h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A Critical Rationalist.. Hrmm.. well.. something close, anyway.. Well I'll be durned.

'Nonnie
(nice article )

Everyone's a bit of all three I would expect; most folk gravitate towards a stronger position in one of the first two categories though.

Thanks for giving me a read

Reflecting back on that long post I made concerning matchsticks, I suppose I will also have to wear the label of critical rationalist. As for gravitating towards one of the first two categories, it has always been my position that any position is untenable, so it is best to have a fall-back position that is positioned halfway between the two opposing positions. (Can you tell I've been reading Principia Discordia? )

Discordianism is probably worthy of a fourth category, which for the sake of arbitrary labelling I think I will call critical irrationalism. Discordians tend towards the 'nothing is true' principle and a critical rationalist would say 'well, sometimes that's true and sometimes it's not', preferring to maintain some grasp on a foundation of relativity. The two positions are sort of complimentary though, as I am sure a Discordian would see the need to pretend to make sense sometimes even as a critical rationalist would see the need to make farting noises with his armpit sometimes.

As for the fallback position, that's probably wise; rememeber that ancient saying 'all things in moderation'. I expect that would also include moderation. Moderate moderates know what's what if it is. Death to all fanatics!

I would hope I am a critical rationalist, but I suspect someone fitting the description of the first two modes would not claim them as they are described.

Really interesting article. I am off to find more of your entries

Wow... I read halfway through this thing before I realized I had read it before! Quite a rework.

I understood it before, and I understand it now, so I don't think you'll have too many problems. I think the particular sub who received this thing was just a bit overwhelmed by your language... you do have a tendency to overcomplicate things and talk over some of your audience. Still, I think all the extra stuff does add a lot to the article, and it is better now than it was then... which is pretty much the point of editing, is it not?