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

6827Re: [sl] Uplift & Separate

Expand Messages
  • Daniel N. Washburn
    Oct 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for apologizing, Mike.

      I agree that we non-scientists don't have the expertise to add much to
      the scientific process. However, we are forced to rely on scientific
      information to make policy decisions, particularly when we vote. It is
      a bloody shame that this isn't specifically taught in schools. As far
      as I can tell science teaching in this country is in lousy shape,
      considering that something like 46% of the country doesn't even believe
      in evolution. Me, I was educated as a scientist. I originally intended
      to do psychological research and have an MA in Psych. So I have a deep
      respect and some insight into the scientific process. Lots of folks
      never had those advantages. They don't realize the genius and the sweat
      that have gone into the last 500 years of perfecting our pictures of
      nature and the processes involved in delineating them.

      So when there is some legitimate disagreement and some well-funded
      deliberate obfuscation people are at a loss. All the more reason why we
      have to speak with eloquence and lucidity about what the science of the
      situation has genuinely shown.

      You say there was no name calling, but when you use words like crass,
      arrogant, and stupid, even about judgements rather than about the
      person, I put this in the name calling category.

      As to upliftment, I agree that that is not our purpose here. Our
      purpose is to get at the truth, be it scientific or historical or
      poetic, be it uplifting or boring or horrifying, about the sacred
      landscape.

      Dan




      mikebispham@... wrote:

      > 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@... <mailto:mikebispham%40aol.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@... <mailto:mikebispham%40aol.com> writes:
      > >
      > > In a message dated 28/09/06 17:26:48 GMT Daylight Time,
      > > rbright@... <mailto:rbright%40crai.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