Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ism780c.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!jim From: jim@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Balter) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation Message-ID: <1068@ism780c.UUCP> Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 23:31:18 EST Article-I.D.: ism780c.1068 Posted: Sun Mar 23 23:31:18 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 02:19:47 EST References: <435@ccivax.UUCP> <13400007@uiucdcsp> <12239@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <388@unirot.UUCP> <92@gilbbs.UUCP> <636@kontron.UUCP> Reply-To: jim@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Balter) Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA Lines: 43 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4629 net.sci:637 In article <636@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Is it true that leftists have no sense of humor? Tom, he was making >a joke! It says a lot about what a humorless dull person you are that >you didn't catch how effective a satire of "mystic-brain damaged" this >was. Look, Cramer, this sort of irrational ideological ad hominem categorization is popular in net.politics, but it has no place in these groups. With a few exceptions, discussions in net.philosophy are strikingly free of issues of personality. I doubt that you will find your approach welcomed by anyone here, regardless of their political views. As for the articles in question, I'm with Matt and Rich (but do you suppose our politics are the same?) in sitting back and chuckling over those who have been taking them dead seriously, especially those who can't trust their own instincts without a big SMILEY sign to verify it. The situation reminds me somewhat of one of Gulliver's travels where the people required attendants, called "flappers", to "flap" them on the ears when it was time to listen and eventually to flap them on the mouths when they had something to say. My real concern is that those who did not notice any humorous intent will not learn from their mistake. Rather than rationalizing away the mistake because there was no smiley or because you've seen "similar" stuff from people who you are sure were serious or because you were tired or whatever, you might want think a moment longer or read something over one more time before responding, to be sure you understand what was intended and that your arguments are really coherent and rational and address real flaws in the material to which you are responding, rather than just being emotionally driven responses to something with which you already disagree. At the same time that Mr. Riordan's articles make fun of Eastern or Western mystics or any religious position that claims that personal visions or experiences are "true", they raise some very serious philosophical questions about truth and the nature and validity of scientific method, questions not addressed by the angry retorts he has received from those who took him "seriously". I must compliment Mr. Riordan on the cleverness with which he mocks those from both extremes. I generally try to ignore Michael Ellis's vituperative articles that class anyone who disagrees with him together as "robot buddies" or other phrases similar to Ted Holden's "yuppie scientists", but if only *I* could have thought of a way to call him a "cool dud" and have people accept is a "misspelling"! Yo ho ho ha ha hee hee hee my god my gut's gonna bust!! -- -- Jim Balter ({sdcrdcf!ism780c,ima}!jim)