> I disputed the Christian group's conclusions, not because they were
> Christians, but because their methods of prayer and divine guidance
> were not reviewable, provable, falsifiable, objective or reproducible.
You have yet to find *one* *single* item in that article that you
specifically disagree with. And you are *very* far from relating
that item to religiosity. What was it in the article---as opposed
to who wrote it---that you disagree with?
> It may appear to be an "Appeal to Authority" to prefer one person's research
> over another's based on the former being a scientist and the latter being a
> mystic. But this is not due to their "authority". It is due to their
> methods. Methods that are reviewable, provable, falsifiable, objective and
> reproducible are valid for appeal. Those that are not are invalid.
> "Authority" has nothing to do with it.
Good. Then we totally agree. All that remains is for you to explain
specifically what was in the article that you question---rather than
just the web site it came from or who the author is affiliated with.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:10 MDT