VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:09:15 02/24/02 Sun
Author: virgio
Subject: "Truth doesn't convince - the most interesting lie does."

This forum was created to allow discussion on the subject of reality and truth. I had to chuckle when I saw all the posts under this category - first and foremost, naturally, being an atheist one. I'm rather skeptical about any claim to truth, or claims to methods of obtaining truth. I'm skeptical, in an almost deconstructionist fashion, of claims to reality. But those are terms that we should spend some time defining, and enjoy doing so.

A little background, and any new members (which there hopefully will be) feel free to do the same - I'm 21 years old, an English/History major (surprise surprise). I'm an agnostic theist, but that's only a rough label. I don't consider myself liberal or conservative in a political sense. I have been considered, however, radically conservative, radically liberal, racist, feminist, misogynist, tolerant, wise, an idiot and a git - but then I'm too hard on myself *grins*.

Anyhow, feel free to post. If you want some direction, I do have a situation in mind that directs, in some fashion, thought towards the topic. There are two people. One (Commoner) says we should be wary of GM foods ( http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm ). The other (Bailey) attacks the above article in his own article (http://reason.com/rb/rb013002.shtml ). We are left thinking this

"Commoner says one thing. Bailey says this is nonsense and says another. Who do I believe? I read Commoner first, so do I look at the way in which Bailey writes his article to see if seems to have a grudge against anti-GM foods activists? Or against Commoner? Are the points he makes against Commoner's article valid, or does Commoner have an equally valid explanation? Does the biologist Bailey cites represent all biologists? Which biologist should I believe? Can't I just get two pictures of Bailey and Commoner and decide on the issue that way? What about an Gladiator type of battle? Can that resolve the issue?"

Note: This isn't to be a debate about GM foods, although this example is focussed on that subject. It's merely a template.

virgio

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.