26-12-2009, 12:53 AM
Jim,
To simplify, I've eliminated most of the preceding exchange and now cut to the chase. Your comments, which I address in ORCHID, are rendered in ho-hum black.
Descartes addressed this kind of appeal by observing that we might be mistaking particularly vivid dreams or have been deceived about what we thought we were observing by an "evil demon". The point is not that this is what was happening but that it is a possibility that undermines complete confidence in any of our experiences, no matter how "personal". I agree that you almost certainly had these experiences but, in the nature of the matter, the "almost" cannot be eliminated in favor of certainty. Even the most convincing experience could have an alternative explanation, if we were under the influence of LSD, for example. There is no reason to fight it. All of our knowledge about ourselves and the world around us is uncertain--not in a simple subjective sense but in a strict objective one. There are always alternative possible explanations, no matter how improbable. Which is why not even our personal experiences can strictly qualify as "certain".
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I’ve been with you on this all along. Our imaginations in concert with our understanding of “known” phenomena provide limitless alternatives, which, we concede, must be weighed in terms of probability/likelihood.
At the same time, in pursuit of justice and in service to the survival of self and others, we must forgo the luxury of infinite possibility and act in as wise, informed, and effective a manner as possible. Act.[/COLOR]
Well, this "Major Lopez" business is new to me, so it qualifies as a new alternative hypothesis. I don't regard any of my judgments as "rushed" in
these matters--and certainly not with regard to the Holt/Hunt matter, where I organized and moderated a symposium at Lancer to address it, where Jerry Rose was sufficiently impressed to change his opinion from Hunt to Holt!
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I respect and honor our mutual friend Jerry, whose presence in our active ranks is sorely felt.
In terms of my “rush to judgement” evaluation, I mean this: In my estimation you make the same error that I made when stating that I “know” Custer died at Little Bighorn. You are not considering all possible explanations for the alleged identifications of intel officers/agents/suspects in Dealey Plaza. For example: forged images to promote dissension in the ranks and public ridicule; flawed if honorable subjective (non scientific) appreciations of likeness; etc.[/COLOR]
In matters of personal identification, because [Prouty] knew these men up close and personal, he is an authority in relation to their identification in photos. He possesses appropriate kinds of specialized knowledge, which is also true of Brad Ayers and Wayne Smith, but is not true of David Talbot or his running mate.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Jim, I never have doubted Prouty’s ability to identify these characters. What I do call into question is the likelihood of his truthfulness in promoting those identifications.
We can get into a Prouty debate if you wish.[/COLOR]
Well, maybe there is an "obvious alternative candidate", after all. Is there any reason to think [“Major Lopez”] might have been in Dealey Plaza with the others?
A qualified “yes” to your question, which I’ll go into in as much detail (there’s not a lot) soon.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my outdoor tub. Although it's 29 degrees farenheit, and terminal shrinkage is a very real risk.
To simplify, I've eliminated most of the preceding exchange and now cut to the chase. Your comments, which I address in ORCHID, are rendered in ho-hum black.
Descartes addressed this kind of appeal by observing that we might be mistaking particularly vivid dreams or have been deceived about what we thought we were observing by an "evil demon". The point is not that this is what was happening but that it is a possibility that undermines complete confidence in any of our experiences, no matter how "personal". I agree that you almost certainly had these experiences but, in the nature of the matter, the "almost" cannot be eliminated in favor of certainty. Even the most convincing experience could have an alternative explanation, if we were under the influence of LSD, for example. There is no reason to fight it. All of our knowledge about ourselves and the world around us is uncertain--not in a simple subjective sense but in a strict objective one. There are always alternative possible explanations, no matter how improbable. Which is why not even our personal experiences can strictly qualify as "certain".
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I’ve been with you on this all along. Our imaginations in concert with our understanding of “known” phenomena provide limitless alternatives, which, we concede, must be weighed in terms of probability/likelihood.
At the same time, in pursuit of justice and in service to the survival of self and others, we must forgo the luxury of infinite possibility and act in as wise, informed, and effective a manner as possible. Act.[/COLOR]
Well, this "Major Lopez" business is new to me, so it qualifies as a new alternative hypothesis. I don't regard any of my judgments as "rushed" in
these matters--and certainly not with regard to the Holt/Hunt matter, where I organized and moderated a symposium at Lancer to address it, where Jerry Rose was sufficiently impressed to change his opinion from Hunt to Holt!
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I respect and honor our mutual friend Jerry, whose presence in our active ranks is sorely felt.
In terms of my “rush to judgement” evaluation, I mean this: In my estimation you make the same error that I made when stating that I “know” Custer died at Little Bighorn. You are not considering all possible explanations for the alleged identifications of intel officers/agents/suspects in Dealey Plaza. For example: forged images to promote dissension in the ranks and public ridicule; flawed if honorable subjective (non scientific) appreciations of likeness; etc.[/COLOR]
In matters of personal identification, because [Prouty] knew these men up close and personal, he is an authority in relation to their identification in photos. He possesses appropriate kinds of specialized knowledge, which is also true of Brad Ayers and Wayne Smith, but is not true of David Talbot or his running mate.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Jim, I never have doubted Prouty’s ability to identify these characters. What I do call into question is the likelihood of his truthfulness in promoting those identifications.
We can get into a Prouty debate if you wish.[/COLOR]
Well, maybe there is an "obvious alternative candidate", after all. Is there any reason to think [“Major Lopez”] might have been in Dealey Plaza with the others?
A qualified “yes” to your question, which I’ll go into in as much detail (there’s not a lot) soon.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my outdoor tub. Although it's 29 degrees farenheit, and terminal shrinkage is a very real risk.
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene