standards

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Blake said:

But you would agree that either there is, or there isn't an absolute
best candidate, even though we don't agree on which one is the case. A
standard based on finding this candidate makes sense only if there is an
absolute best candidate to be found. So, in fact, there is, at least in
this case a way of judging standards that is based on objective truth.
It is possible to say that someone is right or wrong for upholding the
standard (at least for particular reasons).

I reply:

Ok, that's true. In general no one's standard is wrong. But I
admit that your standard is wrong if there's no objective absolute
best candidate. I ignored that, and emphasized the relativist,
subjective nature of standards. But yes, your standard depends on
an objective verifiable or falsifiable fact--the question of whether
there's such a thing as an objective best candidate.

Additionally, it depends on an assumption that if there is such
a candidate, the ballots, on the average, will point to that candidate.

Blake continues:

Do you have to explain why I believe that there's a genuine objective
absolute best candidate? No you don't. I've already done that.
Instead you should try to refute my arguments.

I reply:

Maybe it's possible to show you that there isn't an objective best 
candidate. So far I've probably only asserted that there isn't.

But I asked the question: Do you believe that the American voters
have tended, on the average, to vote preference for candidates who, in your 
opinion,
are the best? Because if they haven't, then doesn't that suggest
that the ballots aren't useful for pointing to the best candidate?
Or does your method only work outside of the U.S.?

Mike Ossipoff





_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com