22nd April 2010 00:15
Link to Post #101
Re: Important audio interview with Dr Bill Deagle, April 2010
you are reading too much into it.
Posted by Ailée
Pardon me if I would make you repeat yourself, but do you mean that nothing the man has to sell "in his own used-car-salesman way of breathless talking" is worthy information to you ?
If your heart listens along, does it allow for a human to be human and impersonate flaws that do not necessarily bear on the content of the "information" ?
Someone doesn't need to be flawless in every respect to earn some credit for what they have come across through their own life experiences and work.
So what if he kills a bird with two stones ? Does it mean both stones are worthless ?
What if not all of his "scientific" claims are, in your understanding, correct ? Does it cancel all validity to what he has to bring ?
At the end of the day, aren't all our assumptions based on our intuitions ?
And is it not true that intuition and rigid viewpoints tend to create a "standing wave" of attention, freezing one, as it were, into a fixed viewpoint ?
Are your requirements of scientific accuracy (not going into the epistemological issue of the same cul-de-sac here as in Philosphy) not informing your intuition, i.e. cloaking it ?
What is your discernment made of and, what does it leave out ?
To me, compassion - out of place as it may first seem - is an important aspect of discernment...
The deagle deal was easy because he used a lot of datapoints that could be verified (or the absence could be verified). Not too much intuition was needed.
I invite you to read the list and listen to the piece while you do it and you will see it too I guess.
I admit that I didnt like the way he talks and if all he had said would have been written instead I probably had a bit more distance, but it would not change a thing regarding his mistakes and/or highly questionable utterings. The vast majority of my critique is based on verifyable scientific facts. And I am not talking quantum mechanics. real easy stuff.
I dont suffer fools gladly so compassion didnt enter the equation at a rate of 32 errors in 82 minutes :-)
22nd April 2010 00:17
Link to Post #102