In what respect am I being screwed? This is an honest question; I can't
learn anything from your comment without an explanation.
><< When people on
>this list talk about faith, they're using Webster's first definition:
>"unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence".>>
>
>I think using the memetic model, we could perhaps agree that faith (the
>non-pejorative term) is a strongly held meme. Putting it in a pejorative
>light, we would add that the belief runs counter to scientific evidence.
A particular issue taken on faith may or may not contradict scientific
evidence, that was not the point. The point was that faith and the
scientific method are polar opposites.
>
><< The
>scientific method itself is antithetical to this.>>
>
>I think we all agree, if by that you mean that the scientific method is
>designed to remove beliefs that do not fit observable data. But jump back a
>level. How do we know that the scientific method works? It sure seems to...
>I mean I certainly have faith in it.
>
I answered that before... all that is necessary is the power of observation.
><< Trusting in the
>scientific method does not require faith, it simply requires the
>observation that the scientific method works, and works well.>>
>
>"Trusting in the power of prayer does not require faith, it simply requires
>the observation that prayer works, and works well. (Testimonials attached)."
>
Are you saying that you don't see a difference between anecdotes and
measurable differences (eg differences in life expectancy in the last 200
years because of medical science)?
><< Thinking out
>a hypothesis to it's conclusion does not require faith, assuming that the
>"thinking out" entails analyzing evidence.>>
>
>It does require a temporary assumption that the hypothesis is true. It's
>just a temporary version of taking a faith-based position.
>
If you're shooting arrows at a hypothesis, you are *not* taking a
faith-based position about it. Faith does not come into play until you
decide to accept it without evidence. Sorry to split hairs, but you're
throwing around the F-word inappropriately.
><<Happiness and the pursuit of
>truth are not mutually exclusive, and I don't recall hearing anyone (except
>possibly you) value one over the other.>>
>
>Wanna bet?
>
>See Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors. "If I had to choose between God
>and Truth, I'd choose God every time."
>
I meant anyone on this thread, not Woody Allen. Sheesh.
>
><< Perhaps I shouldn't judge your concepts on the logical
>fallacies that you've exhibited here.>>
>
>Rather, if you chewed on it until you realized they are NOT fallacies, you
>might get it.
If you chew long enough, you'll realize that 1 + 1 = 3. Chew a little bit
longer, and you may have an opportunity to make friends with the nice men
in the white coats.
>
><< OTOH, I can't escape the feeling
>that you're trying to start a religion,>>
>
>Well, yes, that is the stated purpose of this list.
>
I'm not talking about CoV, I'm talking about CoB (Church of Brodie)
>
>OK, you go and study miserable people and copy them and see where it gets
>you. My heroes are brilliant, joyful, creative men such as Richard Feynman,
>Abraham Lincoln, and Jeffrey Gitomer.
>
I'm not talking about emulating the personal lives of miserable people. My
point was that there are a lot of miserable people out there who are also
brilliant and creative. To discount their genius because they are unhappy
seems like the height of prejudice. It's also not in our best interest.
>
><<Since you found it appropriate to hypothesize about Nate Hall's
>personality
>by saying "you have a contrarian personality and an irrational addiction to
>analysis", I'll take a shot at your personality. I would guess that you
>have a messiah complex and a phenomenally monstrous ego. >>
>
>Actually I AM the messiah and I have NO ego. By the way I don't consider
>those comments on Nate's personality to be negative, just descriptive. I
>hope they were taken with the love they were intended. Nate's my buddy.
>
I hope you don't take my comments on your personality to be negative
either, just descriptive.