Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: ROSEN vs Wishful Thinkers (?) - (Scientification) Message-ID: <1727@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 22:54:21 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1727 Posted: Tue Sep 17 22:54:21 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 03:58:29 EDT References: <253@yetti.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 185 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. Hey, who is making the claim of something completely contrary to scientific thought and knowledge? Me? Or you? Where does the burden of proof lie? > [in smaller print: those who do not agree are *unscientific*! whew!] You betchum, red rider. > 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. If you had read Hofstadter (and even Dennett), you would have gleaned some of that yourself. Mind you, Hofstadter is not at all in agreement with Dennett (and found "Elbow Room" a bit contortive, though he liked the writing within it), so I am not at all sure you have your facts straight here. > 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 ?? Running circles around? Is that another way of saying "being circular about" or "circumventing"? Sounds an awful lot to me like you're presuming your own conclusion, which is the hallmark of the "anti-scientist" (you know, the one whose file modes are all 666 :-). If you'd be willing to delineate what you are referring to, where your body of knowledge disagrees with mine. > (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) In other words, you weren't willing to read what I wrote the first time, so now I'm obliged to summarize it ALL because you say so! No thank you, my friend. Ask some specific questions, get some specific answers, but don't play these broad sweeping games with me. > 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. I'll summarize this: it's amazing how you speak of me being wrong for believing in the work of science, yet it is all right for YOU to claim "science has shown that classical determinism is dead, which is a point for me, so I'll believe THAT one". Funny, isn't that a perfect example of having anthropocentric faith in science which you and others like you accuse me of: "WE, the great all powerful humans, cannot determine a determining cause here, thus there MUST be no cause and no determinism!!! YAY!!!!!" >>> 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..): I guess by the same token we should listen to Shockley's views about race and intelligence. After all, he's a genius, he invented the transistor! Track record? I believe Dennett is worthy of more than a skim. But I have seen no knowledge gleaned by any reader of that book in question that he/she has been able to summarize. You know, the way you demanded *I* summarize everything I've ever written. I think summarizing a book you read and expounding on what you learned from it is far more reasonable. Yet we haven't seen it. >> ... 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? No. It would not. If no one gave any substantive recommendation for it, or no information about it was forthcoming, I would have no pressing reason to read it. Likewise, if the information I got about it was that it was uninteresting (or, for a non-fiction book, counterfactual), I would see even less than no reason to read it. >>> 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. The topic was the whole extended discussion about free will, and a related topic that I was speaking of was the way people seem to read books (and quote them) and recommend them as good without actually having learned anything from them, e.g., liking the conclusion and saying "Hey, this author is OK, I don't need to have read or understood the rest!" Whose face was slapped? Again, am I only allowed to speak on a topic once YOU have given permission? Your contortive remark that I wasn't speaking on a topic at all isn't justification for the real "abnoxious attack", which seems to have come from you. >>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*. I noticed. > 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. And ideas about models for that truth. What exactly are you trying to hit with your wild swinging punches? >>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?) If I am wrong about what I am saying being "well established knowns", why don't YOU summarize where I go "wrong"? If my tone seems condescending, it seems that the only reason for such a perception is that what I say runs counter to your personal beliefs, and that is taken as some sort of personal attack. Wishful thinkers is an accurate label applied to anyone who works backwards from a conclusion they want, to build distorted axioms about the world and then say "See? There is this thing I said I believed in!" And free will junkies seems quite appropriate when referring to people who want free will at any price: distorting the English language, contorting science to their own ends. If that's not the behavior of a junkie, I don't know what is. I guess it's wrong for me to use such names, but OK for you... (Says something...) -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com