Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bcsaic.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp From: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: stupid reply Message-ID: <358@bcsaic.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 12:55:40 EST Article-I.D.: bcsaic.358 Posted: Mon Nov 4 12:55:40 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 09:00:19 EST References: <447@imsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle Lines: 56 Keywords: small Flame Summary: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Notice: a bit of a long flame -- avoid if you wish. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In article <447@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >This is from Chas Forsythe's latest: > > >>I think the question was asked wrong, Ted. When mythology says, vaguely, >>"Kronos ruled the heavens" why does that mean that the Earth orbited it? >>Even so, your answer is really stupid. I think you're getting edgy. > > > > Scene at a bar, from The Wizard of Id > >Bung (the wino): "What you have to say makes perfect sense to me." > >Other paying customer: "In that case, let me rephrase it...." > > > My answer sounds stupid to you Charles? Thank you, that's kind of a >relief. I guess I won't have to rephrase it or anything like that after >all. > Dear Ted, Although I don't agree with how Charles stated his objections, I still must agree with the content. My biggest objections to the postings I've read, is that the "theory" is only vaguely formulated, has a questionable empirical base, and leaves little interest for those reading it to test it. Without the tests, it can't be anything but speculation -- which is useless in these discussions. The theory doesn't tie in with the evidence, nor does it explain any current gray areas of knowledge in the field (a major hallmark of a viable theory) and thereby present a clear re-evaluation of an overwhelming ammount the current interpretations. Unfortunately, I can only point this out, I don't expect my evaluation to be believed, for it is incrediable the stubborn will of people to maintain a belief in something *even when they know better*!! (For a good example of this I suggest reading a study by Barry Singer and Victor A. Benassi of the Department of Psychology C.S.U. at Long Beach .Their study was on the stubborness of people to beleive the contradictory over reality. The best report is in the Winter 1980/81 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer,under the title of "Fooling some of the people all of the time." A synopsis of their study, and another at Southern Illinois University by Scott Morris, is in Douglas Hofstader's Metamagical Themas - section 2,"Worlds in Collision",pp.91-114.) Well enough of this minor flame. I just wanted to state in a less derogatory way my objections to Ted's postings. P.M.Pincha-Wagener A P.M.Pincha-Wagener