Haran

The converse is true from my own perspective, Vork. I'd better just leave it at that.

Sauron

A lengthy argument that amounts to reductio ad absurdiem, and a deliberate misundertstanding of common verbal shorthand. I could have summarized your point much more briefly: since we all have biases, it's pointless to say that someone else is acting out of bias.

The problem with that viewpoint (and the problem with your post) is that it engages in the pure black-and-whiteness that you allegedly are rejecting. Why? Because it assumes all such scholarship falls into either one of two categories:

(a) absolute truth, or
(b) undifferentiated bias

This is clearly not the case. There are shades of bias, degrees and amounts of it. Or, to put it another way, the inevitability of:

(1) *some* bias in every bit of research

does not excuse

(2) *gross* amounts of bias that interfere with objectivity and render the process indistinguishable from faith-based apologetics.

Nor does it mean that we should not strive to remove as much bias as possible, even if we know beforehand that removing ALL traces of bias is probably an impossible feat.

Note - trotting out the old "well, everyone has *some* bias" argument is similar to the tactic that creationists use when they try to say that since we can never know anytyhing for sure, there must still be some finite chance that creationism is true. Both attempts ignore the obvious realities.

So in everyday shorthand, when someone says that Person X is biased, they obviously mean (2), not (1). I suspect everyone already knew that, but I guess it was necessary to go back over it to keep people from confusing a semantic point with a real argument. And to keep Haran from thinking that both views of the ossuary's authenticity have equal validity and probability, just because neither view is 100% free of bias.

Haran

Sauron, you completely misread me and misunderstand me.

I do not intend to back up the statement you pulled from my post because I don't believe it. But then it seems I have probably been wrong about human nature lately, so who really knows...

Whatever. I will not reply further to what I see as unreasonable and emotional drivel in your post except to say...Go thoughtlessly work together with your "co-Atheists" to accuse someone else of working together with their "co-religionists"... Sheesh...

Haran

Good post Aikido and something we should all, theist and non-theist alike, take into account. There are those who think they are unbiased and impartial. They would be blind and wrong.

Sauron

1. Which statement? You made two, and they're not compatible.

2. After you decide which statement, maybe you can explain: why did you include it in your post if you don't believe it?

Your refusal to defend your position sounds more like a realization on your part that you contradicted yourself in your post. So instead of explaining that contradiction -- and be forced to tap dance your way through an impossible contradiction -- you just issue a blank declaration that you're not going to defend your position. There's a spot for you in the Bush Administration.

Look, Haran - this is easy.

1. You said that political considerations entered into the IAA decision.
2. You made two comments about that particular scenario: (a)that it was "easy", and (b) that it was "unlikely".
3. Which is it? A or B?

Your comment about the IAA amounts to professionally insulting them as an organization. If you have such evidence, then you owe it to everyone involved to bring it forward. If you *don't* have such evidence, then your baseless accusation against such a professional and reknowned body as the IAA is dishonest and unworthy of someone who claims to be a scholar of this topic. You owe us a clarification, and you owe them an apology.

Or were you just tossing out red herrings with unusual vigor today? Perhaps hoping that by whispering unsupported claims about the IAA, you could hope to tarnish their reputation? And thus find an escape hatch somewhere that would allow you and your co-religionists a graceful exit?


You're the one who continues to comb through literature, looking for any escape hatch at all. Not the skeptics. Given that fact, it's obvious which group is operating with extreme bias and prejudice here.

Here's what I think: you can't stand the fact that skeptics, operating with as much or more knowledge as you and your experts, reached the correct conclusion long before you and your co-religionists did. But that is the advantage of operating purely in the realm of evidence and fact: it takes a shorter time for the truth to sink in, and make itself evident.

aikido7

...You also might have summarized my point that greater understanding can make one aware of one's own biases. That is even more brief. And it is never pointless--in my opinion--to "say that someone else is acting out of bias."

I am curious to know how you came to the conclusion that a "misunderstanding" (if there is one) can be "deliberate?"

I am not aware that I see things in black and white terms, for my insistence on including the term "ambiguity," I thought, would make my view easier to grasp.

I am of the sense that fundamentalism and skepticism are both twin features of the splitting of 19th century rationalism. Actually outdated, they both nevertheless still live by the literal and are usually incapable of understanding or acknowledging the metaphoric and basis of all human understanding. To borrow a phrase, both attempts ignore the obvious realities.

This post may belong somewhere in the metaphysical category, as I am fast becoming aware at this point there is probably a bias around that I am arrogantly shoveling bullshit.

To me, truth is that which highlights the conflict of opposing ideologies. History, besides being written by the victors, gets closer to the truth each time it advances--but no further.

godfry n. glad

Here it is:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...ws/6359197.htm

Probably more film at 11...

godfry