DANIEL.DAVIES at flemings.com wrote:
> I'll hedge that
> apology by noting that the context appears to be such classy
> epistemological devices as "it seems fairly obvious".
At this point I'd like to include by citation the whole of John Bellamy Foster's post on the origins of dogmatism. (Posted on Pen-l). One of the more obscurantist tricks of skeptics aiming at freezing action in interminable hasslings is precisely to force others into defending or explaining that which in fact "seems fairly obvious". I believe in an earlier post someone wanted to subsume under linguistic debate the question of light as "particle" or "wave."
There was a serious debate (I believe on the old Spoons marxism list) of the role of science in the growth and defense of racism. There are almost certainly current scientific tendencies which call out loudly for similar ideological critique. One of the more sinister (no pun) features of the positions you seem to be upholding is that this kind of silly haggling (the piddling around in the sceptical caressing of what is indeed obvious) seriously interferes with legitiamate and needed critiques of physical and biological sciences.
I was serious in doubting that you were debating in good faith. You still have not convinced me that you are.
Carrol