05-08-2009, 08:12 AM
Quantum, just to clarify, my position is that you express an opinion. An opinion that I do not share. But like I said, I am willing to take on this opinion if it is grounded in real facts that I can verify myself. The problem I am having at this point is that I cannot verify the facts.
My naive assumption at this point is that the ambiguity that is always present in any type of interaction leaves room for our own interpretation of what the others intent is.
This means that your opinion of David is formed by the facts you perceived of him plus the ambiguity that we all experience. If you can support your opinion in a clear and unambiguous way then I'll have to accept them as a valid interpretation of the facts. If you can't then you're either right, wrong or missing the point. I cannot conclude which, so I must follow my own conclusions.
I want to stress that from my point of view this isn't about you being right or wrong. This isn't a chess game I am not playing with you and we are not adversaries. You just asked me to accept a conclusion that I cannot support. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I cannot accept your conclusion based on the evidence you're willing to supply. I'd be happy if all of us leave this discussion with an improved understanding of why people think differently than us.
As far as I'm concerned authority is there to be challenged. And you're right to do so. And as such I'm always interested in views that challenge the people whose advice and ideas I admire. However, claims need to be backed up or we fall back to the level of blindly following popular opinions.
If this evidence comes in. I suggest we all keep our heads level. Try to be objective. And most of all remain the friendly bunch that we have been so far. Since Wilcock's status as a scholar is challenged. I suggest we all act scholarly and reject gut feelings and other logical fallacies.
If this turns into a lynch mob I'm going to leave the discussion and ask moderators on their own judgment to close it.
The evidence will most likely be a collection of stronger and weaker points. I hinted at this before. The evidence needs to be as unambiguous as possible or the conclusions will be diverse. Something once said that could be taken in a certain way but is quoted out of context is clearly not good enough. Something that refers to personal style "He isn't being very nice" is a valid point about personal style, but style does not make us right or wrong as scholars. As far as I'm concerned I don't much care about the man's likability. So I'd suggest we treat that as a separate category.
The problem with experts is that people usually don't like them much... And they tend to come across as "obnoxious" whenever others are talking rubbish. People don't like it when someone states the obvious and shatters their illusions. I'm not saying you guys are like this. I'm saying there are many of these, and mr Wilcock is bound to meet people like that. You can't be an expert and universally liked.
My naive assumption at this point is that the ambiguity that is always present in any type of interaction leaves room for our own interpretation of what the others intent is.
This means that your opinion of David is formed by the facts you perceived of him plus the ambiguity that we all experience. If you can support your opinion in a clear and unambiguous way then I'll have to accept them as a valid interpretation of the facts. If you can't then you're either right, wrong or missing the point. I cannot conclude which, so I must follow my own conclusions.
I want to stress that from my point of view this isn't about you being right or wrong. This isn't a chess game I am not playing with you and we are not adversaries. You just asked me to accept a conclusion that I cannot support. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I cannot accept your conclusion based on the evidence you're willing to supply. I'd be happy if all of us leave this discussion with an improved understanding of why people think differently than us.
As far as I'm concerned authority is there to be challenged. And you're right to do so. And as such I'm always interested in views that challenge the people whose advice and ideas I admire. However, claims need to be backed up or we fall back to the level of blindly following popular opinions.
If this evidence comes in. I suggest we all keep our heads level. Try to be objective. And most of all remain the friendly bunch that we have been so far. Since Wilcock's status as a scholar is challenged. I suggest we all act scholarly and reject gut feelings and other logical fallacies.
If this turns into a lynch mob I'm going to leave the discussion and ask moderators on their own judgment to close it.
The evidence will most likely be a collection of stronger and weaker points. I hinted at this before. The evidence needs to be as unambiguous as possible or the conclusions will be diverse. Something once said that could be taken in a certain way but is quoted out of context is clearly not good enough. Something that refers to personal style "He isn't being very nice" is a valid point about personal style, but style does not make us right or wrong as scholars. As far as I'm concerned I don't much care about the man's likability. So I'd suggest we treat that as a separate category.
The problem with experts is that people usually don't like them much... And they tend to come across as "obnoxious" whenever others are talking rubbish. People don't like it when someone states the obvious and shatters their illusions. I'm not saying you guys are like this. I'm saying there are many of these, and mr Wilcock is bound to meet people like that. You can't be an expert and universally liked.