Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
No. That was not my point at all. IMO, belief in God is a healthy belief. It is not science. It makes people happier and healthier. It has no evidence for hypothesis and rigorous proof. It needs none. It should not masquerade as science to meet other objectives. We can go offline or to our blogs if you want to pursue that discussion. The point was that belief or superstition and fact get confused without rigor, and that we shouldn't overlook the distribution effects of the web. We should use them well. I think the aggregator vendors have a raw nerve and this thread touches it. That is bad because it means they will work unconsciously and possibly unwittingly to promote this by denial without factual refutation. The FTC Chair has announced that she believes the dataMegaMarts that do rely on aggregation are in need of regulation and soon. That is a real issue. The better the positions and technologies are clarified, the better the resulting laws and regulations. len From: Jeff Rafter [mailto:lists@j...] > Hmmm... I have to disagree with you, Bill. I think we > will see more blogs like that, and just as 'intelligent > design' is making its way into school science classes, > more superstition will be presented as credible theories > because those capable of refuting them refuse to take > the time. Is that the point? To equate the "Rigged aggregators" blog with belief in God is offensive. Jeff Rafter
|
