I think the answer to my question is "The philosophy of language serves no purposes other than to distract the conversation, and to halt the progression of knowledge".
I think you're right. But it's easier to philosiphise your way through the meaning of motive and who might have it than to face the evidence that shows a 757 hit the building. You can spend the entire day rumbling over motive, and that keeps the discussion going. If you have to look at the evidence then either you have to ignore it, at which point you're shown to be unreasonable, explain it away, at which point you have to prove it, or accept it for what it is, which means discarding your beliefs. Since the third isn't an option for the CT, two can't actually be done successfully, and one grinds the discussion to a dead halt, then it is to be avoided at all costs.
|