tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1733988359835604469.post2236269398058675559..comments2023-06-14T04:42:37.404-07:00Comments on Science is a method, not a position: Great post. . .M.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/13310971675352307226noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1733988359835604469.post-28722589378322693632007-07-14T10:37:00.000-07:002007-07-14T10:37:00.000-07:00>He's criticising skeptics for make people think t...>He's criticising skeptics for make people think the same way he does? <BR/><BR/>I probably should have said that the goal of (many) skeptics is to get people to say, "I don't know and I don't care - to hell with it - I just won't think about it at all." <BR/><BR/>Regarding Shakespeare, I do think the true author was probably Edward De Vere. The best book on the subject is <I>The Man Who Was Shakespeare</I>, by Mark Anderson. In my opinion, Anderson presents so much circumstantial evidence that the ball is now squarely in the Stratfordians' court. But don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself - it's really a very good book, and even if you disagree with the conclusions, you'll learn a lot about Shakespeare, Elizabethan England, and the political intrigues of the aristocracy. Not to mention how De Vere challenged Sir Philip Sydney to a duel after a dispute over who had reserved the royal tennis court! <BR/><BR/>- Michael PrescottAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1733988359835604469.post-6848288292558828882007-07-13T07:54:00.000-07:002007-07-13T07:54:00.000-07:00The trouble with analogies is that they're too vag...The trouble with analogies is that they're too vague. I don't really know what "claims of the paranormal" means. There's the whole theistic/spiritualist side which puts humanity back at the centre of the creation in terms of importance, or there's the parapsychological side which in the end may support spiritulaist claims, or may end up changing our understanding of a (still) materialist universe.<BR/><BR/>The other problem with analogies is that they're too easily rewritten to mean something quite different the original author's intention. I was struck by how Michael's description of skeptics could fit those people skeptical that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare (one of the topics he occasionally touches upon_.<BR/><BR/>Also, there's a confusing bit: in the original post he writes something like "all a skeptic has to do is make people admit they don't know", while in the comments he says with regards to life after death that he doesn't know. He's criticising skeptics for make people think the same way he does?Ersbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012602968152264418noreply@blogger.com