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: Free will - some new reading.. Message-ID: <1496@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 01:46:29 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1496 Posted: Wed Aug 14 01:46:29 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 14:50:05 EDT References: <217@yetti.UUCP> <1420@pyuxd.UUCP> <222@yetti.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 44 Keywords: free will > I was under the delusion that "critical thinking" involved > the perception and analysis of contradictory arguments, and > theories before reaching conclusions. Mr. Rosen awakened me !! It looks like you're stil quite asleep from the sarcastic attack here. > Critical Thinking must obviously mean sticking as tighly as > possible onto one's biases, prejudices, misconceptions, > ignorance etc. Unless evidence presents itself to demolish such established knowns that you refer to as prejudices/biases/etc. Given that the author of the article didn't offer any such evidence, instead presenting an argument that was easily debunked, one has a right to question the substance of the book he was referring to. If he learned so much from it, why couldn't he explain what he learned instead of just reproducing sections of the conclusions and saying "See? He agrees with me?" > Mr. Rosen is so locked into "his" way of seeing things, he is > unable to look around, even for intellectial stimulation. > Sigh !! This is just as dangerous as any other form of > mental close-off you care to name.. (Racism ?? Religious fanaticism ?? > .... fill in the blanks ....) It's amazing how those who seem to want the universe to be certain ways (filled with free will and other odds and ends) refer to those who refuse to accept their wishful thinking (and that's all it is, as shown by the [lack of] evidence) by names like "locked", "biased", "prejudiced", etc. It makes me chuckle. > The above recommended book could be too much for Rich to handle. Or maybe it was too much for Mr. Carnes to handle, which is why I have yet to see any substantive summary of the position held in the book that would lead me to think that Dennett had something to say on the topic that was more interesting than what Carnes excerpted, which was rather easily tossed. If there are other ideas leading to that conclusion, what were they? Why didn't Carnes mention or discuss them? I'm not belittling Richard Carnes at all when I say this, and I hope he realizes that. It seems a lot of people read some books, see a certain conclusion they like, and "recommend" the book without actually having understood it. A good name for that might be "acritical thinking". -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr