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

6822Uplift & Separate

Expand Messages
  • mikebispham@aol.com
    Oct 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 01/10/06 00:57:00 GMT Daylight Time, danw@... writes:
       
      >You say, 'Please expect more rudeness and derision if you
      continue...' Forceful reaction, yes, rude and derisive, no. <
       
      You are quite right Dan.  I apologise Dede. 
       
      > You have used the enormous scientific consensus argument on me in
      regards to parapsychological evidence for the existence of remote
      viewing and psychokinesis, so I have reason to believe that even a large
      consensus can be wrong. Does it bother me that in general the
      mainstream of science hasn't accepted these effects as fact? You bet it
      does. I believe in the scientific process. Do I believe that the
      mainstream can't be wrong? Not on your life.<
       
      We've been through the topic Dan, and understand that science works by a system of expert consensus.  Individual scientists may find areas in which to challenge that consensus, and that's how science goes foward.  But individual non-scientists can really only report experiences.  They can not sensibly challenge the scientific consensus on the basis of political or religious - or gut - inclinations. 
       
      It was that kind of point that I was trying to explain to Dede.  I agree I was massively over agressive in the way I went about it. That's just me Dede - I find meaning by agressively forcing a path through the thickets of misinformation, and you were a thicket there.  I'm sorry.
       
      >This is unacceptable behavior. You are resorting to name calling and as
      moderator I have to tell you that if you do it again I will suspend you
      from the list. <
       
      There was no name calling Dan.
       
      >We are supposed to be a friendly discussion group focussing on some
      pretty
      uplifting topics like geometry, temple architecture, and sacred garden
      design. <
       
      I guess focussing on 'uplifting topics' is, these days it seems, the aim of most contributors.  It isn't something however I wish to do.  Deliberately looking at the world through rose-coloured spectacles seems to me to inimical to kinds of things that have kept me interested in being here.  The notion of generally trying to communicate meaningfully across the various cultural divides that (potentially) exist on international lists; of trying to discover meaning, truth, humanity, sacredness, and things of that kind in the company of dodgy Americans, has had a certain appeal.  The 'uplifting' impulse - in religous terms - I've always regarded as suspiciously naval. 
       
      Mike
       

      Mike:

      This is unacceptable behavior. You are resorting to name calling and as
      moderator I have to tell you that if you do it again I will suspend you
      from the list. When I said that I understand the feelings involved, I
      did not mean that I condone their expression on this list. We are
      supposed to be a friendly discussion group focussing on some pretty
      uplifting topics like geometry, temple architecture, and sacred garden
      design.

      Since the whole earth is a sacred garden, I think of global warming as
      a relevant topic. The emotions involved in the fate of the earth can
      override good sense and decent discussion, however. Please restrain
      yourself.

      Further, I do not agree with your citicisms of Dede. Yes, I do not see
      why she isn't persuaded by the enormous scientific consensus. She has,
      however, provided access to valid experts who challenge that consensus,
      witness the Denver Post article. Plus I found the underwater valcanoes
      page interesting and was amused by her comeback on the global cooling
      discussion in the seventies. Agreed that the CEI and the other page
      were pretty much rot.

      All in all the interchange has forced me to learn more on the discussion
      re the validity of global warming theory. I appreciate Dede's input on
      this and think she has been holding up her end pretty well.

      You have used the enormous scientific consensus argument on me in
      regards to parapsychological evidence for the existence of remote
      viewing and psychokinesis, so I have reason to believe that even a large
      consensus can be wrong. Does it bother me that in general the
      mainstream of science hasn't accepted these effects as fact? You bet it
      does. I believe in the scientific process. Do I believe that the
      mainstream can't be wrong? Not on your life.

      You say, 'Please expect more rudeness and derision if you
      continue...' Forceful reaction, yes, rude and derisive, no.

      Moderator Dan

      mikebispham@ aol.com wrote:

      > Dede,
      >
      > I made (below) a rushed response to your point.
      >
      > I understand from one of your previous posts that you don't think much
      > of the 'experts' you have met in your office. I see further that you
      > have generalised from this position to one in which all 'experts' are
      > useless, and your - or anyone else's - opinions are as valid, as in
      > any particular area, as those of deeply trained persons.
      >
      > I find this deeply crass; arrogant and stupid. Please expect more
      > rudeness and derision if you continue to think yourself capable of
      > critiquing, from the top of your head, the considered specialised
      > statements of a large consensus of experts.
      >
      > The same goes for comparing the plainly rationally and
      > professionally inept views of random web pages with the enormous
      > scientific consensus.
      >
      > In short; 'alternative views' are only valid when the expertise of the
      > challenger is valid in the relevant field.
      >
      > Yours, in this case is (vastly), not. If you want to challenge expert
      > views, I suggest you ensure your challenge is supported by equally,
      > and appropriately, expert references.
      >
      > Your 'alternative views' are _not_ equal to those of a large body of
      > experts.
      >
      > I'm astonished that you could ever think they were.
      >
      > Sorry to be blunt,
      >
      > Mike
      >
      > In a message dated 29/09/06 07:29:45 GMT Daylight Time,
      > mikebispham@ aol.com writes:
      >
      > In a message dated 28/09/06 17:26:48 GMT Daylight Time,
      > rbright@crai. com writes:
      >
      > Actually, Mike - you proved my point as well.
      >
      > The point of the article is that alternative views are not
      > only not
      > welcome, they are met with rudeness and derision.
      >
      > You, Mike, are example of that.
      >
      > Dede
      >
      > It's what they deserve. Bull-headedness might be a virtue at some
      > times and places, but when the future of much of our corner of
      > Creation is at stake, dangerous stupidity must be called.
      >
      > The site you suggested is run through with blind ignorance. You
      > may not be able to tell that but I can. It would be irresponsible
      > of me not to draw that to your attention.
      >
      > Mike
      >

       
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic