> [Krimel] > Me either. > > Got one to share? mel: If I have time I will dig through my decades old school notes for the basics, but Google will get you there faster.
[Krimel] Google got me 501+ "proofs" so far and none seem worthy of a second thought. I don't think further Googling is going to produce a 502nd that is any more worthy of attention. The ball is in your court. > [Krimel] > I would suggest to you and Dave that if Dawkins produces such an emotional > reaction perhaps it isn't reason and lucidity or the lack there of, that > is the cause. But either of you are welcome to provide some issue of > substance where you find Dawkins' arguments defective. What I read here > from both of you is on a par with Pirsig dismissal Kant as "ugly". mel: Apologies if my e-mail conveyed an emotional reaction, but my real reaction was logical. Shoddy logic is just that. Dawkins, from his photos, seems reasonably dashing, so being ugly is not one of his problems. Shockley's disease, however, is. (Named for the Nobel Laureate who being an expert in one area presumed that the value of his opinion on other areas was equal to his area of expertise.) [Krimel] I believe that trust of Dawkin's forays into theology are in response to religious folks straying into biology and pushing for introducing theology into the biology classroom. He is well within his area of expertise to speak out against this. mel: MoQ-ly, you are right both are illusion, but that is a different discussion to the Dawkins logic and the problem of false distinction...in its context. Ah, back to confusing the plunger and the ladle...;-) [Krimel] Again in the absence of any actual examples of faulty logic and false distinctions this just sounds like so much grumbling over nothing. 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/
