Lists Home |
Date Index |
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.
From: Jeff Rafter [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> 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.