Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:22:26 -0700
From: JDevine-AT-lmumail.lmu.edu (James Devine)
Subject: Re[2]: D Henwood and Question of "Open Mind"


Carroll writes: 

>> Concerning the question of "open" vs "closed" minds. All 
thought has to be based on a closed mind. Does any member of 
this group seriously want to explore the case to be made for 
palmistry or astrology? I would not, myself, be interested in 
exploring anything with anyone who believed in palmistry...  In 
any case, one cannot start from a blank mind. I prefer to start 
(not arrive but start from) (a) atheism (b) a class view of 
human existence. There is an endless list within those 
principles for doubt and differences, but I do not wish to waste 
my time arguing with those who do not accept those princples.<<

Yes, but I wouldn't say that one needs a "closed mind."  Even 
"real" scientists (doing physics, etc.) see the need for a "hard 
core" of principles that can be treated as immune to criticism 
(though it's good to know what these are). (Imre Lakatos writes 
about this stuff.) When dealing with those who disagree with the 
core, one has to either "agree to disagree" in order to do some 
common work (as Carroll does with the Christians) or simply not 
deal with them at all (when there's no earthly purpose to deal 
with them, as with palmisters and Seventh-Day Adventists). 

for socialism from below,

Jim Devine      jdevine-AT-lmumail.lmu.edu 
Los Angeles, CA (the city of emphysema)



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------