On 5/5/06, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's no different than ennenagrams and other bullsh!t that sounds good to the ignorant and uninformed.
So what do you think of this bit of "logic" from the skeptics' site: "However, his typology seems to imply that science is just a point of view and that using intuition is just as valid a way of seeing and understanding the world and ourselves as is careful observation under controlled conditions. Never mind that that is the only way to systematically minimize self-deception <http://skepdic.com/selfdeception.html> or prevent identifying causes where there are none." I see a glaring logical error. The idea that *only* science can minimize self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be falsified. There is no logical problem with arguing that science serves these purposes, but to argue that only science can do so is just arguing from its own conclusion. There's nothing particularly scientific about many of the means I personally use to minimize self-deception. Of course, I could just be kidding myself about that. I think the mistake is to *compare* the value of intuition and scientific thinking, rather than holding up some sort of Spock-like detachment and objectivity as an ideal. Spock is fiction. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
