The Trabant Model Of Science - Epistemology

Message from discussion The Trabant Model Of Science

Sam Carana

More options Oct 7 2005, 8:19 pm

From: Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 10:19:08 +1000

Local: Fri, Oct 7 2005 8:19 pm

Subject: Re: [epistemology] Re: The Trabant Model Of Science

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

On 10/8/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

> Sam Carana wrote:
> > On 10/6/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

> > > I wonder how Sam reconciles her claim in quote 1 (post #67,this
> thread),
> > > with her transparent implication that there is a conspiracy in quote 2
> (post
> > > # 70). I added the upper case for emphases!

> > > Quote 1:
> > > "I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY, einseele, it's done quite
> openly,
> > > funding for science comes predominantly from government budgets for
> > > education and the military. Whether government also controls TRUTH,
> art,
> > > passion and "human reality" is another story?"

> > > Quote 2:
> > > "...there are scenarios that are much superior, because they do not
> put
> > > control over science into the hands of a single organization. Instead,
> there
> > > would be multiple organizations each competing with each other for
> > > excellence in all areas. Such competition ensures that none of them
> can get
> > > away with USING OBSCURE OR MISLEADING RHETORIC. Fierce competition
> itself
> > > will UNMASK those who are out to use DECEPTIVE ways of indoctrination,
> > > specifically those who PRETENDED there was a need for an overall
> arbitor
> > > (such as a Pope or a PRESIDENT) to assess WHO DESERVED funding."

> > Always glad to help you out and clear things up, zinnic. Do you see any
> > inconsistency in the fact that some people claim that there should be an
> > overall arbitor regarding the government's military budget on the one
> hand
> > and the fact that they openly advocate such views on the other hand, i.e
> .
> > without conspiracy?

> That "some people claim" something and " openly advocate" the same thing
> is not inconsistent. Now explain how the words you used in the second of the
> posts I quoted do not strongly imply that a 'conspiracy' exists! Or do you
> agree that it was the poor choice of words on your part, that led to this
> misunderstanding?

Some people advocate monopolies, yes..? Some of them may do so because they
short-mindedly believe to personally beneft from that, probably because they
feed on a monopoly themselves. To really understand their line of reasoning,
you'd have to ask them, because I believe they are wrong. Anyway, they may
use all kinds of means to advance their cause, even resort to the use of
obscure and misleading rhetoric, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was
a conspiracy behind this. Each of them may well act on their own initiative,
which seems likely if it's a shot-sighted perception of self-interest that
drives them. The idea that this implied that they had secret meetings to
plan all this, that is your conclusion. In fact, I have said repeatedly that
there is no such conspiracy, but that it takes place quite openly.
Competition will ensure that providers of services will have less
opportunity to deceive customers. When there's more competition, customers
can and will demand that suppliers make their offers on clear terms. What is
there about this that you fail to understand? Are you perhaps seeking to
deliberately twist my words, in the short-sighted belief that this would
advance your standing in this group? Or, is there some political motivation
behind this?

> BTW, why do you address me as female?

> I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I not?

> Because in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not personalities. It

may be typical for some who loose the plot to degenerate into personal
attacks, but that only indicated that such a person had nothing else to
contribute to the discussion, other than twisting people's words and
personally attacking them for the sake of it.
Sam

Reply to author Forward