Yes - realize "wrong" was not used and it is 100% my story/opinion that I
inferred this. (01)
;-) (02)
The statement was made about " the ability to think critically is lost"
which is not necessarily factual. (03)
D (04)
On 8/9/07 11:03 AM, "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (05)
> Duane,
>
> While Pat didn't use the word "wrong" I'm not sure anyone one else did either.
> Here is what the tread said:
>
> ( think it was Chris that said;)
>>> Fair enough, though I think that over time the beliefs in question
>>> *do* become psychologically unshakeable, as the ability to think
>>> critically is lost and one's worldview becomes fixed and ossified.
>>> At that point the marginalization or destruction of "nonbelievers" is
>>> no longer rooted in a fear of being wrong but rather in a sort of
>>> hardwired irrationality.
>
> Pat replied
>> I agree, ....
>
> I added, in agreement:
>
>> Almost makes one believe in the idea of modular, independent intelligence
>> which is not easily reached by our general, rational ability which is built
>> on
>> top of these earlier ones (in an evolutionary sense).
>
> I hope this was careful enough. :-)
>
> Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
> Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP)
> http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/socop
> Executive Secretariat
> Semantic Technology
> EM&I
> Suite 350 455 Spring park Place
> Herndon VA 20170
> 703-742-0585
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane Nickull
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:55 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Model or Reality
>
> As much as I personally disagree with the concept of a fatwah, it is not
> wrong. "Wrong" is just an opinion and not necessarily fact unless you
> define wrong as some magical consensus of society. Until that is done, it
> is all just opinion, story, etc. Of course in our society and this context
> I don't think anyone would agree that the concept of fatwah against Mr.
> Rushdie is "good", but it helps to be able to differentiate fact from story.
>
> "The person has lost their ability to think critically" = someone's opinion,
> not fact. How do you know he has not thought about this critically and come
> to that conclusion based on his reality?
>
> Pat was very careful to avoid stating the person was full of bunk. He just
> stated what the person believed.
>
> Duane
> (No flames please. I am not condoning violence etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/9/07 10:43 AM, "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Pat provides a example of a person losing the ability to think critically as
>> their worldview becomes fixed and ossified ("I once met an apparently
>> reasonable, rational, intelligent western
>> academic who had adopted Islam as an adult and
>> who told me, as though it was the most natural
>> thing in the world, kind of obvious really, that
>> given the chance he would kill Salman Rushdie,
>> because there was a fatwah on his head. ...")
>>
>> Almost makes one believe in the idea of modular, independent intelligence
>> which is not easily reached by our general, rational ability which is built
>> on
>> top of these earlier ones (in an evolutionary sense).
>>
>> Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
>> Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP)
>> http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/socop
>> Executive Secretariat
>> Semantic Technology
>> EM&I
>> Suite 350 455 Spring park Place
>> Herndon VA 20170
>> 703-742-0585
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
>> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:31 PM
>> To: Christopher Menzel
>> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Model or Reality
>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote:
>>>> I have known a few "true believers" who grew to question beliefs they
>>>> had once considered unshakeable. In retrospect, they agreed that if
>>>> their beliefs had really been all that unshakeable, they wouldn't
>>>> have felt such a need to stamp out the opposition.
>>>>
>>>> It is those whose beliefs are NOT unshakeable, but who WANT them to
>>>> be unshakeable because they are afraid of having their worldview
>>>> turned upside down, who have a psychological need to marginalize or
>>>> destroy those who don't agree with them.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, though I think that over time the beliefs in question
>>> *do* become psychologically unshakeable, as the ability to think
>>> critically is lost and one's worldview becomes fixed and ossified.
>>> At that point the marginalization or destruction of "nonbelievers" is
>>> no longer rooted in a fear of being wrong but rather in a sort of
>>> hardwired irrationality.
>>
>> I agree, though I don't think it necessarily
>> takes very long. I once met an apparently
>> reasonable, rational, intelligent western
>> academic who had adopted Islam as an adult and
>> who told me, as though it was the most natural
>> thing in the world, kind of obvious really, that
>> given the chance he would kill Salman Rushdie,
>> because there was a fatwah on his head. Which
>> meant that to kill him was God's will and any
>> Muslim's holy duty. He was quite calm about it,
>> but he wasn't joking. Then we went on talking
>> about computer science and had lunch. So although
>> true believers can lose their faith, the reverse
>> can also happen.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>>
>>> -chris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (06)
--
**********************************************************************
"Speaking only for myself"
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
MAX 2007 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/07/adobe-max-2007.html
********************************************************************** (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|