--- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- authfriend wrote: > > > > Many of us here believe in things for which there > > is as yet no scientific evidence or record. Some > > of us believe in past lives. Some even believe they > > have seen somebody levitate. > > > > Some of these same people, however, advocate that > > one trust one's own experience even if it hasn't > > been scientifically validated--and actually mock > > reliance on scientific evidence--when the experience > > in question resonates with their own experience. > > > > But when someone mentions an experience they have > > *not* had, they demand to know why the person should > > believe in it when it has not been scientifically > > validated. > > > > Odd, eh? > > Tangentially related to this, if you (collective you, but > certainly you Judy) didn't read this New Yorker article > about the different forms of reasons people give for > doing this and that, you might enjoy it. It's not too > awful long.
Sounds interesting, and I'll definitely go read it, thanks. But I'm not sure on the basis of your precis here just how it's related to my post. Hopefully I'll find out when I read the article. > http://tinyurl.com/rmmfc > > "In 'Why?' (Princeton; $24.95), the Columbia University > scholar Charles Tilly sets out to make sense of our > reasons for giving reasons. In the tradition of the > legendary sociologist Erving Goffman, Tilly seeks to > decode the structure of everyday social interaction, > and the result is a book that forces readers to reëxamine > everything from the way they talk to their children to the > way they argue about politics." > > HERE'S WHY > A sociologist offers an anatomy of explanations. > by MALCOLM GLADWELL > Issue of 2006-04-10 > > http://tinyurl.com/rmmfc > > "In Tilly's view, we rely on four general categories of reasons. The first is what he calls > conventions—conventionally accepted explanations. Tilly would call "Don't be a tattletale" > a convention. The second is stories, and what distinguishes a story ("I was playing with my > truck, and then Geoffrey came in . . .") is a very specific account of cause and effect. ... > Then there are codes, which are high-level conventions, formulas that invoke sometimes > recondite procedural rules and categories. If a loan officer turns you down for a mortgage, > the reason he gives has to do with your inability to conform to a prescribed standard of > creditworthiness. Finally, there are technical accounts: stories informed by specialized > knowledge and authority." ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
