Toto

Ha ha, you're right. It does have the Subgenius icon.

I had not bothered with Acharya, based mainly on Robert Price's review, but it looks like she has a lot of fun with the subject. I wouldn't be surprized if her statements on extraterrestrials were part of the fun (or part of her marketing scheme to the new age community). Maybe I'll put the book on my list of things to read, meaning I'll get around to it sometime in the next decade. Sigh.

I mean, anyone who gets Layman into a snit like that can't be all bad.

Haran

Obviously, I'm with Layman on Acharya S.

When someone's ideas are so outlandish in so many different areas, it is very hard to consider them a reputable source. I simply don't feel that I can trust her information because it all seems so exaggerated.

I can feel reasonably comfortable trusting the information present by someone, as Vorkosigan suggests, who has a belief that aliens might exist (heck, I think it's possible). However, when this person begins to add all sorts of other strange ideas and notions to the point of absurdity, it becomes very hard if not impossible for me to trust their information. Acharya S seems to be one of those people. There are many, many, many sources that I would put well ahead of any information she presents.

I can't understand why the "critical minds" here are feeling it necessary to defend her work against Layman's perfectly reasonable accusations.

Frankly, it amazes me that this debate is even taking place, and I doubt that I will continue it beyond this because it would seem incredibly silly to me.

Haran

Vorkosigan

I can feel reasonably comfortable trusting the information present by someone, as Vorkosigan suggests, who has a belief that aliens might exist (heck, I think it's possible). However, when this person begins to add all sorts of other strange ideas and notions to the point of absurdity, it becomes very hard if not impossible for me to trust their information.

Yes, but that's the question, Haran. What is the "point of absurdity?" Where is it located? How do we know it when we see it?

Toto

First, I haven't noticed anyone actually defending her work. Most people here seem to think she's a flake, and may have gotten some things right, but is not a great authority.

Layman's "perfectly reasonable" accusation was that she is MORON. Excuse me, but what is reasonable about that? It's just a term of abuse.

It's not clear if Layman has even read her books, or is just relying on his fellow believers-in-the-right-supernatural-unprovable-things.

Layman

I don't see how, you've tried to pin me down as inconsistent by conflating my beliefs with yours and Acharya S's.

Once again you are jumping between different viewpoints. Yes, if "we" operated from her viewpoint we would share her viewpoint. Thanks for again stating the obvious. But no "we" do not reject both viewpoints as wacko, you and your friends here do. I--clearly--reject her viewpoint and yours as erroneous.

Bias, viewpoint, and perspective are all valid criteria to examine when evaluating someone's work. Indeed, it is especially important when deciding between the plentiful sources out there.

You obviously ignored them when you were claiming that her beliefs were more valid than my beliefs are. You focused on one isolated belief (and distorted it to make it sound more reasonable) to set up a strawman.

Yes, in fact, given that there are so many excellent sources and authorities out there, I do disregard the nutty ones. And, I expect, so do many people. And I think to a skeptic/criticalthinker/freethinker, this would especially be true since you have dogmatic opposition to religios ideas (even those of a supersexconsciousnewageguro).

If Acharya had developed a reputation for excellence in the field of religious studies like Newton has in the area of physics, then I would say that her whacko ideas might be overlooked. Not ignored, but the countervielling weight of the respect she might have gained would perhaps be enough to induce me to read her book. Alas, no scholar of any repute has even taken her books seriously. She lacks the reputation and historical impact that Newton has accumulated. In other words, there is no validity to your comparison.

Obviously this is not untrue. That would have taken one paragraph. Instead you appear to be arguing that the fact that Acharya S--a nobody in the scholarly world--believes that AIDs does not exist, is a new age guru promoting sexual superconsciousness, belives that the big mac is a threat to western civilization, believes the family is an evil institution, and believes she is on a direct mission from space aliens to spread the word, should be irrelevant when someone is deciding whether or not to read her book (or take what they read seriously).

That's much to broad a question to give a precise answer to. But if I'm deciding between many different books to read, the author's obvious moronism on a host of issues will be one factor I take into account. But I would point out that you are once again misreprsenting the case here. Acharya S's book is about religion (topic A). And her whacky new age beliefs in sexual superconcsiousness and space aliens are directly related to religion as well (also topic A).

Vorkosigan[/QUOTE]

Layman

Whew. The fact that Toto--desperate seeker of anti-Christian fringe scholarship--is showing interest in Acharya S, just gives me all the more peace about her irrelevancy. There is no truer sign that an idea is doomed to academic and scholarly irrelevancy than the fact that Toto finds it interesting.

Layman

So calling her a "flake" is "perfectly reasonable" but calling her a "moron" is just a "term of abuse."

Got it.

After having debated one of her disciples on another board, I visited her website and saw what a flaky moron she is, so no, I decided not to buy her book.

Toto

Piling on the abuse pretty heavily here, aren't you, Layman? It's good to see how that Christian experience has given you personal peace and understanding.

I described the opinions of most people here as that she is a flake, but that was my word, not theirs. Your arguments consisted of repeating the word "moron". You claim you defeated one of her followers on another board (meaning what? you shouted him down, or converted him to Jesus?) which gives you license to call her a moron without actually reading her book.

Vorkosigan

... believes the family is an evil institution, and believes she is on a direct mission from space aliens to spread the word, should be irrelevant when someone is deciding whether or not to read her book (or take what they read seriously).

Layman, if we eliminated everyone we believed held wacky beliefs, that would eliminate everyone who believed in the supernatural. Obviously the mere possession of nutty beliefs is not enough. More is needed.

You have already suggested one excellent way around the problem of when we should reject works without reading them because their authors hold nutty beliefs: reputation in the relevant academic field. Of which Acharya deservedly has none. I bow to your superior argument.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Think about this a little, Toto.

Perhaps some would not call her a "flake" or "moron" publicly, but might think it none-the-less. Layman is simply expressing his opinion and he is entitled to it. You can probably guess what I think about Acharya...

Anyway... Some here did seem to be defending her work. As a matter of fact, that's the entire reason for the present tangent...someone presented Acharya's material to someone else as a source of information. Layman did a service to those who might not have known about Acharya and her information. He also provided a mini-review of her works..."moronic". You, Toto, provided your own..."flake". Six of one / half-dozen of the other.

Haran