>Level-3 strikes me as nothing but holding "Double-Think" as a
virtue... as if that isn't the >quickest way to intellectual death!
I've just read a post from Nathan Russell expounding on the
differences between hypothesis and conjectures: i.e. Fermat's Theorem is
provable whereas the assertion that the Buffalo Bills are the world's
greatest American Football team is not. Taking that a bit further lets
look at the classic example of double think: Euclidean vs. Non-Euclidean
geometries. It all depends on what you pick as your initial set of starting
axioms ... sometimes it's useful to assume parallel lines meet, sometimes
it's not. Similarly, to constantly harp that there is no god in a foxhole
might get you expelled from said hole in the middle of a fire fight...."Here
you go you atheist bastard, let probability and electron shells cover your
ass" .... I believe that Brodie's point is that when you build a house you
want to use Euclidean geometry and when you build a cosmology you may wish
to consider Non-Euclidean geometry.
>> so
>> after a fight, two sides usually come out with even stronger
>> beliefs. so, don't fight, but agree to the other side.
>Another alternative is to debate THE OTHER SIDE. You'd be
surprised how
>easy it is, once you have been assigned to it... Although only one
side is
>right (true), it always helps to have a through understanding of
BOTH sides
>before making a decision.
Really? Which is moving the wind or the flag blowing in the wind?
ERiC