--- On Fri, 5/15/09, guyfawkes91 <[email protected]> wrote:
snip
> Getting excited by this kind of thing is the equivalent of
> people getting excited by images of Jesus in a slice of
> toast or the Virgin Mary in a damp patch on a wall
> somewhere. One can only feel pity for people who allow their
> intelligence to be so degraded that they think it's
> significant.
snip
>
> In combination with Bevan and John Hagelin, Tony Nader has
> reduced the status of MUM to the gutter.
I could never figure out what the big deal was in the first place. It just is
an example of very concrete thinking; drawing parallels and creating
relationships based on superficial characteristics of two objects/systems. It
is very much a Victorian intellectual product. One thing that always struck me
as quite humorous was its failure to mention anything about the reproductive
system. This was curiously missing! Did anyone actually take this work
seriously? Even within the TMO why would anyone get excited about this work? It
doesn't really say anything. It reminded me of Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire's
Candide, making pseudo-profound, scientific-sounding statements that amounted
to nothing.
