Really incapable of a decent conversation??

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Nice story.

Yes, and chess opens a window onto my own mind -- the mountain I have to climb. But sometimes people who are fantastic chess players can't be trusted in any practical matters.

One fine day I'll take up go; do you play it?

I don't play go;

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes, but does intuition play a part in your evaluation process, or do you confine yourself to empirical facts?

World War 1 gave expression to the conflict between these two approaches.

If one's heart does not work then his brain is useless

Originally posted by black beetle
If one's heart does not work then his brain is useless

Yes. Could that be the root of fanaticism?

Originally posted by black beetle

Of course you are fully aware that you are obnoxious, my honey-tongue brother. The quality inside me that bothers you is a mirror of yourself.
And then we laugh!

You got me.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You got me.

Not bad from two obnoxious filthy guys incapable for a decent conversation

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes. Could that be the root of fanaticism?

It is. But you need another agent to make it evolve

Originally posted by black beetle
Not bad from two obnoxious filthy guys incapable for a decent conversation

You're filthy too? This is too much.

Originally posted by black beetle
It is. But you need another agent to make it evolve

And the agent can be practically anything -- as L. Ron Hubbard realised.

It's all done with mirrors.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
And the agent can be practically anything -- as L. Ron Hubbard realised.

It's all done with mirrors.

It cannot.
It works solely because of the egoism. The jazz deriving after that, well yes is mirrors.

Avoid egoism and those mirrors are broken

Originally posted by black beetle
It cannot.
It works solely because of the egoism. The jazz deriving after that, well yes is mirrors.

Avoid egoism and those mirrors are broken

What I mean is that the central tenet of the belief system can be purely arbitrary, provided that people buy into it -- which they usually do precisely, as you say, for the sake of a perverse amour propre.

La Rochefoucauld is very good on egoism masquerading as charity and other virtues.

Needless to say, scientists are not exempt from egoism, which can lead to strange -- impurities.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What I mean is that the central tenet of the belief system can be purely arbitrary, provided that people buy into it -- which they usually do precisely, as you say, for the sake of a perverse amour propre.

La Rochefoucauld is very good on egoism masquerading as charity and other virtues.

Needless to say, scientists are not exempt from egoism, which can lead to strange -- impurities.

Sure

Originally posted by black beetle
Sure

Using the language of science metaphorically, how would you describe this reaction?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Using the language of science metaphorically, how would you describe this reaction?

No science over here! I would rather say that this sitiuation is like having your White King stuck on h1 and moving him fervently a square to the left in order to avoid to be chackmated, insisting that your move is legal;

Originally posted by black beetle
No science over here! I would rather say that this sitiuation is like having your White King stuck on h1 and moving him fervently a square to the left in order to avoid to be chackmated, insisting that your move is legal;

...to the right of course!

Originally posted by black beetle
For starters, are you talking about Dawkins? In such a case I think that his sociological views have a kinda stable basis;

Also, your second quote is somehow corresponding to my opinion. As a matter of fact there is no place for a scientist to hide should he try to interfere scientifically with issues which are not part of his field. It seems that the possible exemptions are validating this "rule".

Dawkins is one of many, but the cap would definitely fit him.

Your second paragraph is basically a No True Scotsman fallacy. Scientists are only human. That some do not fit your vision of what a "true" scientist should be is not very relevant.