--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > BTW, sorry if I am getting names mixed up, but are you the one who > > > holds that the only things that are true are from peer reviewed > > > journals? > > > > > > All I have ever said is that peer-review is the way that humans in > > the 21st century have found to agree on things. If you have a better > > way to for humans to agree in things then please let the world know > > of it. > > (I guess the latter sentence is sarchasm.) +++++ Peer,schmeer- the majority is not always right-witness archaeology where nonconforming new evidence sometimes gets thrown out. and, the discoverer discredited. > > > I hold that peer reviewed journals (of distinction) are an excellent > process to establish truth claims and/or to refine models and working > hypotheses as to how the world works. I think in some matters, less > formal and rigorous means are also possible means for ways humans can > agree on things -- each methodology adapted to the needs of its > domain: courts, journalism, heuristics for problem solving in various > fields, development of world views from personal experience, even > things such as schools of art and literature criticism -- in which > various standards can be agreed upon by many as how to value and > interpret various works. > > > > <<please point to the the consensus of all scholars in peer > > reviewed journals to support your presentation of the truth.>>> > > > Which particular point is that you wish such peer-review on (I made > > many points), > > > "Tantra is Vedic." > > [Buddhism is vedic.] > "you can add Buddhism to that > list also." [of things that are Vedic] > > Its my understanding, though I am not making a truth claim -- simply > seeking clarification -- that Shankra (whom I assume most would hold, > possibly amongst other things, as an upholder of the Vedas) viewed > Buddhism as anti-vedic and debated many on the topic, converting many > to his view -- if legends are true. Further its my understanding that > Buddhism denounces some if not many vedic tenets. Again, if my > understanding is incorrect, I am eager to be corrected. > > If my understanding is generally correct, then it seems inconsistent > to make a strong truth claim -- which you appear to be doing -- that > Buddhism is Vedic. If you are not making a truth claim, and this is > only your personal opinion -- based on your studies -- well then all > good and fine. > > However, if it is a truth claim, and given that you hold, as do I, the > value of peer reviewed journals, I am simply asking for support for > your claims in such journals. > > Two levels of support for your claims are possible: i) some articles > that support such claims but which are countered by a number of > others, or ii) a general consensus among most scholars that your claim > is the primary currently accepted view. If you are making a strong > truth claim, which at times you appear do -- or perhaps you just have > an emphatic style of writing -- then it is the latter concensus that I > would hope you could provide. > > > >and will you present every point you make in the same > > manner.? > > I am not making truth claims, simply making inquiries and stating some > general opinions -- which I recognize may be incoirrect. I am not > making points that need bolstering with peer reviewed journal articles > to establish them as credible.
To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
