Re: dogmatism

[Long-suffering list members -- please disregard if you are not interested
in the Austin brouhaha.]

> Your definition fits more the terminology of one who is
> self-righteous, sanctimonious or pharisaical.  


Fine.  If the shoe fits...


Dogmatism, to the contrary,
> refers to "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without
> adequate grounds".  In the case of Austin's postings, as I stated
> previously, his assertions are most always accompanied by explanation,
> analyses, argumentation, and examples.  In other words, Richard, Austin's
> authority is firmly grounded whereas all we are getting from you is a slew
> of ad hominen attacks which amount to name-calling.


"Austin's authority is firmly grounded."  Well, that's an opinion.

I have put forward a series of logical, empirical arguments in my last
series of posts.   You're free not to agree with them, but they can
scarcely be reduced to "all we are getting from you is a slew of ad
hominem attacks."

And you conveniently disregard Andy's tendency to label everyone else a
pro-capitalist reactionary, which does tend to make some of us a bit hot
under the collar.  Then HE acts all wounded.  Must be rough.


> 1)  that your ad hominen attacks attempt to disparage Austin by
asserting that he fits facts to his epistemology and discards those which
contradict that framework, 


Again, if the shoe fits...


RH