David Harriman's Book

[Selene]

OK She's done!

Edited September 17, 2010 by Selene

[Robert Campbell]

The argument that I have the most problem with is Blanshard's claim that the proposition "Napoleon lost at Waterloo" has a different meaning when stated by a boy who is just learning history than it does when that boy becomes a knowledgeable historian. I don't agree with this at all. The understanding of the historian will be richer and deeper than that of the boy, but the proposition means the same thing in both cases.

George,

What I had in mind was a conception of meaning like Jean Piaget's, for whom the cognitive structures that the historian could bring to bear on Napoleon and Waterloo would be much richer and more powerful than the schoolboy's.

But from a Randian perspective, where meaning is (roughly) reference or denotation, the meaning of the proposition has not changed on account of the knower's acquisition of a broader and deeper understanding.

Nor is it correct to say that the proposition when stated by the historian is more true than when stated by the boy. The historian will have better reasons to believe in the truth of the proposition, so he will have more justification to accept it, but the proposition is equally true when stated by the boy. (One of the chief objections to the "degrees of truth" doctrine is that it violates the Law of the Excluded Middle. Blanshard deals with this objection, but not very satisfactorily.)

I'm all with you on this part. I see that A. C. Ewing's book is out of print, but will make an effort to get my mitts on it.

Robert Campbell

[Xray]

Here is the original quote from Bohr:

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

http://www.firstscience.com/home/poems-and-quotes/quotes/niels-bohr-quote_2435.html

"What we can say" is the key phrase. One could express it even more radically as 'What we can say about what we call reality....'

You have not been nearly radical enough. You should say: What-we-call "we" can what-we-call "say" about what-we-call "call" about what-we-call "reality."

You are quite the philosopher.

Why are you surprised at philosophical issues being raised here? This is a philosophy forum after all. You would not be surprised to find books in a library either, would you?

What shall we discuss next -- whether or not you exist?

I suggest we first discuss the basic question I asked you on the Logical Leap thread, and to which you have nor replied yet:

The philosophical question arising from that is: Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by us humans, who are themselves elements of the system and therefore can't be in the position of an "outside" observer?

What are your thoughts on that, George?

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8903&pid=107371&st=1440entry107371

Time and again you have pointed out the importance of philosophy, George. Now the time has come to demonstrate here how a philosopher (you called yourself one) tackles this issue.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Why are you surprised at philosophical issues being raised here? This is a philosophy forum after all. You would not be surprised to find books in a library either, would you?

I am interested in discussing philosophical issues insofar as the other person has given some serious thought to them. You haven't. Your visits to the land of philosophy are nothing more than chaotic hit-and-run raids.

Ghs

[Selene]

Edited September 17, 2010 by Selene

[Xray]

I am interested in discussing philosophical issues insofar as the other person has given some serious thought to them. You haven't. Your visits to the land of philosophy are nothing more than chaotic hit-and-run raids.

Ghs

It can hardly be missed that you use polemic to evade answering one of THE fundamental philosophical questions, to repeat:

Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by us humans, who are themselves elements of the system and therefore can't be in the position of an "outside" observer?

For you know it leads right into the heart of an issue you don't want to touch.

You are very quick in judging that this or that scientist speaks philosopical 'nonsense'. But even if you don't happen to like the philosophical weltanschauung or speculations of certain scientists, it does not affect their scientific findings as such.

But in case a philosopher speaks scientific 'nonsense' in that his/her philosophy rests on premises contradicted by scientific findings, it can take the whole philosophy down the drain. You yourself pointed this out on another thread.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

It can hardly be missed that you use polemic to evade answering one of THE fundamental philosophical questions, to repeat:

Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by us humans, who are themselves elements of the system and therefore can't be in the position of an "outside" observer?

Yes. I have now answered your confusing, poorly formulated question. You would be well-advised to give more thought to how you frame questions in the future.

You are very quick in judging that this or that scientist speaks philosopical 'nonsense'. But even if you don't happen to like the philosophical weltanschauung or speculations of certain scientists, it does not affect their scientific findings as such.

This has been my point all along. I have never questioned "scientific findings." I have insisted that we should distinguish philosophical interpretations of the findings from the findings themselves, e.g., the result of a particular experiment. That's the only point I have attempted to make. The fact that a given physicist may speak nonsense when interpreting his results does not affect the scientific value of those results. Bohr was a great physicist and a crappy philosopher.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

It can hardly be missed that you use polemic to evade answering one of THE fundamental philosophical questions, to repeat:

Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by us humans, who are themselves elements of the system and therefore can't be in the position of an "outside" observer?

For you know it leads right into the heart of an issue you don't want to touch.

A negative answer is a contradiction for it posits an objective truth in itself. If a scientist doing science can't find any objective truth anywhere ever he cannot even pretend to be doing science and if he's deludedly going through the motions he's an involved fool along with everyone else doing everything else. But technology works and we can avoid bumping into things by and large though not always. Life is designed to fit reality and deal with it and it's silly to pretend our brains are beyond objectively identifying it even when it gets kind of tough to out do a Newton or an Einstein. The whole thrust of your approach to epistemology and metaphysics is to leave yourself and your ideas including your moral ideas as the last man standing without even identifying or fighting for them as a nihilistic default, but the joke's on you for the more you succeed the more the barbarians will challenge the gates of Vienna where your disarmed pupils will cower awaiting their inevitable slaughter. You should live that long.

--Brant

[Selene]

[George H. Smith]

It can hardly be missed that you use polemic to evade answering one of THE fundamental philosophical questions, to repeat:

Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by us humans, who are themselves elements of the system and therefore can't be in the position of an "outside" observer?

For you know it leads right into the heart of an issue you don't want to touch.

A negative answer is a contradiction for it posits an objective truth in itself. If a scientist doing science can't find any objective truth anywhere ever he cannot even pretend to be doing science and if he's deludedly going through the motions he's an involved fool along with everyone else doing everything else. But technology works and we can avoid bumping into things by and large though not always. Life is designed to fit reality and deal with it and it's silly to pretend our brains are beyond objectively identifying it even when it gets kind of tough to out do a Newton or an Einstein. The whole thrust of your approach to epistemology and metaphysics is to leave yourself and your ideas including your moral ideas as the last man standing without even identifying or fighting for them as a nihilistic default, but the joke's on you for the more you succeed the more the barbarians will challenge the gates of Vienna where your disarmed pupils will cower awaiting their inevitable slaughter. You should live that long.

--Brant

Another problem with Xray's question is that it borders on incoherence. She refers to humans as being "elements of the system." And if you look at the first part of the question, you will see that the system to which she refers is "objective reality."

So Xray's question boils down to this: Given that we humans are part of objective reality, how can we know objective reality? Huh? Is it possible to know objective reality only if we are not part of objective reality? What is the alternative? A non-objective reality? An objective non-reality?

There are a number of fundamental questions in philosophy, but I have never heard this one before.

Ghs

[sjw]

For me and, I feel safe in saying, for Bob, not all differences are inconsistencies. But some differences are inconsistencies. Those which Bob has detailed between Newton's and Einstein's theories are inconsistencies. Therefore, I'm mystified by your claim that the theories can differ in those respects and still be consistent.

HOW???

Ellen

I don't have a name for the aspect of my epistemological theory that makes me say that. Objectivists call it a "contextual" view of knowledge, I suppose I could call it a "perspectivist" view of knowledge. Take a cylinder. From one side it looks like a circle. From another a rectangle. From every possible perspective, it's a cylinder. All perspectives are true knowledge about the cylinder. One is obviously superior, and we prefer it -- when we can get it. Often we cannot. We have to be satisfied with the perspectives we have.

Newton only had a certain range of perspectives available to him. He saw a "circle." Indeed, it was, and from that perspective (when we limit the speed toward zero) it still is. The relativistic perspective (I actually do not like relativity theory, I think an aether theory must be true, but often use the word "relativity" to refer to the undisputed effects that happen at high speeds) concerns what happens at high speeds. Adding that perspective doesn't conflict with the earlier one -- which is why when the velocity approaches zero it reduces the system to Newtonian mechanics.

I don't think we even now have all the possible perspectives, and as I said before, I think we can possibly keep blasting things into smaller and smaller parts, potentially leading to an unlimited number of finer-grained perspectives. We can never exert a highest pressure, or a highest magnification, or a highest speed. Some perspectives are beyond our experimental reach. We have to be satisfied with the perspectives we can reach, and deal with those as rationally as possible.

Shayne

So Bob and Ellen, I'm just curious, did you stop objecting because you agree with me, or for some other reason?

Shayne

[Selene]

It can hardly be missed that you use polemic to evade answering one of THE fundamental philosophical questions, to repeat:

Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by us humans, who are themselves elements of the system and therefore can't be in the position of an "outside" observer?

For you know it leads right into the heart of an issue you don't want to touch.

A negative answer is a contradiction for it posits an objective truth in itself. If a scientist doing science can't find any objective truth anywhere ever he cannot even pretend to be doing science and if he's deludedly going through the motions he's an involved fool along with everyone else doing everything else. But technology works and we can avoid bumping into things by and large though not always. Life is designed to fit reality and deal with it and it's silly to pretend our brains are beyond objectively identifying it even when it gets kind of tough to out do a Newton or an Einstein. The whole thrust of your approach to epistemology and metaphysics is to leave yourself and your ideas including your moral ideas as the last man standing without even identifying or fighting for them as a nihilistic default, but the joke's on you for the more you succeed the more the barbarians will challenge the gates of Vienna where your disarmed pupils will cower awaiting their inevitable slaughter. You should live that long.

--Brant

Another problem with Xray's question is that it borders on incoherence. She refers to humans as being "elements of the system." And if you look at the first part of the question, you will see that the system to which she refers is "objective reality."

So Xray's question boils down to this: Given that we humans are part of objective reality, how can we know objective reality? Huh? Is it possible to know objective reality only if we are not part of objective reality? What is the alternative? A non-objective reality? An objective non-reality?

There are a number of fundamental questions in philosophy, but I have never heard this one before.

Ghs

George:

It is quite simple. Ms. Xray only visits reality as a tourist!

Adam

that line is by Jason Robards from A Thousand Clowns which is a great movie

[Ellen Stuttle]

So Bob and Ellen, I'm just curious, did you stop objecting because you agree with me, or for some other reason?

For some other reason. Lack of time to keep up both with this discussion and with those pertaining to the reality of Rand, James Valliant, etc.

Ellen

[Xray]

The whole thrust of your approach to epistemology and metaphysics is to leave yourself and your ideas including your moral ideas as the last man standing without even identifying or fighting for them as a nihilistic default, but the joke's on you for the more you succeed the more the barbarians will challenge the gates of Vienna where your disarmed pupils will cower awaiting their inevitable slaughter. You should live that long.

--Brant

You are (like Rand often did) letting your ethics slide into an epistemological discussion.

But what kind of moral values I have (or don't have) is an entirely different issue. I also can't understand why you seem to think I don't advocate and defend my values and 'throw open the gates of Vienna' instead.(?) The many controversial discussions I have had with poster 'Libertarian Muslim' here at OL hardly create this impression.

I'm actually working very hard to give my pupils the tools to become independent thinkers, and whike I won't live long enough to see any form of indoctrination lose its influence, I do have my hope that this will one day be the case. For I do believe in the spiritual evolvement of the human mind.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

Another problem with Xray's question is that it borders on incoherence. She refers to humans as being "elements of the system." And if you look at the first part of the question, you will see that the system to which she refers is "objective reality."

So Xray's question boils down to this: Given that we humans are part of objective reality, how can we know objective reality? Huh? Is it possible to know objective reality only if we are not part of objective reality? What is the alternative? A non-objective reality? An objective non-reality?

There are a number of fundamental questions in philosophy, but I have never heard this one before.

You immediately took advantage of the imprecise wording I used in my post to suggest I had contradicted myself. While one can technically infer from the way I worded it that by "system" I was referring to "objective reality", this is not what I meant.

What I meant to ask was if we, as elements of a system, can understand that system as a whole while not being in the position of an outside observer.

Bohr was a great physicist and a crappy philosopher.

Crappy philosopher? Perhaps Bohr was merely lightyears ahead of others in grasping the depth of an issue.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Crappy philosopher? Perhaps Bohr was merely lightyears ahead of others in grasping the depth of an issue.

Bohr was a better physicist than he was a philosopher.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

What I meant to ask was if we, as elements of a system, can understand that system as a whole while not being in the position of an outside observer.

Your new question is quite different than your original one. You originally asked, "Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by us humans....?" You now ask whether we can understand "that system as a whole."

Both questions are garbled, but they are not the same question. So what are you attempting to ask? Are you asking whether we can have any objective knowledge at all? Are you asking whether we can have a theory of objective reality? Or you asking whether we can know some undefined system as a whole?

Whatever the case may be, having ruled out the option that "system" refers to objective reality, you will need to explain what you mean by "system." A system of what?

Ghs

[Xray]

What I meant to ask was if we, as elements of a system, can understand that system as a whole while not being in the position of an outside observer.

Your new question is quite different than your original one. You originally asked, "Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by us humans....?" You now ask whether we can understand "that system as a whole."

Both questions are garbled, but they are not the same question. So what are you attempting to ask? Are you asking whether we can have any objective knowledge at all? Are you asking whether we can have a theory of objective reality? Or you asking whether we can know some undefined system as a whole?

Whatever the case may be, having ruled out the option that "system" refers to objective reality, you will need to explain what you mean by "system." A system of what?

Ghs

I'm asking whether we, cerebrally limited creatures that we are and caught in the confinements of our senses, can have a theory of objective reality.

A thought experiment: imagine a fish in the deep sea could reflect on existence - what would his theory of objective reality look like? It would contain that which works for the fish. The fish would probably reject anything as unreal which it cannot integrate sensorily and mentally.

Ghs: Whatever the case may be, having ruled out the option that "system" refers to objective reality, you will need to explain what you mean by "system." A system of what?

A system of homines sapientes interacting within the limits imposed cerebrally on them. Given those limitations, how can we postulate that our perspective is the 'objective' one?

I have no doubt that the subatomic world is not easily understood; indeed, we may never understand it completely. But we should deal honestly with our ignorance and treat it as ignorance, rather than ascribing mystical properties to a world we do not adequately understand.

ITA.

For example, there is no explanation of quantum entanglement reconcilable with the "cause and effect" thinking fitting the macroscopic world to which the human brain has adapted in the course of Evolution.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

A fish does not swim in a subjective reality nor does it experience reality arbitrarily as in wet today and dry tomorrow. Humans, though, through distorting abstracting, come up with all sorts of crazy things about the nature of reality not directly experienced, such as the moon is made of green cheese or we distort what we experience so we can't know objectively what the experience is or what the experienced was really like before we got there to ruin it all, so let's exterminate humanity and its curse upon the earth with environmental degradation.

--Brant

(I threw in a little bs at the end for fun)

to objectify reality simply objectify your place in it at the same time for you are part of reality too

aabbcc

[George H. Smith]

I'm asking whether we, cerebrally limited creatures that we are and caught in the confinements of our senses, can have a theory of objective reality.

You claim, presumably as a matter of objective knowledge, that we are "cerebrally limited creatures" and that we are "caught in the confinements of our senses." So if objective knowledge is not possible, how did you acquire this knowledge?

Ghs

[Xray]

I'm asking whether we, cerebrally limited creatures that we are and caught in the confinements of our senses, can have a theory of objective reality.

You claim, presumably as a matter of objective knowledge, that we are "cerebrally limited creatures" and that we are "caught in the confinements of our senses." So if objective knowledge is not possible, how did you acquire this knowledge?

Ghs

Inferring from our cerebral limitations that we are unable to acquire any knowledge at all is a non-sequitur.

For example, we know that our knowledge is limited and that we sensorily perceive reality differently from e. g. a dog.

Given our limited knowledge and the fallibility of the human mind, we are aware that error is possible in every theory of objective reality; and isn't the history of concepts of objective reality also a history of corrected errors?

Why not work with the concept of 'limited knowledge' here? If one makes clear that one's knowledge claims are 'based on what is currently believed to be true', this avoids being trapped in case what was believed to be true should later turn out to be false.

This is from the preview of Stephen Hawking's new book: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9160

We [s. Hawking and L. Mlodinow] question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, '42.' "

A lot is claimed to be fact here. Again, when you approach this with the attitude "based on what Hawking and Mendelev believe to be true", there is no need to get upset.

It would make no sense to brush it all aside, before having studied the evidence they present, and claim that they are dead wrong.

Imo the less dogmatic a person is, the less this person will feel threatened by scientific models of reality not matching his/her own.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

I'm asking whether we, cerebrally limited creatures that we are and caught in the confinements of our senses, can have a theory of objective reality.

You claim, presumably as a matter of objective knowledge, that we are "cerebrally limited creatures" and that we are "caught in the confinements of our senses." So if objective knowledge is not possible, how did you acquire this knowledge?

Ghs

Inferring from our cerebral limitations that we are unable to acquire any knowledge at all is a non-sequitur.

For example, we know that our knowledge is limited and that we sensorily perceive reality differently from e. g. a dog.

You really don't get it, do you? First you raise the possibility that "we are unable to acquire any knowledge at all," and in the very next sentence you state what "we know." The mind boggles.

Given our limited knowledge and the fallibility of the human mind, we are aware that error is possible in every theory of objective reality; and isn't the history of concepts of objective reality also a history of corrected errors?

Why not work with the concept of 'limited knowledge' here? If one makes clear that one's knowledge claims are 'based on what is currently believed to be true', this avoids being trapped in case what was believed to be true should later turn out to be false.

What do you think Rand's contextual theory of knowledge is all about? Every time this subject comes up you ridicule Rand, yet she was addressing the same problem that you raise here. If you paid more attention and treated her with some measure of objectivity instead of attacking her blindly, indeed, virtually on principle, you might have learned something by now.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

This is from the preview of Stephen Hawking's new book: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9160

We [s. Hawking and L. Mlodinow] question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, '42.' "

A lot is claimed to be fact here. Again, when you approach this with the attitude "based on what Hawking and Mendelev believe to be true", there is no need to get upset.

Hawking and Mendelev are free to believe whatever they like, just as Christians, Muslims, and Flat Earthers are free to believe whatever they like. People believe all kinds of silly things. Such things don't normally interest me, much less upset me.

It would make no sense to brush it all aside, before having studied the evidence they present, and claim that they are dead wrong.

In his massive Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas presents detailed arguments to show how the existence of God can be proved by reason alone. He also devotes considerable space to the argument that reason and Christian faith are entirely compatible. I assume you think that Aquinas was dead wrong. But how can you say this without having studied the evidence he presents? Have you read the Summa Theologica?

The same reasoning applies to books that present "evidence" for alien abductions, 9/11 conspiracy theories, the historical accuracy of the Bible and its prophecies, the claim that the Freemasons were behind the French Revolution, and so on, ad infinitum. Do you feel obliged to read all such books before rejecting their claims?

Imo the less dogmatic a person is, the less this person will feel threatened by scientific models of reality not matching his/her own.

The real question is: Why are you so threatened by people who dare use their own judgments instead of kowtowing to the latest "scientific" fad?

Ghs

[Xray]

You really don't get it, do you? First you raise the possibility that "we are unable to acquire any knowledge at all," and in the very next sentence you state what "we know." The mind boggles.

I asked the question whether we can establish a theory of objective reality, given the cerebral and sensory limitations we have.

I know where you are headed. You are trying to pigeonhole me as the 'total skeptic' whom you set up in your book TCAG as discussion opponent of the anti-skeptic, aren't you. Won't work, since I don't claim that our senses are deceptive and that "we must place trust in them as a matter of faith." (TCAG, p. 148).

The senses work quite well for us to make us survive. Just as e. g. the dog's senses work well for the dog, although it perceives its surroundings differently than we do.

One could say that the dog's brain constructs precisely that picture of reality which the animal needs to survive.

What do you think Rand's contextual theory of knowledge is all about?

The notion of knowledge being contextual is excellent. Your point being? Rand's advice "Check your your premises" is excellent as well. Nearly very philosophy has some gems.

But doesn't Rand violate her own principle in claiming that Objectivism is an integrated whole and that no parts of it can be altered? For this means that, should certain points of Objectvism turn out to be false, possible mistakes in philosophy cannot be corrected.

Nathaniel Branden, in his essay "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" writes:

Nathaniel Branden:

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." (NB)

http://nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

This btw is also the dilemma Peikoff is in. Since the road is closed for him to concede certain elements of the philosophy don't stand up to scrutiny, he finds himself in the position of the defensor of a dogma.

Imo Peikoff knows that once he 'allows' Objectivists to live their personal version of Objectivism, by taking parts which suit them them and discarding others, in short practising 'patchwork philosophy', Objectivism as a package deal will naturally lose its power because it will be transformed into something else. In resisting these perfectly natural and creative transformations, the dogmatists have to pay a price they never wanted: without intending it, they in fact contribute to that which they wanted to avoid at all costs: the death of the dogma.

For not allowing fresh and inspiring elements into a philosophy (ideologists hardly ever allow this) is putting it on life support.

So if Peikoff & Co keep isolating themselves in their ideological Ivory tower, ironically, they will contribute to Objectivism's demise more than the harshest critic ever could.

Ghs: Every time this subject comes up you ridicule Rand, yet she was addressing the same problem that you raise here.

It is not the contextuality of knowledge where my criticism of Rand is focused on.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

In his massive Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas presents detailed arguments to show how the existence of God can be proved by reason alone. He also devotes considerable space to the argument that reason and Christian faith are entirely compatible. I assume you think that Aquinas was dead wrong. But how can you say this without having studied the evidence he presents? Have you read the Summa Theologica?

Why plow through all those volumes when scientific research has long since exposed the premises of the Christian faith as false? That's the beauty of science - you don't have to wade again through the plethora of religious errors committed in past ages.

And didn't Aquinas toward the end of his life say that all he had written was 'straw' (or something similar)? Maybe he knew, after his 'mystical' experience, that he had not suceeded in making the 'rational' case for the Christian faith.

The real question is: Why are you so threatened by people who dare use their own judgments instead of kowtowing to the latest "scientific" fad?

I don't feel threatened at all by people whose opinions differ from my own. If I did, I would not engage in those debates.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Xray