oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (08/19/85)
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)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/27/85)
>>> 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.) [OZ] You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming that what I am talking about is just one person's opinion and not the result of years of scientific inquiry, when you claim I am talking about things "opposing to what *I* *know*". Let us be clear that those who seek to simply wash away the body of knowledge and ipso facto replace it with models of the universe that simply match what they LIKE (not that which has been examined and analyzed in the past) really are engaging in nothing but wishful thinking. > 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. Ah, the "credentials" argument. This book was written by a "well-known" philosopher, thus it must have merit. Tell me, have you read "The Dawn at Midnight" by Sidney Robbins? No? Why not? It's been on the housewives' best seller list for months! Are you dismissing it out of hand, by not even seeing fit to skim it? Oh, I see, perhaps you're waiting for some form of recommendation of the book, some insight to what goes on that might want to make you read it. Carnes provided no such insight, in fact, he excerpted passages that offered a rather NEGATIVE impression of Dennett, a man whose work I have liked in the past. In fact, he couldn't even recommend the book in his own words, he had to excerpt from it. That's fine if we're talking about fiction and you want to provide an example of the author's prose style, but not fine if you're talking about a book in which you're supposed to have LEARNED something. > 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. I'm not confusing YOU with anyone. My comments were in relation to Carnes' article, which is why I referred to "the author of the article". Your article made some insulting remarks about me, stemming from this discussion. At no point did I confuse you with Carnes, it was your article and its place in this discussion that I was answering. >>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. Where was there any reference made in the above paragraph to YOU, my friend? Why did you take it to mean that I *was* referring to you? Is this subjectivity in action? > Uh, why is your chuckle stopped ?? What is that thing in your > mouth ??? Your FOOT ????!!!!! No, it's my hand *covering* (not in) my mouth, because my chuckle has now turned to howls of laughter that would disturb others in the building if I didn't cover my mouth. First you assume repeatedly that I am talking about you (a paranoid delusion, perhaps---don't flatter yourself), then you make childish remarks about OTHER people having THEIR feet in THEIR mouths. I hope this explains why I am laughing. I apologize for doing so at your expense, but clearly you brought this upon yourself. >>> 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". > As I said, you are really confused. I am *not* Carnes. (Nor have > I ever been.. :-)) Would you like to explain where I accuse you of being Carnes? (Admittedly, a heinous slander of the worst type :-) Or mistake you for Carnes? Are you sure you have a grip on reality? I wasn't talking about you. Why are persistently assuming that I was? > Irrespective of this, why bother to post "What > we have learned today" ? Because, in this real world, that is the only way to transmit information from person to person. (I assume you are referring to my request that Carnes write about what he learned in his own words.) If he MUST excerpt rather than speak on his own, perhaps he is yet another example of the phenomenon (none too rare) I described above. And perhaps the book is not worth reading. If I took every single one line recommendation of a book to heart, I wouldn't have time to go to the bathroom for the rest of my life (unless that was where I did my reading :-) . Pardon me for asking for some substantive reason to read a book, and not doing so if none is forthcoming. > This is not a grade school bulletin board. > (Or at least, I do not think so..) This article of yours that I am responding to tells me otherwise. That perhaps you do 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. "Unsolicited"? Am I only allowed to speak on a topic once you have given me permission? "Abnoxious?" [sic] Is it obnoxious to show one's dislike for HumptyDumpty treatment of the English language to forcefit existing words into new meanings, without informing the speakers of the language of this change, just to "get" something to exist that you "want", whether it does or not? I apologize for being so "abnoxious" as to do this horrid thing. > 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. I'm sorry, was there a point to this paragraph? It must have slipped by me. Given that I already have an occupation, I'll stick to "enlightening" the net alone, since this is an avocational discussion forum which is all I would care for. If you think my ideas are that good, feel free to publish them. If you were being sarcastic, what is it you don't like about my ideas that prompts you to treat them with such contempt? -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr