Hi , Dave, yes , these words are wisely chosen. Implausible,incoherent and dishonest. The guy is a fraude.It is impossible to make progress by criminalising progress itself.
If you like to compare the used demagogy with some demagogy here, the root of rationality comes to mind, on the question to expand the 'root' of rationality The answer is to attack rationality itself, deviating the possible answers to a field that stays away from the root of rationality. Theresienstadt-arguments really. good reflections , Thanks, Adrie 2010/10/29 david buchanan <[email protected]> > > Ian said: > 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. ...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. > > > dmb says: > Not that it makes any difference but I heard the interview before I read > that web page. He seemed quite shrill and angry and anti-intellectual to me > even before reading that page. And the interviewer asked Angell if he was > promoting faith because he got the same impression, obviously. Angell's > denial struck me as completely incoherent and implausible, if not downright > dishonest. He's only doing what Christian apologists have been doing since > for a century or two and it shouldn't fool anyone, let alone a MOQer. I > mean, if you've read Pirsig and you still don't see what's happening here > then you never will. If you have the benefit of the MOQ's analysis of the > evolutionary conflict between social and intellectual values and you still > don't know how to read situations like this, then there's no hope that you > ever will know how to read this stuff. > > You know, I'm glad that sometimes we debate things like the first > amendment, politics and religion. When I see how these outside issues are > interpreted and understood it becomes fairly apparent that our differences > over the MOQ really come down to each person's ability to simply comprehend > what they're reading. When the debate centers around ideas and assertions > that are far, far simpler than metaphysics, it's much easier to see that > some MOQers are just not very good at reading or thinking in general. And it > will probably sound like mere insult, but I sincerely think that it is not > just a co-incidence that anti-intellectual attitudes are most often > expressed by those with the weakest intellectual skills. Likewise, the best > thinkers are not hostile to the intellect. Psychologically speaking, this > makes perfect sense. This is what the research shows. > > Evolution doesn't just occur for whole societies, it goes on in individuals > too. The MOQ says that a society dominated by intellectual values is > absolutely superior to one that does not. This goes for individuals too. In > fact, you can't really separate them. To have a society guided by > intellectual values, we first need people to be guided by intellectual > values. And yet right here, where everyone should be able to see that, we > have folks who think science and intellect and philosophy IS the problem. As > they see it, rationality doesn't HAVE a problem. It doesn't HAVE a flaw. To > them, intellect IS the flaw. And the people who believe this, what are they > pushing? Religion, intelligent design, free-market capitalism, reactionary > politics, the denigration of science and scientists, anti-academic > attitudes, and the occasional bout of bigotry. They're pushing social level > values and so intellectual values are threatening. So instead of correcting > the defect in the intellect, they d > efine the intellect as the defect itself. Like Arlo said so long ago, > they've confused the patient with the disease. > > > > 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
