Re: Revelation; VULGAR EMPIRICISM!

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: George Ulrich: "terminology"
• Previous message: Read, Dwight ANTHRO: "Re: Nelson & Yee"

On Wed, 12 Jan 1994, SS51000 wrote:

> A few people join K. Poewe in rejecting the suggestion that scientific
> flashes of insight are distinguishable from "revelations" in the usual
> sense of that word. Here are their arguments: M. Lieber successfully
> shows that if you define all communication to be "revelation," then
> science depends heavily on it. M. Evans notes that "A revelation may
> appear to come from nowhere, because it comes from an unorganized
> somewhere." An Anonymous One Who Claims to be Seeking points out that
> people get frustrated when their gods don't deliver. B. M. Biglow then
> asks, "are 'Beavis and Butthead pomo too?" In the face of such a
> devastating critique, I find myself happy--even proud--to accept as an
> unintended accolade M. Evans' designation as a "vulgar empiricist."
> --Bob Graber
>

Bob reminds us again of just how pervasive the reality-conjuring of A
Current Affair has become. Take a handful of disjointed soundbites,
arrange them artfully, and then recite in a sotto voce voiceover "this
may not be news but it IS reality."


In the words of Dorothy Parker:

Tonstant Weader fwowed up.


dgl

• Next message: George Ulrich: "terminology"
• Previous message: Read, Dwight ANTHRO: "Re: Nelson & Yee"