>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Michael Dawson wrote:
>
>>Which two people
>>have ever exchanged differing opinions on any topic without paying attention
>>to the opponent's motives? Everybody who's spent 5 serious minutes on logic
>>knows that. Why don't you?
>
>Call me a well indoctrinated child of the Enlightenment, but the
>motives of someone who is providing information or a specific argument
>are completely irrelevant to a critical and rational assessment of the
>person's assertions. If you say "Social security funds will be
>completely exhausted by 2042", speculating about your motives is
>a waste of time. Whether you really believe this and are trying to
>spread the truth or you are disseminating lies to further your
>political agenda, the question remains: Is this in fact a valid
>statement?
>
>Knowing your motives doesn't answer that question; only careful
>and rational consideration of the available evidence can do that.
So it isn't important to know who is making a claim, disclosure of any potential conflict of interest is unnecessary?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas