carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/10/85)
In article <322@pyuxn.UUCP> pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: >You make the Bible >sound like an issue of the ``Star'' or the ``World Weekly News,'' with >headlines about women giving birth in old age. But it is. The Scriptures were the National Enquirer of the ancient Hebrews: BURNING BUSH TALKS TO MOSES! SCIENTISTS BAFFLED AS BUSH BURNS YET IS NOT CONSUMED! UFO VISITS WILDERNESS, LEAVES BEHIND EDIBLE "MANNA"! LOOKED LIKE PILLAR OF FIRE, SAY AMAZED ISRAELITES! SECRET OF SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH REVEALED! SAMSON GROWS HAIR, DESTROYS BUILDING! SHOCKING SEX SCANDAL! DAVID HAS AFFAIR WITH MARRIED WOMAN, HIS PRIEST SAYS "THOU ART THE MAN!" MAN CURES LEPROSY WITH SUPERNATURAL POWERS! etc. etc. Richard Carnes
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/11/85)
>>You make the Bible >>sound like an issue of the ``Star'' or the ``World Weekly News,'' with >>headlines about women giving birth in old age. [ZIMMERMAN] > But it is. The Scriptures were the National Enquirer of the ancient Hebrews: > > BURNING BUSH TALKS TO MOSES! SCIENTISTS BAFFLED AS BUSH > BURNS YET IS NOT CONSUMED! [CARNES] Which scientists? :-) > UFO VISITS WILDERNESS, LEAVES BEHIND EDIBLE "MANNA"! LOOKED > LIKE PILLAR OF FIRE, SAY AMAZED ISRAELITES! > > SECRET OF SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH REVEALED! SAMSON GROWS HAIR, > DESTROYS BUILDING! > > SHOCKING SEX SCANDAL! DAVID HAS AFFAIR WITH MARRIED WOMAN, > HIS PRIEST SAYS "THOU ART THE MAN!" > > MAN CURES LEPROSY WITH SUPERNATURAL POWERS! ... ... ... I think this says it all. Will the great religion of 2000 years from now be "Enquirism", with the holy trilogy: The Star, The Globe, and the Weekly World News? "Believe in the printed word, and ye shall be saved. They couldn't print it if it weren't true. Amen." Or is there already a religion just like this in existence today? Or, on the third hand, do religionists in general believe what they read in the National Enquirer in much the same way that they believe other things? I doubt that all or even most do, they have more common sense than that. So why the difference? (Or am I wrong?) Might I recommend Hofstadter's "World Views in Collision: Skeptical Inquirer vs. National Enquirer", which can be found in his new book "Metamagical Themas" (and also in his column of the same name in the Feb. 1982 issue of Scientific American)? In it, he sheds some light on what factual reliability might be: is the National Enquirer's sensationalist tone alone evidence of its shoddiness, or could the somber serious mood of the Skeptical Inquirer be a coverup for ITS shoddiness? Is the use of terms like "SCIENTISTS BAFFLED" designed to attempt to lend both credibiility ("Scientists looked at this and were baffled!") ot INcredibility (just read the tone of the rest of the headline). How do we tell what's what? What is "common sense" and how is it layered upon itself (and how "meta-common-sense" is applied to know how to apply common sense) to form what we now know as the body of scientific knowledge? Hofstadter brings up Velikovsky a bit as an example, in discussing a "sister" organization to CSICOP (the organization that publishes Skeptical Inquirer) that split from the original organization, as well as what being "too open minded" might mean: how far do you go to bend over backwards to give "the benefit of the doubt" to a wishful thinking notion and its proponents before not waiting anymore to hear some substantive support for it? (That sister organization, CSAR, apparently tries to be "non-judgmental" (relativist) while CSICOP & the Skeptical Inquirer tend to be "more firmly opposed to nonsense".) The essay should be required reading for anyone who would presume the veracity of wishful thinking beliefs (immediately followed by a viewing of "Monty Python's Life of Brian"). (What's that? You won't read it based on my recommendation alone? Good. That's why I included a summary of the substance of the essay and the sorts of things I got out of it, in my own words. I hope it offers a good picture of what it's all about, and why it's relevant. I hope you understand, Richard.) -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/12/85)
> I think this says it all. Will the great religion of 2000 years from now > be "Enquirism", with the holy trilogy: The Star, The Globe, and the Weekly > World News? "Believe in the printed word, and ye shall be saved. They > couldn't print it if it weren't true. Amen." Or is there already a religion They certainly are inspired works! :-) Padraig Houlahan.
oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (09/12/85)
In article <1666@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >Might I recommend Hofstadter's "World Views in Collision: Skeptical Inquirer >vs. National Enquirer", which can be found in his new book "Metamagical Themas" >(and also in his column of the same name in the Feb. 1982 issue of Scientific >American)? ... >The essay should be required reading for anyone who would presume the veracity >of wishful thinking beliefs (immediately followed by a viewing of "Monty >Python's Life of Brian"). > I second the motion. The essay is indeed very good, and should be made into a required reading in highschools !! (That way, we could save a lot of young minds..) Oz -- 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)