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