From: chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Pontificating, was Re: Short Population Facts
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:07:22 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <STEINLY.92Apr8150521@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
<In article <18441@smoke.brl.mil> chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) writes:
<
<   In article <1466601312@igc.org> ecosystems@igc.org (Eco Systems Inc.) writes:
<
<   <What we need less of is closed minds. I don't see how listing of 
<   <facts can be construed as pontification.
<
<	   When controversial ideas are being discussed, there is frequent
<   disagreement on the accuracy, applicability, relevance, or even truth of 
<   chunks of information presented as facts.  If we could agree on the facts, 
<   there would often be no further discussion; it would be obvious what the 
                ^^^^^
	Please note that I carefuly wrote OFTEN.

<   conclusion should be.
<
<I would strongly disagree with that. When people reach conclusions
<they weigh the facts according to some internal preference, and may
<reach diametrically opposite conslusions.
<To consider an extreme example, a person adhering to some
<(hypothetical ;-) religious tenet migh agree that the ozone
<layer is shot, the greenhouse effect is running rampant and that
<there will be a 90%+ reduction in biodiversity if this goes on,
<but that it is all irrelevant to any determination of human behaviour
<because the "Messiah" will come in 8 years and the world will end.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Are you postulating agreement on this 'fact'?  Agreement may be
difficult to achieve because some believe that it is explicitly contradicted
by Mathew 24:34.  Others, as you note below, consider it religious 
foolishness.

<	Most people bothering to read this group migh consider such
<a view functionally insane, but they exist, also in less extreme
<version, and facts won't alter their evaluation. Nor can they be
<dismissed or ignored, nor can you assume that if only things were
<just explained to them properly would they see things the "right" way.
<	It is almost impossible to argue with moral imperatives, it
<seems to me that the best you can do is to accept provisionally some
<of the underlying assumptions for the purpose of communication and
<see if you can transliterate some of the concepts of infiltrate the
<belief system... people might note that this certainly goes on with
<the less extreme views more common on Usenet, although a lot of people
<would appear completely unable to identify at all with other people's 
<points of view... ;-)
<
<*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *

	The problem may be put succinctly, To someone who accepts a 'moral
imperitave' it as a 'fact'.  In fact, this is what distinguishes a 'true
believer', they accept certain ideas as 'facts' that others don't.  We have
several 'true believers' with different sets of 'facts' who sometimes
discuss, argue, or harangue, (choose one according to your agreement or
disagreement with their position), on this group.  Discussions between those
with disjoint sets of 'facts' lead to rapid jumps in blood pressure and
waste band-width but don't accomplish much else.

								Irv


-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.  They do not tell me what their policy 
is.  They may not have one.		Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>