<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dave -<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:69816668-5072-4e79-a62d-d05c40b01ac1@www.fastmail.com">
<div style="font-family:Arial;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">It seems like the ideas that seem
to capture my imagination - Sheldrake, quantum consciousness
among them - tend to be labeled as "pseudo." This is annoying,
first because my hermeneutical hackles bristle whenever anyone
tries to assert their interpretation as privileged over someone
else's; and because there seem to be so many cross-connections
that afford all within the net to gain plausibility simply from
being in the net.<br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks for making this point and sharing this predilection. I
find a duality in this experience myself which can be a challenge
to manage. I deeply share your suspicion/resentment of
"privileged interpretation". I also am deeply suspicious of
persuasive modes of communication (NLP as an extreme example, bad
but conventional rhetoric second to that). I have been a direct
"victim" of this in my life from time to time, but more
chronically I have *observed* others being persuaded to believe
things for which there is either shaky evidence or which is highly
contradicted by the evidence available. My judgement of this can
sound or feel like my own positioning with "privileged
interpretation" which is what makes manipulative rhetoric so
insidious. I agree that all that is labeled "pseudo" is not
false or flimsy, or is only *contingently* so. <br>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, one of the common tools I've seen in this type
of manipulative rhetoric is to *claim* that dismissal by the
mainstream is nearly "proof" of truthiness. For example, Climate
Denial, AntiVax, ChemTrails, UFOlogy, etc. seem to hold up as
their prime (or at least significant) evidence the simple fact
that the "mainstream" or the "establishment" dismisses them. The
apparent bias of many to believe anything wrapped up in the
trappings of a "conspiracy".<br>
</p>
<p>On the other other hand, new or changing or revolutionary
paradigms in knowledge are *naturally* strongly or fundamentally
counter to the common/standard "truth". Copernicus and Galileo
and their move from geocentric to heliocentric astronomical
models.</p>
<p>You use the phrase "capture my imagination" which I find *also*
holds a dualism for me. On the one hand, I believe that
intuition is a critical element in my own understanding and
knowledge of the world. On the other, I find that my
"imagination" is vulnerable to "whimsy" and a carefully
constructed "whimsy" can be as compelling in it's own way as the
biases of "conspiracy". The carrot to go with the stick.</p>
<p>Being trained formally in Science and Mathematics, I have a deep
respect for the methods and sensibilities of those domains.
Working in "Big Science" among a broad cross-cutting set of
disciplines (27 years at LANL) also gave me a deep suspicion of
"received wisdom". While the largest portion of the work I
observed stood on it's own merits, the largest portion of the
*funding* for the work seemed to follow the biases of "privileged
interpretation" and "received wisdom". I also felt that
*publication* of scientific work went through a similar but not as
extreme biased filter. Peer review and reproduction of results
are central to scientific progress, so this can be problematic. On
the other, other, other hand, irresponsible publication of "hooey"
without proper peer review seems somewhat pervasive and corrupts
the process in it's own insidious way.</p>
<p><ramble off></p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>