(urth) Pike's ghost

[António Pedro Marques]

James Wynn wrote (29-11-2011 16:12):
> On 11/28/2011 6:37 PM, António Marques wrote:
>>>> This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like
>>>> a duck and quacks like a duck.
>>>
>>> If it is you own theory, it always quacks.
>>
>> If this really is you talking, James, and the odds are it is, I'm
>> beginning to understand you a lot better.
>
> It is a logical error that people fall into. They argue from authority based
> on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". This
> liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is "most likely
> true".

Why do you believe enlightenment came to Patera Silk in the ball court?

> They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the default position. MY
> description of events (whoever the pronoun refers to) is always the one that
> is obviously true because it is so obviously true to me. Maybe it is
> obviously true because I read irony into the event or because I rigorously
> choose not to in this case. Maybe I am remembering a /single/ statement by
> someone that provoked me when I read it or maybe I see the author following
> a genre of literature or historical philosophy that I happen to be very
> familiar with.
>
> I can handle kooky theories. I can ignore them or explore them until I have
> built a case (in my own mind) that the obstacles against the theory are just
> to great (until more and contravening information is available). What I'm
> really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want to take the opposite
> position just to see how it plays out. I think the smug aren't really
> thinking because they have afforded themselves the right not to.

And what in your view constitutes smugness?