Kuko 4000
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,586
Personally, I think the guy made a perfectly fine question:
"But you're using your reasoning to validate your reasoning, don't you see a problem with that?"
...and Randi called it juvenile because he clearly didn't have a good reply. Up until that he was doing quite well and being nice. I have to say I was surprised that he didn't have a better reply to this fundamental question.
The fact is that valuing reason and evidence is ultimately no better than valuing blind faith or random actions, UNLESS, you define beforehand what you want to achieve. He could've simply explained this and it's implications clearly to the person asking the question, but it seems to me that Randi hasn't thought this through himself. I see this confusion on many fellow skeptics and believers as well.
There is no evidence that we should value evidence, unless we define beforehand what it is that we want to achieve.
"But you're using your reasoning to validate your reasoning, don't you see a problem with that?"
...and Randi called it juvenile because he clearly didn't have a good reply. Up until that he was doing quite well and being nice. I have to say I was surprised that he didn't have a better reply to this fundamental question.
The fact is that valuing reason and evidence is ultimately no better than valuing blind faith or random actions, UNLESS, you define beforehand what you want to achieve. He could've simply explained this and it's implications clearly to the person asking the question, but it seems to me that Randi hasn't thought this through himself. I see this confusion on many fellow skeptics and believers as well.
There is no evidence that we should value evidence, unless we define beforehand what it is that we want to achieve.