John M wrote: > Brent, > sorry if I irritated you - that is felt in your response. > ---------------------- > You remarked: > (>"> Upon your: > > "...an unbiased sample, of the available evidence? " is showing. > - Who is unbiased? )"< > You don't have to decide who's unbiased. > JM: > My question meant: NOBODY is unbiased. Not you, not me, whoever 'thinks' > has some position which is hard to overcome.
Why should everyone "overcome" their position. > In the continuation I would appreciate to substitute your "opinion" word > by "belief system" - scientific or religious. > ----------------- > " Is there no reason to prefer science to voodoo?" > Ask a voodoo official. I'm asking you. >A friend was raised by nuns in Chile and asked > "I was thinking..." whereupon the nun - educatrix shouted her down: "you > should not "think" you should "believe". (Have you ever believed a > science-book? Say: stories told by your college-professor? ) No. And if you ask a scientist if he believes some theory you'll either get a funny look or an exposition on the evidence for and against. > You cannot exclude in reasonable discussions the religious vast majority > of humanity, - talking about a handful of 'free thinking' > fundamentalists (science-crazed people) is a vaste of time. They are not "a vast majority" in most of Europe. So it is quite possible for there to be non-religious societies. >In our > western 'culture' the science-belief system is comparable mutatis > mutandis with the religious one - noting some differences WHAT > conditions are set for accepting an evidence (=truth). And is that difference unimportant? Do you consider all belief-systems to be equal? If not, what makes one better than another? > -------- > Your: "???" - look in your text for "imply". > -------------- > Your par: "What's your evidence for that? ..." > You can pick the religious old, I can pkick the others, and tjhose who > changed (or abandoned at all) religions. I was referring to a "pristine > faith" of the young. The official religion of a country is politics. I > don't know about your statistical figures, but social (marital?) > pressure keeps lots of people as churchgoers from the many millions that > don't go. Even in countries of an 'official' state-religion. > -------- > Finally: > "... in fact they all claim that they are immune from test. This is > where they fail in their epistemological duty." > > You mean the epistemological duty YOU impose? They simply claim to be > immune from YOUR test, they have their own 'test' and 'evidence'. > That was my point. I think humans valuing knowledge is as fundamental as their valuing food and sex. So there is a recognized epistemological duty. Everyone, in every culture, is contemptuous of the fool and a fool is someone who readily adopts false beliefs. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---