Re: Terry West debates out of a paper bag

["Jason L. Jarvis" <jarvijl5@wfu.edu>]

> On 26 Aug 1996, Matt Stannard wrote:
> 
> I'm still waiting for someone to put that damn card in my hand (or on 
> my computer) that says "soc. will solve the capitalist mindset" and 
> have it be from a source that has some credibility to make that sort 
> of EMPIRICALLY based claim.

Does this mean that evidence is only good or legitimate if it is based on 
empirics?  That seems to lock us into a fairly narrow realm of what 
constitutes legitimate evidence.  

  My point (and it's not just about 
> socialism, but virtually ANY utopian counterplan/plan, and several 
> other arguments such as deep eco) is that if the source is a "true 
> believer" making a philosophical/wishful prediction, that may have 
> merit as a CRITIQUE of what the world OUGHT to look like (I've even 
> voted for socialist critiques--even those run by CEU!!! :-)  ).  But 
> if this source is making a prediction of an ADVANTAGE that will acrue 
> (SOLVENCY) from a counterplan, we have to assess by what measure the 
> source is likely to be correct. 

The only standard presented here is that the evidence has to be 
empirical, and there does not seem to be any substantiation of why that 
is the case.  It seems to me that anyone arguing in favor of an untried 
option is making a wishful prediction, be it a deep ecologist, Mike 
Korcok, or Spuds McKenzie....

jason

ps I realize that I entered this fray a bit late, and if I missed some 
strategic argument then I'm sorry...

---

References:

• Re: Terry West debates out of a paper bag
• From: "Terry West" <WEST@EDU-SUU-CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Reply to Sullivan re format
• Next by Date: Disclosure and the Round Robin
• Prev by thread: Re: Terry West debates out of a paper bag
• Next by thread: Terry West debates out of a paper bag
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page