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