Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!caip!unirot!cjr
From: cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <358@unirot.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 09:08:57 EST
Article-I.D.: unirot.358
Posted: Mon Mar 10 09:08:57 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 22:14:46 EST
References: <435@ccivax.UUCP> <13400007@uiucdcsp> <12239@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Public Access Un*x, The Soup Kitchen
Lines: 72
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4406 net.sci:574
Summary: closed minded dogmatic Western thinking

In article <12239@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
> In article <13400007@uiucdcsp> bsmith@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
> >To the point at hand.  Very few things threaten "scientists" more than
> >the mention of the worthiness of paranormal phenomena.  I usually get
> >a great deal of enjoyment over watching these people spew forth an
> >unending stream of obscenities.  I believe one's speech is indicative
> >of both one's class and one's intelligence.  Moreover, I believe that
> >each of us only has what we experience to go on--that and the
> >experiences of people we trust, that is.  It seems clear to me that
> >many "scientists" are, in fact, dogmatists and, in general, cannot
> >give any acceptable reasons for their rejection of these phenomena.
> >When confronted with the incredible volume of evidence concerning
> >paranormal phenomena, most of these self-styled scientists are forced
> >to use tactics which any truly intelligent person would find unworthy
> >and disgusting, to say the least. By the way, I use "paranormal" merely 
> >as a means of distinguishing that category of phenomena from those 
> >phenomena we call "normal."
> 
> I would say the reaction is DISGUST, solely out of the exaggerated claims
> of the paranormalists.  Your claim that there is an "incredible volume of
> evidence" in favor of the paranormal is one such.  Evidence to scientists
> consists mostly of either repeatable experiments or conclusions drawn from
> a world picture based on repeatable experiments.  What does it matter to
> anything that most scientists are dogmatic or are unable to give clear
> and/or polite reasons for their rejection of the paranormal?  I'm SICK of
> nut cases coming by my office and trying to sell me their theory of cosmic
> vortices or their proof that ZFC in inconsistent or encryption schemes based
> on keys recorded forty years in the future.  Am I being dogmatic when I
> get rid of these parasites?  They've got "incredible volumes of evidence"
> to prove their claims.  How exactly am I supposed to react when someone
> tells me he can effect bacteria mutation rate by thinking about it?  I
> am far more interested in my own work, and if the guy's claim turns out
> to be right, then sure, HE can have the Nobel prize.  Until then, I'll
> tell anyone who tries to convince me of that claim to put up or shut up.
> No evidence, no audience!

Look, it's mighty clear to me you just don't want to believe. I mean, I
have friends who can make their plants grow better by talking to them,
but you probably don't want to believe that either. Anything that
conflicts with your autocratic Western thinking is the work of a "nut
case", right, man? You've been brainwashed by this mathematical
scientific mumbo jumbo. It makes me kinda glad I didn't take those subjects
in college, so I wouldn't get my minds cluttered with that stuff.
My friend Pete who studies this stuff a lot says that mathematics is
just an allusion made up by God, that if we used our minds and just
believed that one thing could become two things, it could happen! There
are people who are keeping that knowledge secret so that they alone can
exorcise that great power, brainwashing the rest of us to think otherwise.
Of course, they're all wealthy. But you would probably just call them
"nut cases" because to admit their right would just blow you away, man!

You are being dogmatic, but thats typical of your dogmatic Western thinking.
You should get exposed to some real science, the culture of the great
Eastern mystics. My friend Pete knows one of them real well, and he has
learned a lot from him. Only when you leave your Western mind behind and
let your Eastern mind attach itself to the truths of Eastern wisdom will
you have any understanding of the knowledge you are ignoring because of
your closed brain system. (Pete says this is sort of like left brain
right brain kind of stuff, but it depends which way you're facing at the
time.)

> (Please reread my description of evidence before replying.)

It's mighty clear to me that your Western definition of evidence is to
limited to be worth anything. I mean, you would reject ESP, telephonesis,
the Bremuda Triangle, ancient astronauts, and UFO's, and I KNOW they exist,
because my aunt saw one! I have witnessed all of these things at least
second hand, and probably so have you, but your dogmatic Western mind won't
let you admit that.

Peace,
	CJ