Activity

Lausten and Widdershins, I sure hope you guys (and anyone else around here) will point out where I’m wrong.

It’s a bit of a conundrum isn’t it? Other than the occasional highfalutin word like “turgid”, he has been so nice. He gets a bit wordy when explaining how a doctor would be skeptical of voodoo, but that’s not really painful. And when he gets to a point, like “the scientist must allow for the distinct possibility of being surprised”, I don’t really disagree, but I don’t get the sense he sees that the way I do. Just that he thinks he has to explain it to me makes me wonder. Where do you think the word “Eureka” comes from? That’s when a scientist sees something after many tries at experiments. Or how many stories of science are there that have something being discovered while looking for something else?

So, I don’t know if he sees that the way I do, or the way it is coming across, which is that he thinks skeptics and intellectuals are not open to being surprised, that skepticism is not just the gate keeper of truth, it’s a roadblock to imagination and intuition.

Now, I’m expecting a “I didn’t say that” type response, but I hope he sees the part about how it’s “coming across”. If you can’t make those kinds of qualifications in dialog, it’s hard to move forward. If I can’t reflect my understanding, with the underlying understanding of knowing I could be wrong, then we head into the world of “yeah but” and “says you”.