[DM] My main point is the plurality of concepts and metaphors available to understand our experience and the contents of that experience and that scientific orthodoxy is just one approach, a useful one we want to keep, but just one. And making progress with our ideas and better sense of our experiences is more likely if we keep our conceptual Horizons open. I say that the lunatics should be allowed to join the debate, they are much more likely to exhaust themselves and lose influence this way then saying that they have no right to participate because they are breaking the rules, especially as the next great insight needs to be able to break the rules too.
[Krimel] If we keep engaging in protracted dialogues where your sole purpose is to make sure that idiotic views get a fair hearing then rest assumed that I support the right of idiots to be heard. I agree that a blind hog finds the occasions acorn. I am a bit taken aback at the implication that I personally reject other forms of understanding. Over the years I believe I have asserted my basic positions here in terms of religion, poetry, fable, parody, and whimsy. I fully understand the continuum between clarity and precision and I get all mushy when babies smile and puppy dogs wag their tails. You seem to think I have closed horizons and tunnel vision and I am not sure why. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
