(urth) Mirror Image Freedom

[Gerry Quinn]

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>
>>Gerry Quinn- That must be the explanation.  This "alpha male snarling" 
>>(i.e. expressions
>>of doubt regarding your theories) couldn't possibly be simply an 
>>indication that some people
>>find your ideas unconvincing, now, could it?
>
> Gerry I don't find your posts the best example of alpha dog snarling 
> around here in the past 6
> years but if the shoe fits..
>
> You have strongly asserted that all ideas must be subjected to rigorous 
> testing and evaluation.

Yes.

> And you have presented yourself as the perfect testor and evaluator, a 
> dispassionate, ethereal
> dispenser of objective, rational, logical evaluation.

When have I ever presented myself as such?  I have indicated that it is 
something we should aspire to; I have never stated or implied that I embody 
it.

> One who is able to correctly assess the
> likelihood, the mathematical probability of correctness of all ideas 
> presented here.

I would like to think that my assessments are good, but I make no special 
claim to success.  In particular, I make no special claim to authority in 
this regard.  My arguments in favour of are against a particular idea or 
theory should stand on their own merits, just like yours or anyone else's.

> I myself, do not believe that ideas and the testing of ideas can be 
> somehow divorced from
> the humanity of the thinker and evaluator. Surely if ideas must be 
> rigorously tested, so must the
> evaluator be tested, yes?

It rather depends on the nature of the evaluation.  If A presents a theory 
and B stamps it 'REJECTED' without explanation, we must certainly take into 
account or views of B if we are paying heed to the rejection.  But if B lays 
out a strong and logical case for rejection, B's character and motives of 
less import.  Indeed, we may suspect that A's protests in this regard may 
reflect more on A than on B.

> You have undergone an examination recently. I am pleased to report you 
> seem fully human to me. Nothing
> to be ashamed of there IMHO. You have been proven to not be a computer 
> program. You are driven by factors
> other than pure dispassionate intellect. But perhaps the time has come to 
> stop woofin'.
>
> or in other words...
>
> You may not always be right but I ain't always wrong ;- ).

I will continue to express my views regarding theories you or others may 
present here, just as I hope others will express their views regarding mine. 
In all cases I would expect such views and theories to be supported or 
challenged by evidence (principally textual) rather than by special pleading 
and innuendo.

- Gerry Quinn