Re: Invitation to the new "Flores Man" Yahoo group

From: Doug Weller (dweller_at_ramtops.thisremove.co.uk)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:09:07 +0000

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:48:27 GMT, I.E. Johansson wrote:

> Doug,
> you are a man of prejudges. That is probably why you believe that only
> people on the ultra-left wing which are close to your left wing beliefs
> could be able to be good scholars that's definitely not so. THIS IS INTENDED
> TO STAND ABOVE, other comments inside and under.

I don't believe that. And I don't know what you mean by 'prejudges'. If
you meant prejudices, well, I do have certain strong moral values, they
might be called prejudices by some.

> IEJ
> "Doug Weller" <dweller@notthis.ramtops.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:MPG.1beeb2373eabc33f989680@news-europe.giganews.com...
>> In article <6n59o0lfvh2p3355h7ndodrm6ufhqk3cgo@4ax.com>,
>> eric.stevens@sum.co.nz says...
>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:47:13 +0000, Doug Weller
>>> <dweller@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > [quoted text muted]
>>> >
>>> >Is this the Dan Gannon whose views are similar to those of Matt Giwer's
>>> >(although I know this Gannon is a Libertarian party member, and I don't
>>> >think Giwer is).
>>>
>>> I know you think these things are important but I fail to see how, for
>>> example, 'libertarian' or any other kind of politics affects either
>>> the facts or the science of the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Fine. You go ahead and think that, as an extreme, a mailing list run by a
>> Nazi would be objective on anything.
>
> You assume that a person who you believe to be extreme can't be a good
> scholar. Being a good scholar has nothing what so ever to do with your
> political view - only with your scolarly approach.

This is a circular argument. If one's politics mandate certain views on a
subject, that person may not be capable of being a good scholar by my
standards (or by those generally held in the academic world). You can't be
a good scholar, for instance, and belong to the Creation Research Society
or publish in their quarterly journal.

While I don't like Nazis
> I dislike ultra-commies all the same. No matter that I do I have to admit
> that my own personal political view doesn't necessarily be the only
> political view from where a Positivist, a Holist or any of the other science
> views could come from!
>
> What you do here is also one of the worst thing I ever seen any scholar
> capable of doing - you can't place a person with Liberal view in the ultra
> left if you yourself belong to the right nor can you as you have done place
> a Liberal person in the ultra-right wing! This is essential.

Unfortunately, the word 'Liberal' is extremely ambiguous. Libertarianism
is a right wing political philosophy (yes, for anyone reading who knows
that they deny that spectrum, I'm aware of the Nolan chart).

>
>>
>> If this is the same Gannon I think he is, he's an anti-Semite. I may be
>> wrong and owe him an apology.
>
> You may be and you may not, doesn't alter the fact that it's better that a
> list is run with a person who's views and political beliefs are opposite
> your own and that at least that person gets to read your thoughts,
> than that said person is isolated and only have yes-voters around him. We
> all can say the same about the archaeologic site you run. It certainly isn't
> objective in it's approach. No matter that and no matter that I and many
> others don't share your conclusions, it's still worth reading.
>
> Your view is for many of us very extrem. As far to the left as the nazis are
> to the right. That doesn't alter the fact that you with all your prejudges
> and beliefs are better to discuss with from time to time then to place
> inside a glass pyramide where you and your leftwingers could go on believing
> that your thoughts are the only one.
>
Why is hating anti-semitism extreme? THAT was the point I was making,
after all. The comment on 'Libertarian' was just an aside, making it clear
that I wasn't saying that Gannon (whichever) and Giwer share exactly the
same beliefs.

> You also need to learn to see the difference between persons who don't
> accept, like etc Israel's Govermental policy and those who are against the
> Israeli people because of anti-semitism. That's two different things.

What in the world are you on about? I wrote nothing whatsoever about
Israel or the Israeli people.

>
> But I like to know something about who runs
>> the mailing lists I join if they deal with matters scientific, historical
>> or archaeological.
>
> Politic has nothing what so ever to do with science as long as a scientist
> is capable of trying to objectify himself and his beliefs from the things he
> is about to study and discuss.
>
> Some kinds of politics *are* relevant to such
>> subjects.
>>
>> Doug
>
> Never have been except for those who are extremists on either side of the
> political scale. You can't find justice using a political party's
> member-book! Nor are you able to find the truth about the past if you aren't
> open to ideas and questions presented and rised by your political opponents.
>
Nazis and anti-semites are extremists. Their politics are relevant to
their approach to science. It appears that, after all this, we agree on
this.

Doug

Relevant Pages