[lit-ideas] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Max Boot
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:58:57 -0400
Eric Yost wrote:
"Maybe the pop-psychology explanation is unnecessary?"
However, the beauty of these types of explanation is their ability to
operate at the limit of experience, and therefore allow for non-confirmable
and selective application. How does one show that the explanation "They are
all in a trance" is false? How does one argue against "It's all faulty
parenting"? One can therefore ride one's hobbyhorse without fear of ever
falling off. Of course, the devil is in the details, but as long as one
adopts the pose of a world-weary cynic, one need not be troubled by pesky
facts.
Bedeviled by details,
Phil Enns
Glen Haven, NS
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
