[Buddha-l] Prominent Neobuddhist proposes religion basedblacklisting for government jobs

[Curt Steinmetz]

Indeed, if one reads Harris' "review" of Francis Collins' book "The 
Language of God", it becomes apparent that Harris has not so much 
"opened the door" as he has knocked the whole house over with an armored 
bulldozer.

In the opening paragraph Harris calls Collins' book "vile". And it's 
downhill from there. Harris claims to speak in defense of "the future of 
intellectual and political discourse in the United States." He warns 
that Collins' book will not only do "lasting harm to our discourse", but 
that it threatens "the stature of science in the United States" and even 
"the fate of American society" might be in doubt. Collins is not only 
guilty of "intellectual misconduct", he has discredited our nation: all 
American "should be ashamed" that such a book was able to be published 
in our country:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/

Both Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have developed a weird obsession 
with "discourse" and their own self-perceived centrality to it, btw. 
Dawkins now promotes himself as "the most formidable intellect in public 
discourse" (that is on the cover of his new book, which he displays 
prominently on his website).

Curt

Dan Lusthaus wrote:
> I've been trying to steer clear of this morass (wasn't Sam Harris the guy 
> who won Ed McMahon's Star Search by singing 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow"?), 
> and I especially disapprove of ad hominem attacks, most especially when 
> directed at me by various coyotes and their pack, but in this case I have to 
> come -- somewhat -- to Curt's defense since there is an important qualifying 
> factor at play.
>
> The issue it would seem is exactly a matter of Harris' opinion about someone 
> else's credentials and qualifications. As they would say in court, "he's 
> opened the door..." Like Nagarjuna, one can, to test the viability of an 
> opponent's argument, take over the opponent's assumptions -- without 
> committing to them -- to see if they work. In this case, applying Harris' 
> own critieria to Harris himself is a defensible move. More importantly, it 
> is an effective undermining of *Harris's* authority and right to insist on 
> his own ability to make a valid judgement that should be then accepted by 
> others as having import beyond his own interior thoughts.
>
> Now, Nagarjuna might in turn ask whether Curt has the authority by this 
> means to pass judgement on Harris, and so the infinite regress begins.
>
> Main point: Credentials of a claimant are indeed germane when the issue at 
> hand is credentials. Let's call this one of the exceptions to the "ad 
> hominem exclusion" rule. One establishes a witness's ability to offer 
> "expert testimony" largely by an acknowledgement of that person's 
> credentials (the testimony itself subject to undermining under 
> cross-examination). Expert testimony is a special class of testimony --  
> experts alone are legally permitted to express "opinions" on certain matters 
> considered under their expertise.
>
> Veracity of experts (apta-pramana, aka sabda-pramana) was accepted by Hindu 
> and Buddhist alike, until Dignaga, following the Vaisesika, abandoned it in 
> favor of pratyaksa and anumana alone. Dharmakirti takes this limitation even 
> more seriously than did Dignaga. Yet, I am unaware of any instance in which 
> this epistemological parsimony resulted in his challenging and subsequently 
> rejecting well-established Buddhavacana -- so a tacit apta-pramana remains 
> in force. That tacit remainder is the side of Dharmakirti that Richard finds 
> less enthralling.
>
> So, Curt, you seem to remind Richard of Dharmakirti -- high praise from a 
> Dharmakirti-scholar.
>
> Dan 
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>