On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote:

In this context I meant "personality" as in demeanor and attitude, not scholarship and competence.

Opposite sides of the same coin...

...

Your waste of time is somebodies jewel of the Nile (I have these images of Creationist books I've read flashing through my mind, very unpleasant).

So do you keep on finding more of the same or have you got on to something of more value to you?

I keep hoping I'll run across a 'new' creationist theory, but they all boil down to the same old same old. I don't remember the last time I finished one of the books . Of course the same can be said about most books, technical or not. And no, I'm not a creationist of any bent outside of the pantheist sort (ie Gaia). I'd say that only about 10% of all books are worth reading. Of those 10%, 90% of their content is wrong (and hence interesting in the sense of why they are wrong)..which really gets down to the crux of the matter for me. Not why they got it right, but why they failed. Unfortunately most readers focus on what they like, the positive aspect of the experience, and not the negative. Which from an analytic/comprehension perspective is a stronger viewpoint (or at least seems so to me).

...

And there's looking for corroborating evidence... :)

Well we all do whether we intend to or not: no matter how much you try there's no getting out from under your experience.

I disagree, see Newtons comments about hypothesis and playing with stones on a beach.

but to avoid re-inventing the wheel. "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." you know?

That's not what he meant by that. He was saying that what he did was not in and of itself his creation. He was objecting to credit being given the 'Lion of England' when it wasn't the Lion's due (why in his later life he began to publish anonymously). Unfortunately this can't be said of most people. Most people will take credit for whatever they can and then advertise it widely. One of the most popular strategies is to 'let them think it was their idea'.

Recommending books, on the other hand, has to do with getting people to share an aspect of your mental context. Like that book I recommended on MOUT awhile back: it's not that I agree with its conclusions or the ideology behind it--it's just that it made a powerful impression on the way I think about some of the issues that are most important to me, and went a long way toward providing valuable information I didn't already have. Why wouldn't I be interested in spreading it around.

I'm not saying you shouldn't spread it around. I disagree on your 'mental context'. I don't suggest that another person should read a book to understand me per se, but rather to escape the singular view point we all have. For me, the best thing that could happen is that somebody else read it and comes to a different conclusion. It is the dialog that follows that gives the book worth. Something greater than the authors intent, or my own personality happens then. The problem is that many equate reading (even a lot) with understanding, and in actuality too few people question vigorously enough to ever really 'understand' anything. It's not uncommon in our society to hear people say 'He said ...' but they themselves can't explain it in their own terms and context. They can regurgitate, they can't cogitate. Dogma and pedantry. It's why 'arguments from authority are useless' is such a strong tool with respect to deductive/synthetic analysis. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------