--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > bravo! > > I don't think I really understand what your "bravo" statement refers > to? Is it out of line to ask a person making claims to provide some > evidence?
the deal with JohnR's response was that he was refusing to take B. up on his challenge because B. was already prejudiced with regards to the results, so there was no point in proving the integrity of Jyotish to him. it was a matter of B.'s perceived integrity here. and also the sensitivity of the practice that JohnR brought up. i personally don't have an interest in Jyotish, so whether or not it is valid is of no practical value to me. i said bravo! because i thought JohnR's response to B. was more on the mark than an attempt to prove the value of Jyotish to a critic for their entertainment. The whole idea that Joitish is a "science" but is not for > people with a bias against it is worthy of challenge IMO. if it interests you, sure. it doesn't interest me. i put it on par with any astrological system- just one more toy in the toy chest. The use of > the term "science" is being used to influence credibility in the > reader. It implies that the methods of science are being employed. > And those methods are specifically designed to limit the influence of > bias as a factor. > > Of course John is free to ignore such requests, but I don't understand > why his response is "bravo!" worthy. > > Let's say he was representing a purely subjective psychic perspective. > He had a vision of this guy's health complaint and stated an opinion. > In my worldview that is not making a scientific claim, so it isn't > really worth testing or challenging. We all use our subjective > intuition from our experience. I lost a dear friend to this > condition, so I am very biased in my opinion towards quick aggressive > treatment. My opinion is really not worth much and I don't get to ride > on the enhanced credibility of the term "science" if I make my opinion > known. > > When the term "science" is used, it is for its spin effect of > requesting more credibility than if he said "I had a dream", or "this > is my personal opinion shaped by my limited experiences". What is > wrong with using some of the methods of the involked "science" to > determine if it is more than just a subjective guess? > > I think skepticism gets an unjustified bad name. not with me-- skeptical first is a good common sense approach. Don't we care about > that is true? All of us make personal choices about what we are going > to apply skepticism to. No one here believes everything out there > presented as true. We are all both skeptics and believers in our lives. > > I don't get what the "bravo!" was for in this case. > >
