Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Lying for Columbine
Log In to post a reply

91 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Dog 3000
Dog 3000
4611 posts

Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 19:43
"twat! lets break it down. The sarcasm is humour, sorry if you cant handle the stuff."

Cunt, twat, fuck you . . . man that's some funny stuff! You are soooo hilarious!

"Analysis, thats the word that should be used, not thought. It's analysis we're dealing with here, not thought types."

Absolutely right. Or to borrow a term from the article, "heuristics." A process for reaching a conclusion.

"Right. Lets assume there are different types of thinking (there aren't, but lets just play along)."

The rest of this becomes kind of irrelevant if we're actually talking about "analysis" doesn't it? Would you say there is only one way to analyze a problem? Or that whatever analysis you use, you will reach the same conclusion? Or that all conclusions reached will be equally "wrong"?

Let's use specific examples. We'll compare "the scientific method" to "fundamentalist christian orthodoxy" in analysing the problem of the origin of the human species. You can figure out which one is "magical" and which one is "rational".

The Scientist gathers reems of data from observing the real world -- fossils, different sub-species from neighboring island econsystems, plate techtonics, etc. The Scientist concludes that the most rational explanation for the data is a gradual evolution of species over several billion years.

The Fundamentalist says "God made man in his image on the sixth day. Any evidence you might find that contradicts this explanation is the work of Satan the Great Deceiver."

Are these equivalent explanations?
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index