Jim Jagielski wrote: > At 12:52 PM +0100 11/9/02, Nicola Ken
Barozzi wrote: > >>I used wrong words. >>I meant to say that
"the other side has equally compelling arguments that seem to
demonstrate that the justification is not valid. >> >>- A
commits. >>- B vetos and says why, and the justification is
rational. >>- A says that the justification of B doesn't stand,
and it's rational too. >>- The community is split between the
two opinions. >> > > In the above case, the veto cannot be
rational and non-rational at > the same time, at least I don't
see how without a real-world example. I took some time to think
this over, and these are the resulting thoughts. Given a
determinate context and background, it's possible that something
can be both rational or non-rational. Extreme example: I can say
it's 2 o'clock, and cite the local radio, you can say it's 8
o'clock, and cite your nuclear watch. The fact is that we are in
different timezones, and thus our explanations appear perfectly
valid to us and invalid to others