----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
I'm not sure I've ever seen you do that. The pleasant acknowledgment part, that is.
Look at a recent conversation where Gautam corrected me on the Civil War. He's far better educated than me in that field, so I immediately started asking questions that showed that I knew
Knew what? (Figuratively biting my tongue to not make a smart-aleck remark -- that's someone else's job around here right?)
(But I won't accept argument from authority any more than I would expect you to accept the same, so credentials alone won't necessarily mean much to me anyway.)
Well, let me digress on arguing from authority. The origional problem with arguing from authority was clear in places like sci.physics where crackpots would quote Einstein out of context to support some wacko idea. It is not saying that the consensus opinion of people who study a field is not relevant to a situation. All opinions are not created equal. For example, the statement that "human emmissions are now and will cause significant changes in the earth's temperature" is not a fact. It is a consensus opinion. It is not a proven theory. There are still too many unknowns.
Yet, I weigh this consensus opinion much heavier than arguements that it is nonsense. One thing that I think lay people
Trying to figure out how to ask for the rest of that thought -- do I just ask, or do I get really cute with possible other meanings of what *is* there? :)
Julia _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
