The "post-modernist" and "critical anlysis" folk argue that there is no
"valid" reasoning, only argument driven by political or economic
Any competent lawyer can present an arguably plausible chain of reasoning
in support of any position, however ridiculous. The more ridiculous
positions merely require more convoluted chains of reasoning,
We need to vigorously wield Occam's razor whenever we are in the presence
of journalists, politicians, sociologists, diplomats, . . . .
This is clearly OT, but I couldn't help myself.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:24:11 +0100, you wrote:
>In <email@example.com>, Marvin Demuth
>> While waiting for my RA4 chemicals to come up to 35 degrees C, I had time
>> to look up Ockham on the web. You live in an interesting area.
>> I also had time to refresh my memory of my first introduction to Occam's
>> Razor." John Bogel, the founder of the fabulous Vanguard Mutual Funds
>> Group, devotes a chapter in his most recent book (Common Sense on Mutual
>> Funds) to its application to returns on investments. He paraphrases Sir
>> William's insight with the phrase "that the simpler the explanation, the
>> more likely it is to be correct."
>> We all have so much to learn in mastering our skills in analysis and
>I liked the remark I saw some years ago in a article about UFO freaks,
>conspiracy theorists, etc., that "they would use Occam's razor to cut your
>Brian Rumary, England
Dad and Mom