A question of balance ? Tell me, how many of you listened to the Thinking Allowed piece before reading the web page ? And how many vice versa ?
How much of people's hearing and reading really reflects the attitude they bring to the piece. (I did remark on this earlier .... that 95% of discourse on MD seems to be people expressing their attitude to the people they are "arguing" with rather than adding value to the content of any argument. Even those whose positions I sympathize with the ... socialist intellectual / social democrat types clearly ... DMB, Arlo, Horse. But smugness is ugly whichever side you're on. ) For sure, if I'd read that page in isolation before hearing the interview - my attitude to Angell would undoubtedly have been different. Even now I question how "agnostic" he is. But as a self-proclaimed agnostic, correcting the interviewer who asked if he was promoting faith as an alternative to science, he his hardly a religious fanatic. Scientism is as dangerous as religious fanaticism. Anti-fanaticism is still fanaticism, and smells as sweet. Ian 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/md/archives.html
