From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 22:30:11 GMT

In article <32835C6C.5CB6@ix.netcom.com>,
Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:
>Jim Balter wrote:
>> 
>> In article <328294C6.545D@ix.netcom.com>,
>> Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:
>> >a. the evidence supporting the theory of natural selection with
>> >its implication that the dominant motivation in our species
>> >should be the pursuit of our _physical_ well-being (DNA being
>> >the physical stuff that it is) and
>> >
>> >b. the introspective evidence (assuming that my own mind is not
>> >atypical) that the dominant motivational factor in our species is
>> >not the need for _physical_ well-being, as a standard physicalist
>> >interpretation would lead us to believe,
>> >but rather the need for _emotioanl_ well-being, i.e., the pursuit
>> >of a sense of self-worth.  This evidence is further corroborated by
>> >the schism which exists between natural science and the
>> >humanities, a schism which goes right down the middle of
>> >psychology itself, as a matter of fact.
>> 
>> You seem to have a very odd conception of what constitutes evidence and what
>> serves as a support relationship between evidence and a theory or hypothesis.
>>
>
>Elaborate please.

Evidence for P is not evidence for "P -> Q, and thus Q."

>> >> and led to Dan Dennett's disgust, something not easy to extract
>> >> from him.
>> >
>> >Not always.  His review of Popper and Eccles (Journ of Phil, 76, 91-97)
>> >was one of the most mean spirited I have read.
>> 
>> A good example of such a failure, in this case an attempt to negate "not easy"
>> with "not always".  As Aaron Sloman would say, some is not all.
>>
>
>Greater nits have smaller nits
>Upon their backs, nit-picking;
>And smaller nits have smaller nits -
>Recursive nit shit-kicking. (Oliver Sparrow)

That you think that "some is not all" is *nit* reveals the depth of the
failure.
--