Cheers,
Santosh wrote:
I know that when I have not been able to persuade someone to limit the usage
and scope of the word Science to its conventional connotation, I may not have
much hope of bringing clarity to what is meant by such things as disagreements,
counterpoints, opinions and corrections in any academic discussion. So let me
just state the following, and leave it at that.
Expressing a divergent opinion or disagreement on any issue does not
constitute a lack of open-mindedness. It certainly does not mean lack of
respect for the person with whom there is this disagreement. Disputing or
correcting a factual claim in a dispassionate manner by no means represents
making a "near-fascist" authoritative judgment. Indeed, mutual disagreements
and corrections are the mainstay of any meaningful public discourse. Without
them one might as well be reduced to using a forum like this to trade soggy
happy birthday wishes and thank you notes. While I grant that there are
perfectly fine people in this world who are enthralled by such exchanges,
peppered by robotic messages containing political propaganda, chain letters or
forwarded links to conspiracy websites, I for one would prefer a forum where
there is a spirited argument on an important topic. As a matter of fact, a
communal (used in its most general sense) forum of like-minded folk
engaged in a happy incestuous love fest over a mutually agreeable ideology
would be revolting to me.
RE: to Cheers,
Santosh -
There may be difference in how various people define the word 'Fact'.
Whereas a spiritualist does not refute Scientist's definition, but includes
it saying "That too is true", Science, which is by nature a reductionist or
dialectical
stream of knowledge, can not afford to be so charitable.
Open-mindedness is being charitable towards even that which threatens to
'prove'
the truth of your being to be false or even unnecessary. The flower of
compassion blooms
is that clime.
