Worldview, was SCD's fruit juice gelatin

[Guest guest]

>> A lot of this discussion (and the discussion that follows) is what I call the

>> " attack your opponent " kind of discussion, which is why I don't talk about

>> SCD much (esp. on this list). It's like arguing Creationism or Vegetarianism

or

>> Libertarianism or when life begins ...

>

>While I have NO desire to enter into this discussion between you and

> (although I always pick up some interesting tidbits whenever you

>two go at it) I'm not sure I am following your point above.

>

>While ad hominem (i.e. against the person) arguments are not sound, it

>doesn't follow (i.e. non sequitor) that arguing creationism or

>vegetarianism or libertarianism or when life begins...is necessarily

>part and parcel of " attack your opponent " which you seem to be

>suggesting above.

The entire quote was:

" It's like arguing Creationism or Vegetarianism or

Libertarianism or when life begins ... the arguments on both sides are largely

based on the person's world view. My world view is VERY different from Elaine's,

and probably from yours, and I know that because I've read a lot of her work

(and from her adherents). "

I.e. I didn't say he was any of those things, just that the arguments on BOTH

SIDES

are very much based on the person's world view. Gottschall's

world view is very different from mine. That doesn't imply Gottschall

is a vegetarian, libertarian, or Creationist, nor that I am any of those

things. Those are just some examples of debates

on which people tend to take extremely opposite views,

because they see the world so extremely differently.

All arguments are based on worldviews, including *pragmatic*

>arguments. The philosophical worldview of pragmatism which you hold

>has been largely discredited for many and varied reasons, but it is a

>*worldview* with all its *own set of assumptions*, which is not

>readily clear for most folks at the popular level, who like to boil it

>down to " whatever works " which is so loaded that it is basically

>untenable but that is another discussion.

Actually I could reply that modern science is, in fact, based

on " whatever works " (and can be PROVEN to work), and science

has hardly been discredited. At least our whole way of life

including this computer is a result of science, which for all it's mistakes

still has resulted in this computer existing. So I hardly believe

pragmatism has been discredited. Perhaps in philisophical

circles being a pragmatist is a bad thing: in computer circles

it works just fine. Actually in the computer arena I can't

even think of an *alternative* to pragmatism. I suppose

I could burn a candle on either side of the monitor and

see if that appeases the programming gods ... :-)

And sure, pragmatism is a worldview. Maybe " paradigm " would

be a better word. All I was trying to get at is that when

people see things so differently, you can't even argue

from the same set of facts. For instance, two scientists

can argue about whether a type of bone belongs to a meat

eating dino or a herbavore. A Creationist can't get into

that argument because the whole idea of ancient dinos is

bogus. Ditto, Baptists and Methodists can argue about types

of baptism, but a Shinto can't get into the argument at all.

Saying that doesn't imply Baptists are better than Shintos

or vice versa.

And I'm not trying to get into a strict discussion of what

a " pragmatist " is, esp. not in philisophical/religious circles!

" Whatever works " is what I came up with after a long

personal journey of trying to do what OTHER people

told me would work and failing to accomplish what

they told me would work. So I went back to

" experiment! " . That's why I like Price. He didn't accept

what other people were saying ... he went out, took

pictures, did experiments.

>Anyway, worldviews can be discussed, and very fruitfully, without

>resorting to attacking your opponent. I think the implication of your

>statement suggesting otherwise is inaccurate.But maybe I am misreading

>your statements.

I was implying that was attacking *me* ... maybe that was only

my own interpretation:

>OK, now I understand that you not only haven't read the book or talked with

>Elaine, you've ignored every & ##$**#* thing I've ever said on the subject,

>so in the future I'm going to write a little

>Heidi-doesn't-know-what-in-god's-name-she's-talking-about FAQ and post it

>whenever you talk about the SCD. This is beyond absurd.

Now, if he said something like " I really feel like you have misinterpreted

my position because ... " then I guess I would not feel attacked. However,

when I bring up my ideas on this topic, seems to get irritated (unless

I'm misinterpreting the above) which leads me to the conclusion that

our positions are just too opposite to be discussed fruitfully. Now perhaps

they COULD be discussed in some theoretical world with some theoretical people,

but it isn't going to happen in this here and now. Discussions like the

above are not fun for me, nor for anyone else I would guess.

>Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying here but I'm not sure

>the term worldview is proper in this context. This strikes me as an

>intramural debate between people who essentially share the same

>worldview but differ on specific points of knowledge. In other words

>this is a difference in understanding, not caused by differing

>worldviews, but rather different understandings of the particular data

>points in question. This may be a result of faulty logic, undue

>loyalty to a particular person, misunderstanding of actual positions,

>frustration with past interactions, or a host of other things, but

>none of that constitutes a difference in worldviews.

That's a very philosophically technical kind of discussion, I think. But

I really can't say I have much in common with Gottschall when I

read her writings ... she really IS coming from a different " space " than

I do, whatever you want to call it. I could get into why I think that

in more depth, but I really, really don't want to offend people

as much as my mentioning anything about that topic seems to do.

>

Heidi