Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00224)

--- Blavatsky Archives <blavatskyarchives@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> One's person's "truth" is viewed by someone else as
> mere "propaganda". And vice versa.

Daniel, surely you must know that statement is
nonsense. Cranston's book is an instance of what is
known as "special pleading," in which the outcome of
the case is determined before the fact and evidence is
selected, deleted, or distorted to support that
predetermined case. In my judgement, CSICOP exists to
do the same thing, only from the other side of the
line of division. If you think CSICOP is wrong to use
this methodology, then you must admit that apologists
like Craston are wrong for the same reason. A flawed
methodology does not acquire a numinous quality just
because it is used for apologetifc purposes.

One can special plead for a valid conclusion, so I
certainly would not say that either Cranston or CSICOP
is wrong about everthing. But the case is much more
satisfactory if it is made honestly, judging all the
evidence by high standards of logic and allowing the
evidence to take us wherever it will.

That puts Godwin and Deveney in a category completely
different from Cranston and Ryan and others of their
ilk.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/