On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013  Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
<snip>


> It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently.

In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like "embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian- Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius." and "With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun" and "The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce" and "There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology." and "Astrology is extremely rational" ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me.

I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job.

His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p->q and q- >p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears.

When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers?

When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition?

I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time.

You do a lot of mistake in logic. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: "No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ...", like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience.

That is not a valid argument.

Bruno



Craig


Bruno




  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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to