Re: MD Truth, conservatism & religion

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 17:22:21 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD Someone said..."

    Ant, Sam, et al,
    Ant you said ... "maybe Pons and Fleischmann (the cold fusionscientists at Utah) would have fared better if they had been in thepriesthood?"
    I say, or better still a better agent and LESS honesty.Priesthood maybe ? same thing :-)Please don't miss my other post on this. By talking about "Pons &Fleischmann were fraudsters" you are spreading (an almost certainlyfalse) myth.
    The point is the believability of their claims is at best independantof the truth of the claims and their virtues of character, and atworst inversely related, as witnessed by the number of people whobelieve they were wrong.
    Ian
    On 7/28/05, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:> Mark Steven Heyman stated July 27th 2005:> > You're trying to fabricate some connection between human character> and human intellect, so that you can connect character to truth. God> knows why : )> > Sam Norton replied July 27th 2005::> > The line of argument goes:> > 1. The perception of truth is a function of the honesty of the perceiver. In> other words, high Quality intellectual patterns are only static latched by> other intellectual patterns structured on a virtuous basis.> > Mark Steven Heyman commented July 27th 2005:> > This is the crucial premise, and its truth is not immediately obvious> to me.> > Ant McWatt comments:> > That is because you are not virtuous enough Mark, you heathen. :-)> > Mark Steven Heyman continued July 27th 2005:> > So, I think you need some evidence and argument to convince> me to accept P1. If you can, then I'll agree that truth is a> function of character.> > > Ant McWatt comments:> > I think the perception of trut
    h (certainly in science) is a result of the> useful results it has been observed to produce rather than a function of the> innate honesty of any perceiver. Useful results will soon make the serial> liar honest if they want to remain a scientist. This was noted a long time> before the cold fusion "discovery" by Bernard Dixon ("What is Science for?",> 1973, p.56) an investigative journalist and science graduate:> > "One crucial consequence of the fact that science is a social activity is> the legendary belief that it is an entirely amoral, intellectual game of> problem solving. On this view, scientists are... calculating machines,> whose work is determined solely by meter readings and what they can deduce> from them. The truth is very different. Far from being amoral and coldly> logical, science actually generates values. These include intellectual> humility, an unusually acute regard for honesty, respect for the> revolutionary and the apparent crank, and stress on the importance of> co-operation!
     .> These
     are not optional extras for the scientist; they arise directly out of> the pursuit of science. The degree to which a scientist lives by them will> be reflected in the health of the scientific community and in an individuals> scientist's long-term success in his trade. Even the most inveterate liar> must, if he is to succeed in science, cultivate a deep respect for the truth> when he is about his work."> > Ant McWatt comments:> > From the point of view of the inveterate liar, I wonder where the best place> is for them: the Church or the science laboratory? There's a phrase much> loved by a famous pragmatic philosopher of the 20th century that "religion> is the last refuge of the scoundrel". I think this phrase might have> arisen because it's lot easier to be a fraud and a liar in an environment> where fundamental beliefs are never really tested.> > To return to one of my favourite subjects concerning truth at the moment> (the other one is conservative brainwashing & propaganda on the "collective> consci
    ousness"), the above debate reminded me of the TV documentary (titled> "Messiah") concerning a British hypnotist (Derren Brown) who convinced five> leading proponents of various popular beliefs (such as Christianity) that he> was someone with special powers. Even though Brown certainly hasn't got any> special powers, not one of these proponents questioned whether he was> genuine. As Brown wondered, there are probably quite a few people in> religion saying that they have supernatural powers but are actually frauds> (even if they are gifted - as Brown is - in hypnotism or other trickery).> As Brown showed, the religious leaders that Brown met didn't seem too> sceptical of him which leaves the area relatively open to frauds and liars.> I'm sure Sam is a person of high integrity but maybe Pons and Fleischmann> (the cold fusion scientists at Utah) would have fared better if they had> been in the priesthood?> > Best wishes,> > Anthony.> > P.S. It's strange to think that charlatanism and fraud thrives to!
      the> de
    triment of the truth in two fields which often go hand-in-hand:> Fundamentalist "Christianity" and conservatism. Quite a coincidence – maybe> Platt can provide an explanation for why this is the case?> > > > > .> > _________________________________________________________________> Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!> http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters> > > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org> Mail Archives:> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html> >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 28 2005 - 17:34:07 BST