Whoa!!  Anger.

I am not the best person to send this message, but I'll try anyway.  Lack of
openness and trust leads to crap debate and little accord.

There is a feminist philosopher called Annette Baier (who was taught at
Otago University and is now retired in the fair city of Dunedin after an
international academic career) who wrote about moral philosophy.  Being a
feminist she jumped pretty hard on all the old balding white middle class
males who tended to define ethical systems of what is "right" and "good"
through some reasoned process (Kant, Bentham, et al).  She made the point
that most were sort of "duty-orientated" and swayed by logic and facts.  She
challenged this whole thing as a male thing, and that women, and actually
all of us (well, most), don't make moral decisions in this way.  Instead we
hear whom we trust, and the arguments seem more convincing coming from the
mouth of such, than the same or even better arguments coming out of others'
mouths.

The example is given of a baby sitter who has all the credentials in the
world, whom a mother may not like as a person, compared with one who may not
have the paper (objective, certifiable) credentials, but who is somehow
trustworthy, perhaps due to other social connections etc (Christ, I don't
know, it may be as simple as having a nice smile - ask Bill Clinton).  Who
does the mother choose?  Annette Baier says she chooses the latter.  She is
not going to leave her child with anyone she doesn't trust entirely.  All
the data and references and credentials in the world mean nothing if there
is not trust.  We suck up the information the trustworthy provide for us.
It is how paradigms form, and is deeply human it seems to me.  Some may say
that males have different meta-decision-criteria (i.e. more "rational"), but
I doubt it.

But then again I probably don't trust the people who tell me they are
rational!

I trust Jim Tantillo, and most of the time I even agree with him.  He ain't
no heinous man Chris L.  He also has a point that there is no jury yet out
on global warming.  It is irrefutable that we have increased greenhouse gas
emissions.  But while we may strongly suspect, and IMO we ought to act
accordingly because of the risk if we are right and don't act (and because
there are other benefits to reducing these emissions), there is still the
possibility that it may be wrong.

Hypocritical message of the day - smile guys.


-----Original Message-----
From:	[log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Lees
Sent:	Thursday, 13 April 2000 11:12
To:	[log in to unmask]
Subject:	Re: False claims regarding global warming

At 3:07 pm -0700 12/4/2000, Steve wrote:
>Well with an attitude Iíd say it is obvious there will be no progress as
>it is clear your mind is not open to discussion.


What's the point in discussing it, especially with the likes of you ?
I can devote my time and energy to far more productive pursuits.
Anybody who has a mind to can look at the evidence for themselves.
What they then decide to do is up to them.

C.L.



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%