On 8 Aug 2003 13:17:42 -0700, Wen-King Su <wen-king@myri.com> wrote:

In a previous article TCS <The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> writes:
:

;On 8 Aug 2003 11:40:29 -0700, Wen-King Su <wen-king@myri.com> wrote:

:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:

;>:

:> ;

;>:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message

:> ;news:vmhjr2-F023C1.23261007082003@[63.218.45.211]...

;>:> In article <g%DYa.92142$Ho3.12157@sccrnsc03>,

:> ;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

;>:>

:> ;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message

;>:> > news:vmhjr2-12F57C.20045307082003@[63.218.45.211]...

:> ;> > > In article <hjxYa.90284$o%2.40508@sccrnsc02>,

;>:> > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

:> ;> > >

;>:> > > > Belief (your personal subjective conviction) is not a factor in that

:> ;> > public

;>:> > > > demonstration, knucklehead. All that counts is the public

:> ;demonstration.

;>:> > >

:> ;> > > If that public demonstration does not inspire belief in the

;>:> > > observers, then there is no knowledge.

:> ;>

;>:>

:> ;> >

;>:> > Demonstration of the facts in evidence is all that counts, knucklehead,

:> ;> > anybody's belief (subjective conviction) be damned.

;>:>

:> ;> Then the presence of observers is irelevant?

;>:

:> ;Don't act so stupid, knucklehead. 'Demonstration' means presenting it in

;>:public. Being testable by anyone is what makes objective empirical evidence,

:> ;contrasted to subjective metaphysical conviction (belief).

;>

:> What about when the knowledge is not demonstrateable?

;

:Like when fantasy is titled "knowledge"?

No, like when a knowledge that is not demonstrateable and
is not a fantasy of course.

Sure. Like knowledge of myths.