Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: judge-tosses-out-suit-over-waldorf

Expand Messages
  • val2160
    ... that ... and ... in ... the ... To wit: Where enmity is an honest thing, anthroposophy can always reply on an objective basis. Objective debate, however,
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" <wdenval@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "val2160" wdenval@
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Speaking of reading, I see now that this is the same information that
      > > is on Wikipedia for PLANS including:
      > > The accuracy and expertise of PLANS officials also came under attack
      > > during lawsuit witness hearings. Six of the PLANS board directors and
      > > advisors sought to testify as expert witnesses in the case, but each
      > was
      > > eliminated due to their lack of expertise on the subjects of
      > > anthroposophy and Waldorf education: three were eliminated by the
      > court
      > > judge, and the other three subsequently withdrawn voluntarily by
      > PLANS'
      > > attorney, Kendall. After reviewing key sections of the deposition
      > > testimony taken of PLANS' most vocal spokesperson, Dan Dugan, the
      > judge
      > > expressed "grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about
      > > anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including
      > > anthroposophy" before ruling that Dugan would not be allowed to give
      > > testimony in the trial.
      >
      > I found the above information when looking into what happened to PLANS
      > case. I discovered it was from Wikipedia when I searched for the
      > reference. I was struck by the standard for testimony implied here, in
      > that it seemed awfully similar to Steiner's own statement regarding the
      > criticism of Anthroposophy. Apparently, the qualifications listed in
      > the document below were not considered sufficient by the court to be
      > considered a witness in this case:
      >
      > http://www.waldorfanswers.com/MemorandumAndOrder990924.pdf

      To wit:

       Where enmity is an honest thing, anthroposophy can always reply on an objective basis. Objective debate, however, requires going into the question of methods that lead to anthroposophical knowledge. No objective discussion is possible without satisfying that requirement. Anybody with a heart and a healthy mind can take in anthroposophy, but discussions about it have to be based on studying its methods and getting to understand how its knowledge is derived. Experimentation and deduction do not call for inner development; they merely require a training that can be given anybody.  A person with no further background is in no position to carry on a debate about anthroposophy without undergoing training in its methods.

      http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19230213p01.html


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.