[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [lojban] Whorf Hypothesis in Scientific American



From: pycyn@aol.com [mailto:pycyn@aol.com]
Sent: 28 March 2002 02:24
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Whorf Hypothesis in Scientific American

In a message dated 3/27/2002 3:23:55 PM Central Standard Time, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:


By 'loony' you mean 'clinically insane'?

At a (reasonable) guess, something more like "harboring a beliefweb featuring a number of claims very different from the ones I accept and that I think are not amenable to scientific verification, but that strongly affect his behavior and methodolgy and subsequent beliefs"  E.g. most crack-pots.
 
 
Justso. Note too that a loony is relatively harmless. The worst a religious loony would do
would be to ring your doorbell & like double glazing salespersons badger you to have your soul
saved, whereas a religious maniac or a religious nutter might try to kill you or suchlike.
 
--And.