Further shameless dissection performed on my part at Abd's expense. ;-) > >From OrionWorks > >I think it would be more accurate to state that what Pigliucci heard > >"over and over" is precisely what he chose to conclude as being the > >truth.
> From Abd > I don't call something merely repeated without examination a > "conclusion," though, in a sense, by writing it in the book he's > making an assumption. Poe-tay-toe... Poe-tau-toe. ... > "Conclusion" implies a reasoning process, and there is no sign of that. Oh, heavens me! You can't be serious! He is a philosopher at the City University of New York. Philosophers LOVE to draw conclusions on just about everything under the sun! That's what they do! As Jed pointed out, he has a blog at http://rationallyspeaking.org/ where he can expound on what appears to be one of his favorite philosophies: rationalism. I'm sure he gave CF some thought, and unfortunately concluded incorrectly. ... > I'm recommending that you not nail Pigliucci to the cross of > pseudoskepticism until you know he's had a chance to do something > better. I agree. Since I have not read his book I'm in no position to "nail" Pigliucci on any of his conclusions. Nevertheless, I hope that the rest of his rational conclusions are better informed than the two-pager view he wrote about concerning CF. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
