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: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:54:31 -0500
Archived: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:17:48 -0400
Subject: Re: The van Gogh Fallacy

>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:56:52 +0100
>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.

>Looks like the fallacies are coming thick and fast!

>Although rationalism and empiricism are often (more through
>tradition than anything else) seen as contrasting schools of
>epistemology, there is in fact nothing at all contradictory
>about the term I have used. All rationalist thought must have
>assumptions - more formally, any logical system must have its
>axioms - and the empirical rationalist merely takes, wherever
>possible, empirical data as the support for, or source of, those

>The empirical rationalist typically requires logical consistency
>to be satisfied as the test for any argument, but does not
>extend this to an assertion that reason itself, independently of
>empirical data, is the sole, or primary, source of secure

>For what it's worth, and to lay my own cards on the table,
>empirical rationalism, as I have described it, is, as far as
>I've been able to work out, just about the only method of
>thought that is worth anything in dealing with this world...

Mmmm... love those assumptions, presumptions, codices,
prescriptions, mores, and conventional wisdoms.

But consider, Sir, you can't even get _that_ stuff to hop into a
test tube for you. So, with regard to your "worth anything": it's
a pretty narrow look when you measure all the space, time, and
surface area you can hide behind a grain of sand held at arm's
length, against 2000 years of logic... precipitating about 500
years (and that's generous) of Cartesian pursuits, eh? 'Pales
to insignificance' comes to mind.

I would have thought we'd been a lot farther. You?

AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com

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