Announcing: Answers To Top 10 Questions About The Brain
David at longley.demon.co.uk
Tue Jul 1 02:38:54 EST 2003
In article <bdr5ko$uoe$1 at bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Mr Michael Bibby
<s4032484 at student.uq.edu.au> writes
>>On 30 Jun 2003 06:25:07 GMT, "Mr Michael Bibby"
>><s4032484 at student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>>More significantly - who *answered* the questions?
>>>this, i believe is a good question. the fact that you have posted this website
>>>means that you are making an 'appeal to authority'- therefore, it is perfectly
>>>resonable to question the authority to which you appeal. i am my own authority
>>>on all matters which i consider and gauge the varacity of the explainations
>>>which are offered at this website to be of perfunctory stardard: i gauge these
>>>'explainations' to be utterly vacuous and incommensurable, framed in a
>>>theoretical framework which i couldnt possible accept. you, on the other
>>>think differently, thats o.k., becuase this is your perogative.
>>No it does not. It means an appeal to reason. Engage that.
>now were getting somewhere, i can smell a debate coming on. so the authority you
>appeal to is *reason*! nothing is changed, my comments still stand to reason
>because reason can only comprehend what she herself has brought forth according
>to her design; like i said "i gauge these 'explainations' to be utterly vacuous
>and incommensurable, framed in a theoretical framework which i couldnt possible
>accept" i should like to add "becuase it is unreasonable".
>if you argue against me, then you are implying that you are more reasonable than
>me! i am not arguing you here, i am merely expressing my point of view and as
>far as i am concerned my point of view is not up for discussion!
Yes - my point was that I'd expect the *answers* to come from experts in
the appropriate fields of research, and I'd expect the material cited to
be referenced. Otherwise the answers could just be cobbled together by
yet another net "enthusiast".
More information about the Neur-sci