On Friday, April 12, 2013 2:09:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <javascript:>>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 seriously. >> >> >> > That is not valid. >> > > If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can > take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a > better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that I don't > see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig > Weinberg says seriously. >
He is saying that your reasoning is not valid in jumping to conclusions about what constitutes a guarantee of irrationality...not about whether you are genuinely incredulous or not. > > >> > 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). >> > > Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time > to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately > believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what > he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as > bad as a flat earth. > Are you really so inundated with people wanting you to believe that the world is flat? Even though I find your views preposterously narrow on many things, I don't take that to mean that you cannot be right about some things. What you are defending has a name - it is "pre-judice". The idea that you need not actually consider other people's views before deciding that they are wrong. > > To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig, >> > > I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even > approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong > list for over a year. > > > Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only >> because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. >> > > I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he > could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track > record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of > parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them. > The point was not whether or not you happen to deem lucid dreaming to be possible, it is that the scientific status quo was wrong in this instance and the journal of parapsychology was right. You don't seem to be able to generalize the implications of your prejudice. > > John K Clark > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
