Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!yetti!oz From: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: ROSEN vs Wishful Thinkers (?) - (Scientification) Message-ID: <253@yetti.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 11:31:30 EDT Article-I.D.: yetti.253 Posted: Mon Sep 9 11:31:30 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 13:26:48 EDT Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) Organization: York University Computer Science Lines: 111 Keywords: science, wishful, etc. >> o Misconceptions: You have some exclusive access >> to the *true* nature of the universe, thus, all those >> opposing to what *you* *know* are "wishful thinkers" and >> in this case, "free-will-junkies". (Your words.) [OZ] +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming that | |what I am talking about is just one person's opinion and not the result | |of years of scientific inquiry, when you claim I am talking about things | |"opposing to what *I* *know*". Let us be clear that those who seek to | |simply wash away the body of knowledge and ipso facto replace it with | |models of the universe that simply match what they LIKE (not that which | |has been examined and analyzed in the past) really are engaging in nothing | |but wishful thinking. [ROSEN] | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming that there are *scientific* *results* that support your arguments. [in smaller print: those who do not agree are *unscientific*! whew!] I presume these results based on years of inquiry are very conclusive, although We, along with Dennett, Hofstadter, and many others too numerous to list here, seem to have missed them. This *body of knowledge* you are speaking of: Would you give us few pointers, so that we can get at it too ?? Just to check whether or not it is the same *body of knowledge* that Dennett is running circles around. Could you please summarize this stuff ?? (I *mean* summarize. pointing at 10,000 articles you have posted is not good enough. It would take a year to go through all the little tidbits of statements and distill it to something that is comprehensible. By your own admission, you type fast, so it should not be much of a problem). In other words, put your keyboard where your mouth is. (no cheap pun intended) Of course, once you summarize all that, I will tell you about how modern physics has done away with classical determinism. I could even recommend few more books from likes of David Bohm and Max Jammer, for you to dismiss without even reading. >> o Ignorance: Judge a book (literally) by its cover, >> and dismiss/ridicule without even as much as skimming >> through it, irrespective of the fact that it is written >> by a well-known philosopher who has given us (thnx) >> BRAINSTORMS. > >Ah, the "credentials" argument. This book was written by a "well-known" >philosopher, thus it must have merit. > No, it may or may not have merit. But given the track record, it does not deserve the kind of dismissal and ridicule you have presented. Besides, you seem to agree with me that he is at least worthy of a skim (although you seem to have failed to do so..): ----------------------------------------------------------- [FROM A PREVIOUS ROSEN POSTING] ... None of this means I don't admire the man (I've found what you say about him is true [good thinker, writer. ed.]) as a writer and thinker, nor that I don't intend (one of these days) to read both Brainstorms and Elbow Room ... ----------------------------------------------------------- > >Tell me, have you read "The Dawn >at Midnight" by Sidney Robbins? No? Why not? It's been on the housewives' >best seller list for months! Are you dismissing it out of hand, by not >even seeing fit to skim it? Oh, I see, perhaps you're waiting for some >form of recommendation of the book ... > I do not know the author, nor the book, but perhaps that is because I am not a housewife :-). But under no conditions will you find me ridiculing/dismissing it without at least skimming it. It would be ignorant of me to do otherwise, wouldn't you say? >> Your unsolicited, and quite >> abnoxious attack on a book you have not even read is enough to stop >> me from discussing even its table of contents. (You see, I really >> do not want to tempt you to post the table of contents of your >> Unicorns book..) I really do not care whether you read it or not. >> It was a recommendation for those who are interested in reading >> about ideas supporting and/or opposing to their own. Take it or >> leave it. > >"Unsolicited"? Am I only allowed to speak on a topic once you have given >me permission? Oh, you we *speaking* on a topic when you were ridiculing/dismissing the book were you ?? My perception of your *speaking* was much like an unnecessary slap on the face. That was *never* solicited. >..... >Given that I already have an occupation, I'll stick to "enlightening" the >net alone, since this is an avocational discussion forum which is all I >would care for. If you think my ideas are that good, feel free to publish >them. [ROSEN] I did not say they were *good*. Besides, how come they are *ideas* all of a sudden ?? I thought you were speaking of *scientifically* established *truth* about the nature of the universe. > >If you were being sarcastic, what is it you don't like about my >ideas that prompts you to treat them with such contempt? > I have no problem with your ideas. What I do not like is your condescending tone, your passing *your* *ideas* as well established *knowns*, and your infuriating remarks. (free-will- junkies ??? Wishful thinkers ??? Is this name calling or what?) Oz -- Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti] You see things; and you say "WHY?" But I dream things that never were; and say "WHY NOT?" G. Bernard Shaw (Back to Methuselah)