NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
--Larry Wall in perl.c from the perl source code
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Careful definition of 'closed' required (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps it's better to think carefully about what it means to be closed minded about something, in this case astrology. You can take the position that yes, there is something we and armies of scientists don't know about and astrology is never the less true, or you can take the position that no, there are no grounds to the claims that astrology makes and it is not.
Of course, you then need to ask which of those two positions is closed minded? Is it more open minded to believe something to be true, or to
Re:Careful definition of 'closed' required (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope you don't take this personally. I don't mean it that way!
quidity wrote:
As a rule of thumb, I rarely, if ever, take either position when I encounter a new subject. I start asking a question: "does a particular belief make testable assertions?" In th
Re:Careful definition of 'closed' required (Score:1)
I'd rather you didn't, myself. Just an opinion.
A feedback loop exists within many of these people that merely reinforces whatever they happen to believe. Nothing escapes their framework, and nothing could possibly contradict it. Everything is because of X, or X's effects.
So you say, "But what effect is it that causes this? How does it work? How can X cause this?"
And internally they go, "X told me to expect doubting people today!" whether it did or not, and believe the X even more strongly.
It's not as though the feedback loops can't be broken; it's just that, for a human being acclimated to a belief-loop, it's usually easier to not break the loop.
------------------------------
You are what you think.
Reply to This
Parent