Y2K: IT CALLS FORTH OUR BEST AND OUR WORST

In the 10 months that I have frequented this forum I have posted but a few articles. I have probably responded less than two dozen times to articles posted by others. For the most part I just lurk and "listen."

I have just finished reading the article written by "Infomagic" that was recently reposted by "Helium" and it has prompted me to write this article. I do so because like many others that post to this forum, I am constantly reminded of the diverse perspective available here, but am sometimes dismayed over the rancor generated by the extremes articulated by some of the representatives of that diversity. Then along comes a post, representing the very tip of the bell curve, far surpassing any other "extreme" perspective (doomer in this case), and it is met with but a relatively small amount of hostile sarcasm and personal ridicule. While personally pleased that this is the apparent response, the purpose of this article is to offer a perspective as to why I believe this seems to be the case.

To say that Infomagic does not represent an extreme point of view with respect to Y2K, would be akin to arguing that the guillotine is simply an instrument of therapy. The thrust of his/her argument is that the consequences set in motion over 40 years ago, as the I.S. practice of using 2 digits rather than 4 to represent the year were first set in motion, when combined with the explosive growth, evolution, and subsequent pervasive use of computer hardware/software throughout our present civilization, has precipitated a catastrophe. His/her thesis is that this catastrophe, once its causal agents reached a certain critical mass, has become not only unstoppable, but it has become as certain as one of the laws of physics. As such it cannot be remediated, mitigated, legislated, "worked around," or otherwise creatively thwarted. The only issue for each of us therefore, is what shall we do in the face of this certain "devolution."

To Infomagic the situation is much like death. The major differences being that the organism is civilization, as opposed to the individual, the terminal affliction is a significant reduction of what INFO calls "carrying capacity," as opposed to some individual disease or condition, and the "end date," whereupon "carrying capacity's" inescapable limitations trigger a rapid and remorseless decline of life, is precisely known - as opposed to death's debilitating manifestations being predictable in only a very general time frame.

What then is the difference between the argument(s) put forth by infomagic, and the argument(s) presented by say, North or Milne. An argument that in the case of Infomagic, produces little rancor and ridicule from the, "0" to "2" Y2Kers, but arguments of similar extreme, when offered by North and Milne produce the most profound hostility and disdain?

It cannot have to do with the validity of the conclusion reached by Infomagic. From my point of view he/she is as likely wrong as they may be right. The catastrophe argued as being inescapable is in my judgment, entirely escapable - it may be little more than a BITR for most of us. Mara Wayne in her response respectfully disagrees with him/her as well. In addition, someone like FLINT or BIGDOG (even though BD would be more likely to agree with many of the points made by INFO) could no doubt wade through INFO's argument, take apart each of his/her premises, examine his/her logic, and likely render his/her argument as equally implausible as plausible. Therefore it is not the conclusion or the scenario that elicits respectful agreement/disagreement. Quite the contrary. North, Milne, and Infomagic share much in common concerning their views of the possible state of life on this Earth beginning 01/01/2000.

I would argue that the answer lies astride the most fundamental psychological aspect within each of us. It has to do with the most critical issue confronting us at every turn of our lives. It is at the source of our values, our sense of life, and ultimately determines our capacity for joy and happiness or our lack thereof.

In my judgment it is this: The key lies within the answer to a single question. Does the person making their argument lead one to believe they have an open or a closed mind?

A wide range of variables influences the answer to this question, only one of which is the perceived rationality employed by the person making the argument. It is also influenced by what is known about the person - his/her "track record." In addition, it is influenced by their demonstrated values. For example: To what degree, when in the face of any perceived threat or challenge to their argument, do they display behavior indicating they are likely to choose to ignore or lash out against the opposing argument. Consider the following:

When I was a young man I remember one of the great lessons of life that I inadvertently stumbled upon. It had to do with the difference between faith and reason, religion and science - between the hallmark of a closed mind and the workings of an open one. The lesson has remained steadfast with me, rendered only stronger by reflection and further examples - some of which I must acknowledge were my own.

The inadvertent teacher was a dear friend. I was involved in a discussion with him over the issues that we all sooner or later confront, those dealing with God, existence, morality, etc. I was exploring and questioning these abstractions. He was older than I, and through his faith and his studies of it, (he had been a Catholic in his youth but had become a born again Christian later in life) he had satisfactorily answered most if not all of his inquiries into these same issues - issues with which I was only beginning to grapple.

After a period of numerous enjoyable discussions with him, on subjects ranging from gardening to economics, politics to physics, I began to become aware of a feeling that I identified as being one of frustration. It seemed to me that when our discussions turned to issues of philosophy, we would always end up talking about his religious views. While I understood his points, and while I conceded them whenever my mind indicated I must do so, he, on the other hand, seemed unable to grant to me valid points when it was I who made them??? I remember the discussion that served as the "trigger" for my great "lesson."

It concerned the very existence of "God" and whether or not there was "proof" for or against. He calmly stated to me that I could not prove there wasn't a God. I had recently intellectually "grown" and replied that I did not have to do so, indeed I could not do so - and it would be illogical for me to try. "Why then is it necessary for me to have to prove to you there is a God?" he replied. "Because I am searching for the truth," I said, "and the truth is either self-evident, i.e. directly perceivable, or if not, its presence should be manifest by the evidence it provides. Someone claiming the existence of a thing should offer evidence for their claim, and be prepared to demonstrate its validity." He then leaned forward across his kitchen table toward me and firmly, with a certain intensity in his eyes, and said. "Isn't it a bit arrogant David, to believe that you/we are the greatest being(s) in the universe, that there is nothing or no one superior to yourself?" He was irritated and seemed angry with me and I remember feeling somewhat intimidated. I apprehensively pressed on.

I replied "Jack, we all have the same questions. I, like you, look at the night sky and wonder where all this came from. What am I doing here? How did all this occur? What is the purpose, if any? All of us at some point in our lives ask these questions. It seems to me self-evident that we do so." I continued my reply with the following: "Jack the real question is, in response to these "universal" questions, the enormity of which we all sense, how do we each choose to answer them? The problem that I have with what you are telling me Jack, is this. Someone such as you proclaims I "know" who/what created all this! Further, I "know" when and why! I also "know" who created you and me. In addition, I not only "know" what the creator wants me to do but I "know" what he wants you to do as well. And, by the way, I "know" what is going to happen to you if you don't do it!" I then concluded my response to him by saying, "to me Jack, you should be re-thinking your notion of arrogance, and who in this case is being more so." He stared at me in silence.

I still do not pretend to understand the intricacies of the human mind and how it performs the incredible functions it does, but it was at this moment, the brief lull in our discussion, where we each were silently processing untold thoughts and feelings, that a thought from "left field" as it were, occurred to me. I placed my hand on his wrist and myself leaned forward and softly said to him. "Jack, if I could prove to you that God did not exist would you believe it?" "That's impossible. You cannot prove such a thing," he replied. I said, "I know I can't but if I could, would you accept it?" He leaned back away from the table, moving his wrist from under my hand. "I don't consider something that is impossible, worthy of such speculation." I pressed, "but if indeed I could somehow demonstrate the absolute validity of my argument, would you reconsider your belief in God?" He again stared at me in silence and then abruptly and pointedly said, "this discussion has deteriorated to the point where we both need to get some sleep. We can pick it up again later," as he got up from his kitchen table.

I knew two things at this point. The first was that the discussion for the evening was over. The second was something that I only sensed. It was a feeling that something of profound importance had just occurred and I needed to understand fully what it was.

That incident happened in 1972 when I was 28 years old. The relationship between Jack and myself was never the same. After leaving his home that evening and lying awake thinking about our discussion, something I often did during those times of my life, I did not understand what had taken place but I decided that I would determine if Jack would ever bring up the discussion again, and if he did, what would then ensue. I purposely never again broached the subject. Much to my surprise at the time, neither did Jack.

Without going into further details, Jack and my relationship was never the same. We no longer engaged in the kinds of in-depth and interesting discussions that had first served as the catalyst for our friendship. It seemed when one or the other of us would bring up some technical or political issue that would previously have triggered an eager and enthusiastic discourse, it would now be met with some superficial response and go little further. Both of us no longer seemed to have the passion for the joint pursuit of "truth" that had so much characterized our friendship. I remember continuing to feel the passion that comes from the pursuit of understanding what I had stumbled upon, but it being offset by a haunting feeling of resignation at what had happened to our relationship.

Jack has since died. I still feel a tinge of sadness when I think of him and our many exciting discussions..

Now, at the age of 55, I continue to occasionally think of Jack, though it is now with the clarity that comes from understanding something at its root. In retrospect, Jack had provided me with my first conscious understanding of what happens to a human being when one substitutes in place of facts/evidence/reasoned conclusions, - no matter how tentative, efficacious, or erroneous that thinking may turn out to be, EVASION - i.e. the refusal to think. Their only recourse becomes an unyielding adherence to an unassailable belief. A belief that will not - indeed cannot be questioned, because to do so is not to question facts or evidence supporting the belief, but to question the belief itself. Jack would not even consider the premise of my question because of the implications of what it would mean to/for him to do so. To him, the acceptance of the premise would force him to acknowledge the conclusion. He was clearly not prepared to do this. It caused him an agonizing emotional dilemma. Because of his failure to properly deal with that dilemma, Jack's wonderful, active, and extremely capable mind was closed on this issue. It was closed, locked, and with his advanced age, it was likely that the key to unlocking it had long since been discarded, its whereabouts lost to evasion at some point earlier in life, never again to be searched for or found.

The article written by Infomagic was, in my judgment, written by the opposite of a closed mind. It was written by an active, searching, competent mind, able to engage in a high level of abstraction and integration, having no limits or constraints on where it is willing to go in search of "truth." Whether or not the conclusions drawn by INFO turn out to be profound, prophetic or paltry, has little to do with my point. The reaction by many of us to his/her article, the often quoted and much discussed arguments competently made by him/her, respectfully responded to and referenced by many that post on this forum, our reaction is in response to the manner in which he/she arrived at the conclusions. INFO does not portray, nor has anyone suggested, that he/she has, an "agenda." (Agenda being defined as a motive apart from the seeking of truth. A motive that when present in the mind of one so inclined, renders "truth" subjective as opposed to objective).

Someone taking issue with INFO must be focused on the reasons/reasoning of the arguments, not the conclusions drawn. They must demonstrate the reasoning as faulty - either in the use of logic in arriving at the conclusions, or they must demonstrate that the context in which they are presented is limited, incomplete, or otherwise inappropriate. Their only other recourse would be to challenge the conclusions without reference to the facts/reasoning used to support them. They would have to close their mind to the arguments because of the "threat" of the resulting conclusion, much as Jack had previously done with me. Should this be their response, it would be dramatized by the refusal to consider the argument, with a defiant insistence that the conclusion is wrong. It would then logically follow that its maker would finally be left having to characterize the original conclusions as being those of either a charlatan or a fool or both.

Relate my reasoning in this article to the all too frequent posts on this forum, substituting the "Doomer" argument presented by INFO, with the numerous articulate, rational, and thought-provoking articles written by people labeled as "pollies" (or worse). People that in my judgment, far more often than not, provide this forum with superb discourse

Before I close I want to make one further observation. I have no quarrel with people of faith. I am married to a wonderful woman of faith. Her parents I would characterize as being deeply religious. They both command my respect. My quarrel is with the closed mind - the mind that closes with either the loud slam of a door angrily flung shut as a shield against an irritating presence, or as a door that is gently and quietly shut and locked, as one secures oneself for desired intellectual sleep, shutting out any further conceptual intrusion. Her father, a man of devout faith, with whom I discuss all issues and with whom I frequently disagree, when asked by me the "if I could prove it to you " question, quickly replied "certainly." In so doing he demonstrated his rationality, his confidence in his faith, his assurance that his mind, at least on this issue, shall remain open.

When the year 2000 has moved from the realm of the future to one representing the latest period of history, there will once again, as is the case with all aspects of life, be the opportunity for each of us to examine the reality of what the future did if fact bring. We will then have the responsibility to reconcile it to what we each had expected, or to whatever degree, predicted. Whether it was a BITR or "devolution", each of us has the capacity, if we wish to honestly engage it, to determine to what degree our premises, reasoning, and conclusions were either accurate or faulty.

To those not so inclined, those to whom their belief in their conclusions, at the exclusion of all other considerations, "trumps" all evidence to the contrary, then to the degree their beliefs turned out to be wrong, they will once again be presented with the opportunity to evade another set of facts. In so doing, they will, in any one of a limitless number of ways, have to rationalize the sin that I have described as having a closed mind. If that be their course, they will take yet another step toward forever losing the key, a key that is the only one of its kind. The key that is the sole means of enabling them to keep open that most precious of possessions, their reasoning mind.

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), August 31, 1999

Answers

Dave, You are without a doubt very introspective and certainly intelligent. And while I certainly would not try to change your mind about religion, I would like to offer what I consider another valid view concerning the existence of God. It's my belief that there are two different paths that run side by side. One path is of the physical world and is absolutely ruled by logic and physics. And these laws are the same for a grain of sand on the beach or a giant star on the edge of the universe. The other path is supernatural, and relies on faith and doesn't have to follow any 'worldly' rules. Faith has it's own realm which is also it's own reality. Since faith is a state of mind and a state of heart, you can never 'prove'or 'disprove the existence of God with physical or logical means.(Although, when I look at the stars at night, it's difficult for me to imagine this wonderful scene having no more signifcance than a purely accidental cosmic happining!) I am also 55 years old, and have recently been babtized. So actually it is a responsibility of mine to witness to others,even though it's not a very politicly correct thing to do.But I will say this, I am very scientificly inclined, but I must separate the 'natural' from the 'supernatural'.Now I will put myself in the company of the 'fringe'groups by also stating that I think we really are entering the 'end times' as explained in the Bible, and with love for my fellow man would pray that instead of being offended by what I believe,man shall develop a healthy and rapid, fear of, and love of God. Yep.. wandered way O.T.and these are just my thoughts for what the may be worth. Love to all.

-- citizen (lost@sea.com), August 31, 1999.

Dave,

There are lots of minds, as various as people are various.

There are lots of paths up any mountain of faith and there are many mountains of faith. Some small, making few demands, other huge and demanding more than a life time to understand.

There seems to be enough room on earth for current and possible minds as well as enough variations in mountains of faith to suit all tastes.

Each to their own and leave others alone.

-- Bob Barbour (r.barbour@waikato.ac.nz), August 31, 1999.

Dave -- A provocative post as is always the case with you. I agree with much of what you have said, with these caveats:

--- God, if He exists, is self-evidently able to validate His existence to His own creatures. How this takes place is another question that cannot be addressed in this small space. Agnosticism, in other words, is not the only "open-minded" approach to the issue of His possible existence.

--- It is often difficult to judge the difference between open-closed mindedness and actually "knowing something" until time has passed. For instance, Winston Churchill was extremely close-minded on the subject of Hitler, Neville Chamberlain and the disgraceful unreadiness of Britain to face what was coming throughout the 30s. Mark: he was INDEED close-minded by every "rational" measure. He was also dead-on right.

--- The ability to say "maybe this, maybe that" may be the mark of an open mind or just the mark of someone without any intellectual integrity.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 31, 1999.

Dave, I enjoyed your post very much. I am very interested in this phenomenon of shutting out information. I know many people who live like this. Until the y2k issue, it didn't show up as much. Now I am really seeing this in many people I am close to. I must admit, there are somethings I have closed my mind to also. Some ideas just do not resonate with me and so I don't pay much attention. With y2k, though, it seems hard to understand why an intelligent person would ignore all the information presented. I had one friend tell me it all bored him too much. I think it is a case of closing one's mind to that which they do not want to face. I would like to live and let live but we are all in this mess together and I wamt more people to be responsible.

-- a mom (open@mind.com), August 31, 1999.

Closed minds are easy to identify -- they belong to anyone who disagrees with me. But the problem is, I keep changing my mind.

I stand by my prediction that no matter what y2k brings, both optimists and pessimists will feel vindicated.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 31, 1999.

Flint, I think that we can all vouch for your first paragraph.

(Your second paragraph is as probably as good as anyone's guess.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 31, 1999.

Dave--Have you visited this website:

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/freethinker.html

After reading your post I get the feeling that this is what you are and I see myself as one too. There's nothing wrong in being a free thinker, it's let's your mind explore and question those who proclaim to have authority over the human race.

-- Free Thinker (free thinker@freeeethinkerr.com), August 31, 1999.

A few random thoughts to add to the mix:

Just be careful that you're not so open minded that your brains fall out.

Avoid paralysis of analysis -- make a decision.

When faced with a mystery, be open-minded. When faced with the Truth, embrace it and reject everything else.

There's a big difference between being closed-minded and being wise. Wisdom frequently requires that we reject a lie even if it means we're branded as being foolish and closed-minded.

There are some folk who refuse to draw conclusions even when presented with sufficient evidence, whether that is fear or wisdom, only posterity and God Himself will know for sure.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), August 31, 1999.

I use two seperate sources for my pondering. The first is the mind which 'speaks'. The second is often referred to as one's inner being. I call it my soul. It 'feels'. It's usually more accurate than the programmed data coming from my head. Y2K has always sent warning signals to me from both of these sources.

Some people think they are their mind. I am my soul. My mind is just a tool. It can be programmed to remain open or programmed, 'end of file'. I can control my mind. I can change my mind. It just doesn't work that way with the other. I came into the world with a relatively empty mind, but my inner being? What I got is what I have.

The day science discovers the chemical formula of that, perhaps they could then develop a proceedure for soul transplants and *honestly* save the world.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), September 01, 1999.

Very deep insights Dave, and well written, thank you for posting it.

Thank you too Freethinker for the link.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 01, 1999.

Dave,

An excellent essay; it took some guts to post it. Thank you, sir, I found it very refreshing. Even though I don't find Infomagic's conclusions of a devolution compelling, I've recognized that this may be because I have a visceral need to disbelieve it. You might say that I have "faith" in our abilities to overcome adversity. This "faith" may be our most valuable survival trait as a species. Nevertheless, I recognize that this may be wishfull thinking.

However, as a scientist, I'm bound to question assumptions, and verify data as much as possible. Retain the posture of skepticism, but take facts as they present themselves as the best truth, until better data is presented. Sometimes the data hurts.

BigDog, I've read many of your posts, and have great respect for your clear questions and thoughts. However, on this issue, I must disagree with your comparison with the the events of WWII (Chamberlaine, Churchill, Hitler). I would respectfully suggest that you are confusing weak-minded indecision in the face of uncomfortable (even brutal) facts with recognizing uncertainty, and pressing on nevertheless. Knowing doubt (and living with it) is not necessarily a weakness. Having faith is not necessarily a strength.

Please forgive me, but to use your own example: Hitler had no doubts about his own rightness. Hitler had faith that his path was ordained.

Many believed him, because of his "courage of convictions", and because his convictions "rang true" with their own fears. He was a mystic. A cult leader, if you will.

Chamberlaine, on the other hand, was a classic populist politician, leading by following the latest read of public opinion. Modern examples apply.

Churchill, as a leader, was of an entirely different sort. I'll leave further comparisons for others to pick up on, if they wish.

Claiming to have a personal relationship with God may be an arrogance.

Claiming to be uncertain about the meaning of life: could it be humble intellectual honesty, however bleak the ultimate answers may be?

Might it be considered "courage" to continue advancing into that dark cave, in the stark face of the unknown?

Lest you think me a polly, for the record, I've seen enough supporting evidence to prepare for *considerable* disruptions from y2k. And I am doing the best that I can to prepare. For months, at least. Perhaps a year.

For more than that, I will just have to wing it, for myself and my family. I just don't have the resources for more than that at this time. Call it *faith* that Infomagic's predictions won't come to pass. You could call it hope. Or maybe simply wild guess. It's simply the best that I can do.

Again, good job, Dave. You speak for many of us. You are not alone.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), September 01, 1999.

I appreciate and relate to what you wrote. I have encountered the same thing, and I think that what you are calling for is just intellectual/emotional honesty.

For that reason, as I reached adulthood, I threw off my reluctance to consider the arguments of people considered to be in "cults", such as Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons (along with views of those from other denominations or even non-Judeo-Christian religions).

What I realized that helped me to do this is that my belief or disbelief does not affect the reality or unreality of anything. So I'd better look for the truth, and I'd better find it myself, since I am not willing to trust someone else's insight for my own destiny (assuming it is possible for me to affect it, obviously) after I die--the stakes are too high.

Yet the truth must also be found. A search that never finds the truth is useless, in determining the outcome of our lives, if indeed the reality is that we do make choices that affect what happens after we die, as Jesus claimed (and what if that IS true?).

Anyway, I truly consider the possibility, everytime I discuss with anyone, that they might be right and I might be wrong. I also try to develop consistent beliefs, and to know what my axiomatic assumptions are, upon which everything else is built. This was scary at first, I'm not sure why. But I knew reality was out there, so my fear of honestly examining my beliefs was irrelevant. It was very freeing, and is no longer scary to me by this time.

So I think you should consider that your friend could have just been afraid, and perhaps lacked the courage to completely embrace his responsibility to choose what he was going to believe, and to see if it matched reality, and then to act on it, with nothing held back. I suspect that what you thought he believed "because he had found it to be true" was actually, to some extent, something he believed because he had accepted someone else's evaluation and statement of truth, and had never moved far enough to examine it deeply himself. Otherwise, why should what you said have threatened him?

Everyone may have to start by putting their trust in some human and fallible leader or teacher, but I think staying in that position will make a person closed-minded, and will sap their courage to think for themselves besides. A person can't be sure if whoever they were modeling on or following was right, and it is difficult to truly understand why they chose to believe that way, unless you've trod the path yourself. If a person is following human beings, in the end, deep down, he can't escape the knowledge that they might have been wrong.

One of my foundational beliefs is that the Creator is good, and loves me. For example, why else should I be designed so as to enjoy doing what I must do to live (eating, sleeping, etc.)? I could have been made to respond merely by avoiding pain, after all. Pain may be a big part of life, but it is nevertheless anomalous.

I trust God to deliberately communicate with us human beings, because studying philosophy has convinced me that our reason can as easily dig us into a hole as reveal truth to us, and God must realize that. So I would expect to find something fairly objective that that God would have used to reach us, to tell us what we're obviously incapable of figuring out on our own.

I have decided that the Bible is that communication, and I hold nothing back from that belief. Of course, I always continue to evaluate other possible communications (the Koran, the JW version of the Bible, the BOM/D&C/POGP, the Hindu scriptures, etc.) to see if I could have been mislead, because my believing I'm right doesn't make me right. However, I have to believe that God made the truth available and "findable," or its hopeless anyway.

"Holding nothing back" from that belief means that I act on what I know, and try to apply it. One of those applications, for example, is that I would not marry someone who did not believe as I did. Christians are expressly warned agaist this. It interferes with living the Christian life, and with raising Christian children, both of which are non-negotiable duties for Christians. Yet this command is viewed as very harsh by many Christians, and is violated, along with other things, by most young Christians in their dating (which is, after all, a search for a mate).

If I really believe the Bible is God's word, I will obey it, and will attenpt to follow the clear but unpalatable model of Jesus' life as well. Most Christians I've known who say they believe don't seem to believe very completely--they live as if they don't, anyhow. When they really desire to disobey, they do, with little compunction, and justify it with vigor.

To some extent, it seems to me that they're pretending (the way you would in a play), and are actually at least partly following human beings, or a particular culture or subculture, as much as trying to obey God. I know that I don't want to be doubleminded like that, since if the Bible isn't true, I'd rather not waste my time, and if it is, well, I'd rather not slap my Creator and Savior in the face with my disrespect and lack of loyalty by deliberately disobeying.

I can say with Paul the apostle (implied in 1 Corinthians 15:19) that if we're wrong about who Jesus is, we deserve pity more than anyone else, to have been so horribly fooled.

But until I find that out, "To live is Christ, and to die is gain." Philippians 1:21.

2 Timothy 2 puts it well. I am not to seek to please myself, but to please my God. And I am not my own boss, because I've been bought with a price (1 Cor. 7:23). That's how you'll recognize those for whom Jesus is Lord (John 14:15 et. al.).

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), September 01, 1999.

Does Infomagic make a habit of insulting people, day after day, as do Milne and North? Is a mind that insists that 2 + 2 = 4 a closed mind? Does verbosity equate with accuracy?

Get a good night's rest and think about it clearly in the morning.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 01, 1999.

I think the answer is more mundane. North and Milne have built up reputations and public personae based on their predictions. Both of these guys can be researched and picked apart. Infomagic is just a voice on the net. She/he is an anonymous poster made famous by Milne and North. Infomagic is not attacked like those guys because there is no one to attack. It is not a challenge to discredit someone's name who doesn't have a name to start with.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 01, 1999.

R,

Infomagic does have a name. Search the archives, if you wish to discover it. Infomagic appears to have pulled himself out of the y2k discussion this summer, for his own reasons. Not surprising, considering his views on what will come to pass in the near future. Given his views, what is there to discuss?

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), September 01, 1999.

"I stand by my prediction that no matter what y2k brings, both optimists and pessimists will feel vindicated."

another Flint classic... please excuse me while I barf...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 01, 1999.

In shorter words:

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), September 01, 1999.

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst; every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity."

"Of all the systems of religion that were ever invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practise, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter." Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason"

-- Free Thinker (freethinker@freethinkerr.com), September 01, 1999.

Thank you to those that responded to my post.

BOB: "Each to their own and leave others alone."

I agree. We all should be free to decide for ourselves. Logic, however, and this seems to be the difficult part for many of us, dictates that we then must be willing to grant the same to all others.

BIGDOG: "maybe this, maybe that"

We all have the obligation, and I would argue that it is a moral one, to decide - to make a decision and then to accept the responsibility for that decision. My article was intended to focus more on the arrogance of the closed mind, and the consequences - both in the response from others, and the pyschological implications to the person whose mind becomes impervious to further considerations. (Further considerations for that which their mind is now closed.)

Someone that keeps their mind open may in fact be making a decision, or just as you point out, they may be sacrificing their intellectual integrity. The issue is the reasoning behind their decision - the context in which they "decide."

FLINT:

On whether I am optimistic or pessimistic, I feel strongly both ways.

FREE THINKER:

Thank you for the website.

WILL CONTINUE:

I agree with the notion that our "soul" is the measure of "who we are." I would argue however, that each of us, over time, and through our mental "omissions" and "commissions," become beings of self-made souls.

SPINDOC: "Knowing doubt (and living with it) is not necessarily a weakness. Having faith is not necessarily a strength."

I could not and did not say it any better than that. The issue is why and therefore when.

JERRY B:

I have gotten a good night's rest and thought about it this morning. My answer to your questions are:

1. No. 2. Perhaps, but not necessarily. 3. It depends on your definitions of "accurate" and "verbose."

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), September 01, 1999.

A few comments:

1. Gullible people may have the strongest claim to being open minded, and the weakest claim to being dependable sources of information.

2. The transfer of information is more often dependent on the open mindedness of the reader/listener than that of the writer/speaker.

3. There may be more than a little irony in the high regard expressed for an argument knowingly based on a false premise, later followed by the proposal that readers:

"Relate my reasoning in this article to the all too frequent posts on this forum, substituting the "Doomer" argument presented by INFO, with the numerous articulate, rational, and thought-provoking articles written by people labeled as "pollies" (or worse). People that in my judgment, far more often than not, provide this forum with superb discourse"

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 01, 1999.

Jerry B.

1. Isn't the definition of "gullible" believing everything that one reads/hear? Dave is explicitely talking about a rationalizing open mind.

2. True

3. That is clearly Dave's own conclusions, but as such does not in anyway negate his premise that a rational open mind is needed to seek the truth.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 01, 1999.

JERRY B: I do not understand the point you are making in #3. To what false premise are you refering?

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), September 01, 1999.

Dave,

In #3 I refer to:

" "Jack, if I could prove to you that God did not exist would you believe it?" "That's impossible. You cannot prove such a thing," he replied. I said, "I know I can't but if I could, would you accept it?" He leaned back away from the table, moving his wrist from under my hand. "I don't consider something that is impossible, worthy of such speculation." I pressed, "but if indeed I could somehow demonstrate the absolute validity of my argument, would you reconsider your belief in God?" He again stared at me in silence and then abruptly and pointedly said, "this discussion has deteriorated to the point where we both need to get some sleep. We can pick it up again later," as he got up from his kitchen table. "

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 01, 1999.

JERRY B: I am afraid that I am still unable to grasp the point you were making in your initial response (#3) to my post. Apparently I am the only one that does not grasp it. Are you stating that I have demonstrated a high regard for an argument based upon a false premise?

I used the illustration involving Jack as an example of someone finding a thought so distasteful that they would refuse to grant it logical validity under any circumstances or conditions. In so doing they (in my example Jack) erect an impassable barrier to whatever elements of truth (if any) that may lie on the other side of that barrier.

In the paragraph you qoute where I "what if" Jack, I am erecting a premise that I obviously cannot prove because it is impossible to prove a negative. Again, what point am I missing? I sincerly wish to know.

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), September 01, 1999.

Chris,

Dave's opening post seems to place more emphasis on the putative truth presenter than on the truth seeker, as in:

"In my judgment it is this: The key lies within the answer to a single question. Does the person making their argument lead one to believe they have an open or a closed mind?"

This is immediately followed by:

"A wide range of variables influences the answer to this question, only one of which is the perceived rationality employed by the person making the argument. It is also influenced by what is known about the person - his/her "track record." In addition, it is influenced by their demonstrated values. For example: To what degree, when in the face of any perceived threat or challenge to their argument, do they display behavior indicating they are likely to choose to ignore or lash out against the opposing argument."

Interestingly, the reference to "perceived rationality" reminds us that the appearance of rationality, like the appearance of sincerity, can be an illusion.

For myself, I highly value critical faculties, including inductive and deductive reasoning where respectively appropriate, careful observation, and questioning of my own opinions. But Dave's opening post seems more to be a setup for the pitch made on behalf of the posts of "pollies" than to be a work of epistemology.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 01, 1999.

Dave,

In a proposition of the form:

if I could prove what is not provable . . .

I regard the italicized portion as a false premise. Do you not?

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 01, 1999.

David Bowerman said: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Bullsh**. You are a stupid religious wacko. F** the "Lord". You are a computer: gigo (garbage in, garbage out).

Load tape
Store to memory
Run program
Print "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"
End

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 01, 1999.

A@A, thank-you so much for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that closed-mindedness is not the exclusive purview of believers; disbelievers are also so inclined.

-- T the C (tricia_canuck@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.

Tricia: Does that mean you don't want to mud wrestle with me either?

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 01, 1999.

Since we're talking about the Lord and truth, here's a couple contradictions that the Lord supposedly said: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." John 5:31 and "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." John 8:14. But of course we cannot prove that Jesus said these words since the Bible was written by man.

-- Free Thinker (freethinker@freethinkerr.com), September 01, 1999.

JERRY B: My opening post is an attempt to be concerned with truth only, regardless of whether it is being offered by the presenter or evaluated by the seeker. Specifically, what is the hallmark of the closed mind versus the workings of an open mind. (as I so state at the beginning of my reiteration of my experience with Jack.

I am disappointed that your evaluation of my article amounts to "it seems to be a setup pitch made on behalf of the posts of the pollies."

With respect to your question, I would not agree. The definition of a premise consists of two separate conceptual precepts. It is either a statement of fact or a supposition made or implied that serves as a basis for argument. Clearly, in the context I used "If I could prove to you that God did not exist would you believe it?" it cannot be said to be an epistemological error on my part. It was used as a supposition to elicit a response, and as such it is epistemologically valid.

Do you not agree?

By the way, thank you for taking the time to explain your point to me.

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), September 01, 1999.

A, thanks for proving my points. Wow, it's amazing what one verse of scripture can provoke. Obviously, certain truths hit closer to home than others.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), September 01, 1999.

There's only two truths and that is death and taxes.

-- The Truth (thetruth@the truthhhh.com), September 01, 1999.

Mr. Bowerman,

I have to disagree with your statement that "A" proved your points. In fact, your original reply seemed (to me) to be classic Orwellian "double-think": the ability to emotionally and intellectually hold two opposing views simultaneously.

"A", I realize that you shot from the hip, but I've seen you do better. This thread appears to be a fairly civil one so far; why not weigh in with some good libertarian arguments? I for one would welcome them. Speaking as a fellow Libertarian, of course. :)

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), September 01, 1999.

" "Jack, if I could prove to you that God did not exist would you believe it?" "That's impossible. You cannot prove such a thing," he replied. I said, "I know I can't but if I could, would you accept it?" He leaned back away from the table, moving his wrist from under my hand. "I don't consider something that is impossible, worthy of such speculation." I pressed, "but if indeed I could somehow demonstrate the absolute validity of my argument, would you reconsider your belief in God?" He again stared at me in silence and then abruptly and pointedly said, "this discussion has deteriorated to the point where we both need to get some sleep. We can pick it up again later," as he got up from his kitchen table. "

Jerry

An excellent example of closed mindedness. Also a good example of hitting close to the bone, as when confronted with the possibility of proof, the subject is ended. In other words, should you be able to prove this, who I am is gone. That is too painful to contemplate, go home now.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

Jerry B.,

I couldn't explain it any better than Dave did in his last post, he is more eloquent than I am, and I couldn't add anything to clarify what he said.

"it seems to be a setup pitch made on behalf of the posts of the pollies."

I too am disapointed with this statement, it seems evident to me that were the same post written by a "doomer", with a reverse in examples of civilized and rational arguements from the Doomer's side (which are aplenty also IMO), the basic premise would remain true.

Jerry, you appear to me as being irrationaly defensive from the "doomer's" point of view, and afraid that readers could not rationalize as well as you can and therefor being "suckered in" Dave's polly conclusions. I'm much more on the doomer side than Dave appears to be, but I still can appreciate his premise.

As an aside, I find it frustrating that anytime God is mentioned, even as an example as in this original post to clarify a point, that it should turn out into a religious debate. Dave clearly did not intend to debate the existance of God in his post, but rather point out and discuss the fundamental differences with people of either inclinations in having an open or closed mind, and the results they bring in seeking Y2K truths.

I believe it would be an enriching experience in regards to Y2K for both religious and non-religious people to stick to this basic premise, that is close vs open mindeness. Dave has laid out the field, we can then question and discuss with him what brings him to such optimistic conclusions about y2k, in a civilized rational manner. It would be refreshing, for a change.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 02, 1999.

Chris,

Your thoughts echo what I was trying to convey. However, I don't understand one of your statements:

"Dave has laid out the field, we can then question and discuss with him what brings him to such optimistic conclusions about y2k, in a civilized rational manner". I didn't pick up on that "optimistic" part, but maybe I missed it. Has a position less than what Infomagic forsees become "optimistic"? Is nothing less than complete devolution an "optimistic" position? Personally, I think we're in for a *mere* 2nd Great Depression; am I a polly? Help me out here. Perhaps we should ask Dave what his position *actually* is. Dave? Care to comment? ___________________

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

Sorry,

that didn't seem to parse the way I typed it. Well, you get what you pay for...

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

CHRIS & SPINDOC: My family and I have prepared for the certain economic consequences that will occur from "limited" disruption of the productive efficiency of our "private" economy. In the event these disruptions occur at say a "5," we will likely suffer minor inconvenience with but a modest lowering of our standard of living, consistent with many others so affected/prepared.

We have also prepared for limited interruption in the supply of "public" monopoly-provided utilities. We have made provisions for a limited amount of water & sewer, gas, and electricity, from alternate sources, in the event they are interrupted for more than a "typical" storm-related period of time.

At our rural property in Georgia however, we have prepared for much worse. We, together with life-long friends, have prepared to live independently for an indefinite period of time - should that become necessary. I am not expecting to have to do so, but if the political response to whatever "emergency situation" arises warrants our relocation to Georgia, we will do so and attempt to adapt. This plan was conceived more so by a desire to live in the mountains of Northern Georgia upon retirement, than it was in response to whatever potential is posed by Y2K. As I have indicated on previous posts, we simply accelerated the time frame of our potential move there, as the uncertainties surrounding Y2K became apparent.

As far as being prepared for anything above an "8, " I cannot do so. In my opinion survival would be arbitrary and as much the result of chance as from "preparation." As someone said on another post, I can see a "10" but I cannot imagine it. We each have our limits and, in my judgment, the responsibility to know what they are. Above an "8," I have exceeded my limits. At the risk of being redundant, I cannot imagine preparing for such a thing.

Thank you both for your comments and your interest.

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), September 02, 1999.

Dave great read

Infomagic didn't get much comentary because it has been beaten up so much in the past.

It is interesting to note people thoughts about God. Can you "prove" God. Well a better way of looking at it would be can you understand the universe itself?

You wrote

"In my judgment it is this: The key lies within the answer to a single question. Does the person making their argument lead one to believe they have an open or a closed mind?"

Well lets try this

Chaos, fractals, strange attractors, bifurications, beauty, the geometry of nature, Mandelbrot fractal as the "heart of God" Folks here is an area of human endevor that was started by the computer revolution and comprimizes everything society believes in today. Fractals are integrated in with the universal order and beneath the chaos of appearant randomness is a hidden order of beauty and grace that touches the minutest of energy and gives it a "timely direction".

There is a "structure" of time and it has a Mathematical Basis. This is expressed in the mathamatics of Chaotic Dynamics. Underlying that though is the awe and mystery of what the "gravity points" hidden in the strange attractors that shift in time.

I have been looking at this topic for 15 yrs. and it just gets deeper. And it is only one aspect of the "big picture" that includes quantum physics, Jung, Cosmology, systems analysis, ancient myth and other aspects of "knowledge".

So in responce to your post I think I have an open mind but you could never shake my belief in a higher consciousness. God would be what some would call it.

Just to clerify something, I am an artist (stone carver) and see "God" more as a "creator", setting something in motion that is of its own accord. Let it grow as it should. Being an artist is not just making beautiful things, it consentrates more on the process of creation. The more you force it the less you will accomplish. Whatever set evolution as a princple of the universe believed in that.

You can guess where "imager" comes from eh?

I'm going to get a beer.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), September 02, 1999.

Re-reading my post above, I see that I was more abrupt and harsh than I meant to be. All I meant to do was to point out that closed mindedness is a disease of *both* sides of the religious question. - in fact on both sides of just about any question that matters (and even several that don't - met any sports fans lately?). My apologies to A.

There doesn't seem to be a question per se on this thread; if there were, my guess is that it would be something like this:

Do you give more credence to posters who appear to have an open mind vs a closed one?

For me the answer is sometimes. I expect people who are convinced of their opinions to sound less open minded than those who are still weighing the evidence. I also expect those who foresee severe consequences to sound less open minded than those who don't. This is one reason why I find it somewhat surprising that there are 'pollies' who sound as shrill as 'doomers'. I read that one polly had known people who had regretted giving up their entire lives to provide for a Y2K get-away, and blamed the doomers for scaring them. This arguement doesn't wash with me - I believe that sane adults must take responsibility for their own actions. If some people acted precipitously out of fear, they are the ones at fault, not those who scared them. Moreover, the evidence is still not in that fear is an inappropriate response - nor that it is. Nonetheless, given the stakes, I'd expect many more 'doomers' to be shrill and closed minded than pollies. Doomers see themselves as saving peoples lives, pollies can at most view themselves as saving peoples life-styles.

At any rate, this thread has been quite thought provoking and interesting. Thanks, Dave for starting it, and to all who responded in a thoughtful manner.

-- Tricia the Canuck (tricia_canuck@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

Dave,

You wrote:

"The definition of a premise consists of two separate conceptual precepts. It is either a statement of fact or a supposition made or implied that serves as a basis for argument."

While there are various definitions of premises, the above will suffice. Let me refer you to that portion of your opening post which states:

"Jack would not even consider the premise of my question because of the implications of what it would mean to/for him to do so. To him, the acceptance of the premise would force him to acknowledge the conclusion. He was clearly not prepared to do this. It caused him an agonizing emotional dilemma. Because of his failure to properly deal with that dilemma, Jack's wonderful, active, and extremely capable mind was closed on this issue. It was closed, locked, and with his advanced age, it was likely that the key to unlocking it had long since been discarded, its whereabouts lost to evasion at some point earlier in life, never again to be searched for or found."

Believe it or not, some people would regard that as an argument based, at least in part, on what it characterizes as a premise.

But if you would prefer that supposition be characterized as an innately illigocial supposition instead of as a false premise, that's ok with me. I'm quite "open minded" about it. :-)

As for your statement"

"Clearly, in the context I used "If I could prove to you that God did not exist would you believe it?" it cannot be said to be an epistemological error on my part."

I do not agree.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 02, 1999.

Thanks for the clarifications Dave.

Spindoc, because Dave didn't expand on what he meant by "polly" and "doomer", I was left with assuming from my own understanding in general terms of what a polly and a doomer "is". So I assumed that I was more pessimistic than Dave. From what he said, he now appears to me to be more realistic, and be more on the same wave length with me.

I've made preparations to my main residence in the US as much as I could, and bought a rural bug-out in Canada and made preps there also as much as I could and afford (and will not stop until the last minute). Both places wouldn't be adequate for an Infomagic collapse (nor mine or my familie's ability to survive, but we could surprise ourselves), or even for a long 2nd Depression, but concidering my own circumstances, I've done the best that I could. And like Dave, I have limits, both economic and mental. I think it is unrealistic for my own family circumstances to to think and prepare past a 7-8. I don't "expect" anything, I simply don't know what's going to happen. I can only come up with a general feel which translates into optimism or pessimism. From what I researched and learned (and all of us haven't researched and learned the same, and all of us have different backgrounds in education/work experience) my present conclusions are pessimistic in the sense that I can more easily see today that an 8+ could indeed happen, than I felt it would last winter for example. The optimism that I felt then was due to the relatively longer period of time remaining for a "great awakening" of the masses and a "war effort" reaction, with all the economic and man power resources it implies for fixing y2k as best as we could on a global basis. It is evident that not only this didn't happen, but what did instead was a "war effort" to supress the "great awakening" from those we regard as leaders. And also, as I learned more and more, my understanding of what Infomagic tried to convey with his devolutionary spiral added to my pessimism. The more I learn, the less I think Infomagic is farfetched.

I can say that much; I don't expect a bump in the road, and if it does, I will have to go through a deep introspection to determine what it was that made me think otherwise, and re-examine my trust or lack there-of in the ability of human kind.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 02, 1999.

Free Thinker:

I will answer this just for fun, because I have some time, and I'll enjoy seeing if my explanation satisfies you on this point. :-)

Caveat: I am not expecting to convince you. I doubt that you're actually searching to see if the Bible could be true, right now, and you won't unless some circumstance/experience in life causes you to reevaluate your "already made" choices. The same thing is probably true as well of those who have chosen a position on Y2K and what the current situation and future possibilities are.

I can't help but think that it is unlikely that you've rejected Christianity because you found contradictions within the Bible, based on past discussion of "contradictions" within the Bible with intelligent and discussion-prone skeptics. Showing how a contradiction doesn't have to be a contradiction (explaining them, in other words) never shakes a skeptic's position at all, in my experience.

And as you are no doubt aware, there are webpages with hundreds of these supposed "contradictions," which provided good fodder for my own Bible study for a while (reading in context with a pre-existing wide knowledge of the rest of the Bible answers most of them effortlessly), but who has time to answer all of them, especially when they're probably not the real issue anyway?

What your reason is for rejecting the testimony of Jesus I can only guess. I had a Biology professor who rejected Christianity because his dad, a preacher, had neglected him and was harsh and unloving--that came out eventually in our discussions, and explained his rather strong emotional reaction to Christian "science-major" students (his goal was to destroy their faith, and for the less academically/scientifically inclined students it sometimes worked).

In another example, my father rejects Biblical Christianity because he doesn't see why the God-of-the-Bible should have a right to punish him eternally for not being perfect (nobody's perfect--no big deal). He also feels that if the Bible turns out to be true (his position is that "no one can know" so therefore he doesn't accept it, pending my ability to "prove" it to him, which is of course impossible in the sense he uses the word "prove") and he spends eternity in hell, then so be it--God will be in the wrong. My dad has firmly decided that he will just worry about this life, and "live with" whatever happens afterwards. He has a bad heart (inoperable) and so unfortunately he will soon "know" the truth, but it will be too late once he has the absolute proof he wants...but I will hope that in the split second before he dies, albeit unbeknownst to me, he humbles himself and "calls on the Lord," because if he does, he will be saved.

I also think that everyone is "closed-minded" to the possibilities that they start out by excluding, especially by way of "definition of terms". Evolutionists exclude the possibility of special instantaneous creation, agnostics exclude the possibility of knowing what they say is impossible to know, "pollyannas" exclude the possibility of a technological design flaw so significant and yet subtle that it could bring down our society and yet not show up much until a particular date, and Christians exclude the possibility of God being an evil tyrant. I'm not sure that anyone escapes this in some area. It is probably best for each person to just find out where he's closed-minded, and keep that in mind, realizing that he is biased against some evidence in those areas.

Free Thinker wrote:

"Since we're talking about the Lord and truth, here's a couple contradictions that the Lord supposedly said: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." John 5:31 and "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." John 8:14. But of course we cannot prove that Jesus said these words since the Bible was written by man."

About your opinion in the last sentence: mine is that the Bible was inspired by God, written by men He chose, and that He made sure it was accurate enough to be a reliable source of information for people He wanted to be able to "find the truth", who otherwise, philosophically, tend to just "wander around like chickens with their heads cut off."

In John 5, Jesus was pointing out that his testimony of who he was and who sent him (reality of his statement aside) was not valid under Jewish law if only one witness (himself, in this case) attested to it. Jesus goes on to say that John has also testified to Jesus' identity, and that even though Jesus himself does not accept the testimony of a mere human (vs. 34), he will allow it in order for the Jewish law to be met (two witnesses) so that the Jews might believe and be saved.

Furthermore, in the same passage, in vs. 36 and 37, Jesus gives two more witnesses--the Father who sent him, and the work that he is doing/will do. He also points out that the scriptures, which they had supposedly already accepted as true and from God, also testified about him (vs. 39). In the John 8 passage, Jesus is speaking "with" God, not alone--vs. 16--same stuff, in context--no contradiction in meaning at all, just different words/phrasing/order of ideas.

The crux of the matter: In John 5:40-42, Jesus says that the reason they refuse to come to him and have life is that they do not have a love for God within their hearts. It is not because they do not have adequate legally acceptable testimony. The same thing, perhaps, is true today for those who reject Christ and his testimony. Now why would some people love God, and others not? I have no idea.

I would think that you could have read the passages in question, understood the points being made, and seen yourself that there was no contradiction. But why didn't you do that? That brings me to the next idea I have to share.

I have read some research (my bookmark is erased, sorry) that illustrates what I think happens in situations following decisions as to what to believe, whether it is accepting advertising claims, a political position, or a belief-system. When presented with the need to make a decision on a course of action or belief, all the evidence is initially considered, and then a decision is made. From then on, only supporting evidence, for the most part, is noticed and accepted. Probably everyone has this selective thinking.

The mystery to me is not how people can maintain their beliefs in the face of evidence, once they have truly taken a position based on knowledge, and are acting on it (showing they truly believe it), given the pervasive bias in favor of what I call "belief-status-quo maintenance." Closed-mindedness even in people who think about their decisions is endemic. And wishy washy people never really make a decision, they just drift around, being chameleons.

Is it even possible to be open-minded, that's what I'd like to know!

Or maybe being open-minded just means listening well enough to understand the other person's position?

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), September 02, 1999.

Chris,

Regarding:

"it seems to be a setup pitch made on behalf of the posts of the pollies."

This seems to be taken from one of Dave's posts in which it appeared as:

"I am disappointed that your evaluation of my article amounts to "it seems to be a setup pitch made on behalf of the posts of the pollies.""

which, in turn, seems to include a misquote of one of my statements:

"But Dave's opening post seems more to be a setup for the pitch made on behalf of the posts of "pollies" than to be a work of epistemology."

which you may find as disappointing as the original, but you may notice the fundamental differences, including "seems more to be" vs. "seems to be". At the very least, you can be disappointed by the "correct" version. :-)

In any case, getting back to your statement:

"I couldn't explain it any better than Dave did in his last post, he is more eloquent than I am, and I couldn't add anything to clarify what he said."

I shall risk guessing that in this statement you are referring to Dave's statements:

"My opening post is an attempt to be concerned with truth only, regardless of whether it is being offered by the presenter or evaluated by the seeker. Specifically, what is the hallmark of the closed mind versus the workings of an open mind. (as I so state at the beginning of my reiteration of my experience with Jack."

That may seem clear to you, but it seems quite vague to me.

Going back to his earlier hallmark reference:

"When I was a young man I remember one of the great lessons of life that I inadvertently stumbled upon. It had to do with the difference between faith and reason, religion and science - between the hallmark of a closed mind and the workings of an open one.")

it suggests some undefined relationships of open mindedness with reason and science, as if such relationships were inherent, thus simply sidestepping the problems of gullibility and naivete.

You mentioned in an earlier post:

" Isn't the definition of "gullible" believing everything that one reads/hear? Dave is explicitely talking about a rationalizing open mind."

He seems to be, but very vaguely. He has not provided a definition of his conception of an open mind, nor listed its attributes, nor even so much as indicated any awareness that different people may have different ideas about what constitutes an open mind, and that some conceptions of open mindedness can be disastrous (you can find samples in reports of people who have been taken to the cleaners by con artists).

In our tasks of trying to appraise potential Y2K problems, we have to deal with insufficient data, questionable and wildly conflicting reports, and the need to make decisions long before we know which answers to many crucial questions are accurate. If what Dave has posted helps you deal with Y2K, good. It seems too fuzzy to me. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 02, 1999.

"Is it even possible to be open-minded, that's what I'd like to know!"

S.Kohl, I guess it isn't possible if one has been thoroughly brainwashed. I mean this seriously and without disrespect.

Jerry B., I apologize for picking up Dave's misquote instead of your original, but I disagree that there's a "fundamental" difference, merely a difference in intensity. My position remains that his essay was indeed a work of epistemology, and that is the fundamental premise, in my mind. Perhaps our disagreements stem from each of our use and understanding of words. I go by the American Heritage dictionary's definitions, which I constantly refer to, since English is not my primary language.

You then say "I shall risk guessing that in this statement you are referring to Dave's statements:

"My opening post is an attempt to be concerned with truth only, regardless of whether it is being offered by the presenter or evaluated by the seeker. Specifically, what is the hallmark of the closed mind versus the workings of an open mind. (as I so state at the beginning of my reiteration of my experience with Jack."

That may seem clear to you, but it seems quite vague to me."

What is clear to me can be shown by Dave's sentence "Specifically, what is the hallmark of the closed mind versus the workings of an open mind." which in turn help support my contention that his essay was "a work of epistemology". I can get lost in sementics easily too, but I try to focus on the main point of a presentation to stear my thinking.

As for the rest of what you said, I'll let Dave explain himself on that. I obviously get a different perception than you do, and for me to try to explain Dave would be presumptuous.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 02, 1999.

Chris,

I just noticed an erroneous reference in my previous post. The line that started:

which you may find as disappointing as the original,

should have started as:

which you may find as disappointing as the other version,

My apologies for any confusion that may have caused.

Jerry
P.S. You seem to be coping well with the language.

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 02, 1999.

Jerry, I understood what you meant the first time, I was just as disapointed with the "correct version", since it also departed from Dave's point. (And I borrowed the term "disapointed" from Dave, I could have just as easily said that I disagreed ;-) )

Thanks for the compliment, I seem to make more sense in writing than when I speak...must have to do with the fact that I can edit what I write more easily ;-)

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 02, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

An argument that in the case of Infomagic, produces little rancor and ridicule from the, "0" to "2" Y2Kers, but arguments of similar extreme, when offered by North and Milne produce the most profound hostility and disdain?

While swimming in a flood of Y2K information overload, I embrace the logic of Infomagic, while letting the analyses of North and Milne float by. For one thing, the Infomagic work has well defined boundries. I can read the few documents that circumscribe his analysis and feel confident that I can comment upon it without being called upon to defend or repudiate some bizarre thing he may have said in a book thirty years ago, or in some obscure forum, just yesterday.

Infomagic does not bring a lot of excess baggage to his analysis. It's been a while since I read his Charlotte's Web, but I have no idea where he may stand on issues of abortion, religious tests for government offices, or the women's movement.

Infomagic seems to have more of a background in computer programming, lending some credibility to his speculations about how they may behave.

Finally, with North and Milne, I can never shake the feeling that I would be just the type of person that they would be very happy to see die. I can't say for sure if this comes from reading something that they actually wrote or second hand reports of what people have thought that they have said. It may be that they have not have said such things at all. It would be helpful if those posting and reposting the same inflamatory quotes would provide links so that we can read their stuff in context.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), September 02, 1999.