>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 11/01/99 11:56AM >>>
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>The object of James F.'s criticism here is not 'a bit of doubt,' unless you
>want to argue that 'radical skepticism' means the same thing as 'a bit of
>doubt.' Criticizing radical skepticism in no way precludes 'a bit of
>doubt' in one's inquiry, I'd think. Or is your argument that doubt is
>unquantifiable after all (despite your wording) and therefore that a
>criticism of radical skepticism is in effect the same as an exclusion of 'a
>bit of doubt' and qualifies automatically as unthinking 'dogmatism'?
Nope. But it's been very interesting to see who bristles at the word "dogmatism." The very people most likely to be accused of it seem most eager to object to its use.
Charles: Sort of like Blacks are most likely to bristle at being called lazy or Jews are most likely to bristle at being called rich. In other words, your implication is not necessarily true that frequent bristling at being called dogmatic is some proof that the frequent bristlers are in fact dogmatic. It may be that the frequent accusers are hyper-skeptics, and their targets are justly tired of being falsely accused.