Hi, Mark, stunning coherence, all the way thrue your article. I knew you were a promising guy when you started talking about Scheveningen French Fries and Frietsaus. Fucking coherent.
2010/10/29 118 <[email protected]> > [Andrie, previously] > Well, okay, i did read it again, to reconsider, re-balance it. > (only as an aside, i took Arlo's points about the Amish in > consideration,because > in an earlier thread , setting time 100 years back was mentioned by you , > Ian) > > > Ian > "-adding value to the content of the arguments-" > > Adrie > This is not really Angell's strongest point, exept for stirring up > controverse's i cannot > see him providing solutions for the so called imbalance. > > Handing over a so called problem is one thing, tossing in solutions > another. > > There is a name for this used technique, it is called demagogy > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy ( Father coughlin was one of > them) > > so i maintain my position,but adding this as fine-tuning > > He (angell) is a demagog,in the disguise of a religious fanatic. > > One more thing to toss in, i consider Pirsig's, James ,etc , their work as > science. > Good thread anyway. > > [Mark in response] > > Demagogy is a good term, we have some of that going on in our country right > now. The fear of such would be valid if indeed one perceived a threat to > the institution of science itself. I do not believe there is any such > threat, science is not that fragile. The way I take it, is as an effort to > bring some common sense to the whole phenomenon of Scientism. Much public > policy is being made based on predictions that are impossible using the > current data and tools of science. In that way, it has a religious flavor. > We are pitting one religion (used in the sense of docile mass following) > against another in a polarizing way, something that can be dealt with > through reconciliation. It is a battle between the objectivism of science > against the subjectivism of spirituality. The problem with religion is > that > it tries to infiltrate through the guise of science. It does this to > provide some validity to its premises, which really is not necessary. > However, this points out to the power of scientism, where a religion must > incorporate such objectivism to seem relevant. > > The critical thinkers and philosophers on both sides (yes, intellect exists > in religion) will concede the fact that they are not reconcilable in terms > of finding middle ground, both must exist in balance. The point is to > question the premises and absolute authority of either. In this way I > found > the subject matter refreshing. Opposition to such by some on the forum is > not surprising. But, I do not see any threat to the institute of science > itself, it is a natural arising from human intellect, as is religion. It > is > those that don't think about either thing, that the subject matter is > directed towards perhaps in a provocative way to encourage thinking. > > Setting back time is appropriate if we took the wrong path which is leading > nowhere. As the saying goes, if you see a fork in the road, take it. > > Thanks for your post Andrie. > > All the best, > Mark > 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 > -- parser 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
