On 11 Apr 2013, at 18:31, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely
as flaky as modern cosmology.
After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who
values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says
That is not valid. It is not because a statement made by an entity is
not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that
entity is not correct (or valid).
To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig,
indeed. What is true is that some astrologists can be more valid in
their reasoning than some cosmologists, of course.
Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only
because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. Eventually
lucidity on dream was rediscovered by non-para-psychologist and then
accepted by the mainstream.
Following authoritative argument, and giving importance to name and
institution, are not a valid procedure. It can help the choice of the
paper you will read, but it cannot help to judge the 'scientific
value' of the paper.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.