In reply to OPE-L 5040.
Jerry's "response" is completely non-responsive. He put forth
criteria for *proof* of discrimination at the hands of the RRPE.
John Ernst and I countered with why his criteria were
unreasonable, and we (especially I) offered alternative criteria
and evidence for the *proof* of discrimination. I asked Jerry
whether he would consider my criteria and evidence to constitute
*proof*.
He has not replied.
What he writes, instead, is "I am
willing to look at *any* evidence.
Bring it forward."
Once you "look at" it, then what? You can always say -- through
some ex post immunizing strategy -- that it doesn't constitute
proof. To guard against that, we need to agree on criteria ahead
of time, and the evidence then needs to be assessed in relation to
these criteria. Why are you suddenly evading the issue of WHAT
constitutes proof?
I've already told you what is contained in the evidence. If I
produce it, are you willing to acknowledge that suppression has
occurred? If not, why not? I suspect that you have no reasonable
argument against accepting as proof the evidence I've told you
about, but you also don't want to have to admit that suppression
has occurred, so you've decided to quietly duck out of discussing
WHAT constitutes proof.
Once we agree on criteria, then you get to see the evidence. Not
before.
Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman
Dept. of Social Sciences
Pace University
Pleasantville, NY 10570 USA
phone: (914) 773-3968
fax: (914) 773-3951
Home: 60 W. 76th St. #4E
New York, NY 10023 USA
"The practice of philosophy is itself theoretical. It is the
critique that measures the individual existence by the essence,
the particular reality by the Idea."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST