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 <[email protected]> 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 [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.
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 [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.
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 [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.
