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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: A Conversation With Sir John Eccles (tired of Rosen!) Message-ID: <348@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 12:29:22 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.348 Posted: Wed Jan 2 12:29:22 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Jan-85 07:31:51 EST References: <79@decwrl.UUCP> <309@cybvax0.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 28 > Now, it may seem a bit a bit brash to argue with a Nobel Laureate, and > with an agreeing Karl Popper thrown in too. [HUYBENSZ] No, Mike, it wasn't brash at all. Perhaps one of the biggest obstacles to reasoned thinking is the notion that "a Nobel laureate/scientist/priest/scholar/clergyman/authority figure said this, so one can't argue with it". (Ubizmo knows, it's been an obstacle for Mr. Arndt!) If they don't present any evidence to support their claim, one has the right to assume that the basis for the statement might very well be personal superstition, pre-conceived notions, wishful thinking, etc., in the absence of the aforementioned evidence. Unless, of course, one has a vested interest in pre-believing that the statement is a true one, in which case one would automatically believe it regardless of the absence of supporting evidence. As Ken Arndt said so well: > Blake, with great insight I believe, said: "Man must and will have religion" TRANSLATION: Blake said something I agree with, thus he must have had great insight. (Was this Robert Blake, the actor who played Baretta? Does it make a difference? Is the person's name and "rank" more important than the content of his/her words? Or the substance of those words?) -- "Those without forms must appear, however briefly, at the Bureau's Astral Offices on Nooker Street..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr