UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 15

Re: The van Gogh Fallacy

From: James Horak <jchorak7441.nul>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Archived: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:11:45 -0400
Subject: Re: The van Gogh Fallacy

>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:28:09 +0000
>Subject: Re: The van Gogh Fallacy

>From: Cathy Reason <CathyM.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:52:59 +0100
>Subject: Re: The van Gogh Fallacy

>>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:27:37 +0100
>>Subject: The van Gogh Fallacy [was: Olson's Final Statement]

>>The individuals named are all distinguished by an adherence to
>>empirical rationalism

>I have no wish to get involved in this particular discussion, but
>"empirical rationalism" is a contradiction in terms.



>As Gerald importantly notes, scientists do need to do a better
>job, but you don't throw out science for that reason. And I
>definitely get the impression that there are some people on this
>List who wouldn't recognize good science if it jumped up and bit
>them in the butt.

Words are tools and to be adequate with them one must have the
fineness to discern meanings between empirical, pragmatic,
rational, and objective. They are not interchangeable, not to
any 'science' anyway.

Casting apersions constantly, you actually show some pretty
clouded thinking yourself. That's another thing a real scientist
would be far more circumspect in... the ridicule of others.

Circumspect has no adequate synonym. Only a phrase will suffice,
thoughtful consideration. Hope it doesn't give you a headache.


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast