this thread. I haven't read those
> other posts and currently have no plans to do so in the future. I mean,
> what you say here is just so patently ridiculous, I don't see the point of
> engaging you any further.
I agree, since you have not so far been able to define your terms -- in
particular, "fallible justification", which was central to your charges of
> I have said all along:
> "Justification is that which distinguishes genuine knowledge from true
No, that is what I said. *You* said,
> "Justification is that which distinguishes true opinion from genuine
> .. claiming at first that there is a difference. Of course there isn't.
> Then you remark that your statement "is simply a reconstructed version
> of your sloppy definition..."
> Ha! Hilarious .. but definitely not to be taken seriously, just like
> everything else you say.
So is this your counterargument?