[MD] qualified relativists

[Ian Glendinning]

And Craig,
the point being ... distinguishing between the two is not helpful when
there are flavours of both, each of which is just a view of the other.
Writing a definition doesn't make it so.

We ARE in a privileged position in the world model created by man, and
we have no other model - this cannot be contentious - end of. My point
is not to argue about that but to say, get over it and bear it in
mind, when arguing about something worthy of argument.

Once someone attaches a strong definition - to either anthropocentrism
or anthropic principle(s) - it just sets up a windmill to tilt at -
pointlessly - wasting valuable human resources.

Thanks for making me articulate that.
Ian

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> You're right.
> As I say ... wikipedia is good with non-contentious stuff (or stuff
> nobody cares about).
>
> My contention is with "THE" anthropic principle.
>
> I'm no authority - just a collector of interesting alternate views -
> joining dots.
> Ian
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM,  <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>> I thought Wikipedia did a good job in distinguishing "anthropocentrism" from the "anthropic principle".
>> So far these entries haven't been altered and remain a good starting point.
>> Carter is mentioned so it could eventually lead back to Psybertron.
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html