Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!yetti!oz
From: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: some new reading.. (SIGH!!)
Message-ID: <234@yetti.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 12:41:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: yetti.234
Posted: Mon Aug 19 12:41:03 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 17:31:06 EDT
References: <217@yetti.UUCP> <1420@pyuxd.UUCP> <222@yetti.UUCP> <1496@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York University Computer Science
Lines: 119
Keywords: free will
Summary: How did I ever get into this mess ???

In article <1496@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>> 	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 !!
>>	[OZ]
>
>It looks like you're stil quite asleep from the sarcastic attack here.
> 	[ROSEN]
>
	As I said, I am now awake. Now I *firmly* know that
	Unicorns do not exist. I burned my copy of Alfred E.
	Neumann's excellent treatise titled "Unicorn: A Meta-
	Historical Perspective on a Strange Creature", and
	sold an authographed copy of the classic "The Isotope
	Analysis of Pre-Historic Bone Fragments: Why Unicorns
	are Extinct".

>> 	Critical Thinking must obviously mean sticking as tighly as 
>> 	possible onto one's biases, prejudices, misconceptions, 
>> 	ignorance etc. 
>>	[OZ] 
> 
>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?"
>	[ROSEN]
>
	Evidence??
		o Bias and Prejudice: later in the article.

		o Misconceptions: You have some exclusive access
		  to the *true* nature of the universe, thus, all those
		  opposing to what *you* *know* are "wishful thinkers" and
		  in this case, "free-will-junkies". (Your words.)

		o Ignorance: Judge a book (literally) by its cover,
		  and dismiss/ridicule without even as much as skimming
		  through it, irrespective of the fact that it is written
		  by a well-known philosopher who has given us (thnx)
		  BRAINSTORMS.

		By the way: read the message header before you reply.
		You confuse me with someone else. I was the one who
		just recommended the book, in about 5 lines.
		  
>> 	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 ....)
>>	[OZ]
>
>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.
>	[ROSEN]
>
	Uh..Huh.. I *never* said anything about whether or not I believe
	in the existence of free-will. For all you care, I am someone
	who believes in a deterministic universe, and who happens to be
	more open-minded than you are. (Since at least I carefully inves-
	tigate the issue and think about it, instead of shooting my
	mouth off daily.) BUT, *YOU* CHOOSE TO TAKE ME AS SOMEBODY WHO
	IS AGAINST YOUR POSITION, A WISHFUL THINKER, A FREE-WILL-JUNKIE.
	That is PROOF enough of your biases and prejudies.
	Uh, why is your chuckle stopped ?? What is that thing in your
	mouth ??? Your FOOT ????!!!!!

>> 	The above recommended book could be too much for Rich to handle.
>>	[OZ]
>
>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".
>	[ROSEN]
>
	As I said, you are really confused. I am *not* Carnes. (Nor have
	I ever been.. :-)) Irrespective of this, why bother to post "What
	we have learned today" ? This is not a grade school bulletin board.
	(Or at least, I do not think so..) Your unsolicited, and quite
	abnoxious attack on a book you have not even read is enough to stop
	me from discussing even its table of contents. (You see, I really
	do not want to tempt you to post the table of contents of your 	
	Unicorns book..) I really do not care whether you read it or not.
	It was a recommendation for those who are interested in reading
	about ideas supporting and/or opposing to their own. Take it or
	leave it.

	By the way, you seem to have *so much* to say in this topic.
	Why not enlighten the rest of the world ?? why don't you get out 
	of your closet? I am sure that the Philosophy community would be 
	*much* interested in what you have to say. Furthermore, you will 
	have to argue with those who choose Philosophy as their primary
	occupation, unlike many of us on the net.
>
>"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?"    Rich Rosen
>
	Naah.. Those chickens are just illusions. But, please tell
	me: Do they at all resemble Unicorns ???
-- 
Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti]
	You see things; and you say "WHY?"
	But I dream things that never were;
	and say "WHY NOT?"
			G. Bernard Shaw (Back to Methuselah)