SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (12677)5/26/1999 3:01:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 13994
 
Well, I wasn't really speaking of scientific laws. In that realm I agree that we (at the least for convenience's sake) need to be willing to accept the word of a recognized authority. I was speaking of philosophical concepts, and in that field I stand by my conviction that reflexively accepting or denying anything based on the purported authority or lack thereof of the originator of the idea is self-defeating. The only philosophies I accept are the ones that I've thought through enough to make a considered judgment as to their legitimacy. I am deliberately disinterested in the source because ultimately the only thing that matters is the idea.

In peace,

-BLT



To: Neocon who wrote (12677)5/26/1999 10:08:00 PM
From: Dan B.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13994
 
Neocon, Re Your comment: "I obviously would take the Pope's ideas about Catholicism more seriously than Larry King's"

Given this choice, I'd have to think the most unbiased of the two might well be King. Perhaps HE should be taken more seriously, or at least equally. Of course, it depends on which ideas you are talking about. Larry King is less likely to believe in the infallibility of the Pope than the Pope himself. So, in short, it's important to remember that though the Pope or some other authority may be knowledgeable, we should beware of the biased.

Dan B