Fallacious Argumentation
As the title suggests,
this thread addresses the issue of how some attacks by "critics"
are based upon illogical non sequitor arguments. Watch also the
return of Michael Kopp and observe his debating technique.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere
Subject: Medical care/religion [fwd]
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 01:56:19 +0100
The Oregonian
Bill aims to lift all Oregon religious shields
The new law would, among other things, hold
parents criminally liable for relying solely on prayer for healing
children
Friday, January 22 1999
By Mark Larabee of The Oregonian staff
When Oregon parents treat their sick children
with prayers instead of medical care under the tenets of their
religion and the child is injured or dies, state law allows them
to declare their religious beliefs as a legal defense to charges
of homicide and child abuse.
But House Bill 2494, introduced Thursday by
Rep. Bruce Starr, R-Aloha, would remove those religious shields
from Oregon's criminal codes.
If approved, the new law would, among other
things, hold parents criminally liable for the deaths of their
children if they relied solely on prayer for healing.
"This levels the playing field for all
children in Oregon," Starr said. "Regardless of their
religion, parents must provide adequate medical care for their
children."
The bill is the result of a debate that began
last year after Clackamas County District Attorney Terry Gustafson
refused to prosecute the parents of an 11-year-old Oregon City
boy who died of treatable diabetes.
The dead boy's parents are member of the Followers
of Christ Church, an Oregon City faith-healing sect whose 1,200
members believe that death, just as life, is God's will. Like
thousands of faith-healing Christians across the nation, the
Followers don't use doctors. Instead, they trust that God will
heal all ills.
An investigation last year by The Oregonian
found that more than 70 Followers of Christ children have died
since the mid-1950s, many from treatable illnesses. This is perhaps
the largest cluster of faith-healing deaths ever documented,
experts have said.
Gustafson said Oregon's homicide statutes
were so confusing that faith-healing parents were denied due-process
rights if brought to trial. Attorney General Hardy Myers and
most other Oregon prosecutors disagreed with Gustafson. But many,
including Myers, have said they would support legislation to
clarify parents' rights and responsibilities. Peter Cogswell,
Myers' spokesman, said Thursday that Myers had not taken a position
on Starr's bill.
The bill eliminates the shield laws from all
Oregon's statutes, including murder by abuse, first- and second-degree
manslaughter, criminal mistreatment and criminal nonsupport.
Only six states, including Oregon, allow such
sweeping immunity for faith-healing parents whose children die
without treatment, although more than 40 states include some
kind of religious shields in their criminal, civil and juvenile
codes.
Not only are Oregon's laws some of the weakest
in protecting children of faith healers, but legislative records
over the years show that lawmakers wrote the laws to suit the
Christian Science Church.
Christian Scientists, the nation's largest
religious group favoring spiritual healing methods, has been
the chief defender of such religious shields nationwide. Oregon
church members pushed through changes in 1995 and 1997 that strengthened
parents' rights to use prayers in lieu of medical care, ironically
as prosecutors were seeking stiffer sentences for child killers.
The church's Oregon lobbyist, Bruce Fitzwater, said he will pay
close attention to the debate, but said he couldn't comment Thursday
because he hadn't yet seen the bill.
Despite the potential opposition, Starr said
he believes the bill will pass this session with few problems.
It has bipartisan support, and House Speaker Lynn Snodgrass,
R-Boring, and Senate Minority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland,
are the chief co-sponsors. But Starr reluctantly acknowledges
that the bill could get hung up in this chiefly conservative
assembly in a debate over religious freedom.
"I hope that we will instead focus on
children who are dying for a lack of medical care," he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon
is considering whether to take a stand on the issue, after correspondence
from one of its members last year, said David Fidanque, the group's
Oregon lobbyist. Historically, the ACLU has favored a state's
right to intervene in known cases where children are in danger
but has been against prosecuting parents after a child dies.
"We're sympathetic to the concerns of
people like the Christian Scientists whose religious beliefs
prohibit them from seeking medical care," he said. "Prosecuting
them later is not going to change their beliefs."
Rita Swan, president of Children's Healthcare
Is a Legal Duty, based in Sioux City, Iowa, said Starr's bill
is the national group's top priority. A former Christian Scientist
whose son died of spinal meningitis, Swan has waged a battle
against religious shields both on the state and federal levels.
"Because of the large number of children
who have died in Oregon, we think it's extremely important for
this bill to be passed this year," Swan said.
Two of the Oregon children who died were Russ
Briggs' sons. The Oregon City resident was raised in the Followers
of Christ Church and practiced its faith-healing doctrines into
adulthood. His first two sons died shortly after birth of what
he believes were preventable medical problems. He left the church
years later and is now a member of Swan's group.
After appearing in The Oregonian, in Time
magazine and on ABC's "20/20," Briggs said he is happy
that something is finally being done to help the Followers' children.
Each day that passes is another that children are at risk, he
said.
"It just needed to be done to help the
children to come," he said. "You can't go backward
in time. The ones that need protecting are the ones there now."
Mark Larabee can be reached by phone at 503-294-7664;
by mail at 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, Ore. 97201; or by e-mail
at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My Internet site on Asian history and "new" religions:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also SIMPOS, information on occult tendencies'
impact on society:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Medical care/religion [fwd]
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:03:09 +0100
The Oregonian
Bill aims to lift all Oregon religious
shields
The new law would, among other things,
hold parents criminally liable for relying solely on prayer for
healing children
From one point of view, medical negligence
of children caused by members of Jehovah's Witnesses, the "Church"
of $sientology and other groups, would be off-topic for a discussiion
of Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, and anthroposophical medicine.
Unless, of course, the idea is to erase all such distinctions
and create the impression that anthroposophists are opposed to
life-saving medical treatment in favor of prayer and faith healing.
I would like to see a documented case where
Anthroposophy has been responsible for medical neglect, especially
what death of children is concerned.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Medical care/religion [fwd]
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:13:48 EST
Is Herman de Tollenaere suggesting by posting
this on the waldorf-critics list that anthroposophical doctors
are against surgery, medicine, health-care or what?
Just as a matter of interest!
Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:52:21 +0000
Tarjei Straume wrote:
From one point of view, medical negligence
of children caused by members of Jehovah's Witnesses, the "Church"
of $sientology and other groups, would be off-topic for a discussiion
of Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, and anthroposophical medicine.
Unless, of course, the idea is to erase all such distinctions
and create the impression that anthroposophists are opposed to
life-saving medical treatment in favor of prayer and faith healing.
Considering that the bulk of Dr de Tollenaere's
recent posts have precisely nothing to do with Waldorf education,
on could certainly be forgiven for assuming that it is his amongst
his intentions to blur such distinctions.
However, one should not assume malice; it
may merely be that Dr de Tollenaere is unversed in formal logic
and is therefore unaware that his posts on Scientology, Christian
Science, etc. so wonderfully exemplify the fallacious form of
argumentation which is normally called "Argument from spurious
similarity".
Of course it may also be that Dr de Tollenaere
actually believes that a criticism of Scientology or Christian
Science or Newage Mumbojumbo is also a criticism of Waldorf education:
they are all *not* secular humanism. -- if one defines things
by what they are not, one could invent any similarity (which,
logically, is as valuable as saying that Mt Blanc and a Wellington
boot are similar because they are both not roast beef).
I don't know which, if any, of the above is
true; for me to claim that any is would expose me to (rightful)
accusation of employing the equally fallacious "argument
by scenario".
Anyway, Tarjei, welcome to the WC -- you'll
get used to Dr de Tollenaere's periodic irrelevant droppings
after a while.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:39:23 -0800
Stephen Tonkin wrote >
Considering that the bulk of Dr de Tollenaere's
recent posts have precisely nothing to do with Waldorf education,
on could certainly be forgiven for assuming that it is his amongst
his intentions to blur such distinctions.
I have personally observed a homeopathic "first-aid"
kit in a local Waldorf school. Maybe you and Tarjei are under
the impression that this constitutes medicine.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable
resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debra Snell
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:03:32 -0800
Stephen Tonkin ([email protected])
wrote
Considering that the bulk of Dr de Tollenaere's
recent posts have precisely nothing to do with Waldorf education,
on could certainly be forgiven for assuming that it is his amongst
his intentions to blur such distinctions.
I have personally observed a homeopathic
"first-aid" kit in a local Waldorf school. Maybe you
and Tarjei are under the impression that this constitutes medicine.
-- Daniel
The now-named Yuba River Charter school sent
permission slips to all parents requesting authorization to administer
homeopathy to our children while they were at school. I refused
to sign mine for two reasons:
A) My nephew died as a result of his homeopathic
"treatment". For the record: Opium is not an appropriate
cure for meningitus. Antibiotics are the only effective treatment.
My sister-in-law received the diagnosis at the hospital, refused
treatment, and the homeopathist was stupid enough to treat him.
(The homeopathist has since joined Graham in his "after
life". She died because homeopathy didn't work for her breast
cancer either).
B) There was not even a trained homeopathist
on staff at my children's school and I got no response when I
asked [in writing] who was qualified to dispense this "treatment".
In spite of no authorization and my vocal and written concern
about this practice, my son was treated homeopathically anyway
after a fall on the playground. (Is it arnica?) HELLO - why send
out permission slips if you don't intend to honor the families
wishes.
Deby
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:26:44 +0100
Stephen Tonkin wrote
Considering that the bulk of Dr de Tollenaere's
recent posts have precisely nothing to do with Waldorf education,
on could certainly be forgiven for assuming that it is his amongst
his intentions to blur such distinctions.
I have personally observed a homeopathic
"first-aid" kit in a local Waldorf school. Maybe you
and Tarjei are under the impression that this constitutes medicine.
-- Daniel
The now-named Yuba River Charter school
sent permission slips to all parents requesting authorization
to administer homeopathy to our children while they were at school.
And this practice of homeopathy was scheduled
to take place without trained medical staff, and without a licenced
homeopathist?
I refused to sign mine for two reasons:
A) My nephew died as a result of his homeopathic
"treatment". For the record: Opium is not an appropriate
cure for meningitus. Antibiotics are the only effective treatment.
For the record: I have always used antibiotics
when needed. But it is a highly disputed topic, and the medical
authorities here in Norway are discussing the consequences of
too much usage over the years. But if antibiotics could have
saved your cousin's life, I don't understand the reluctance at
all. It's beyond me.
My sister-in-law received the diagnosis
at the hospital, refused treatment, and the homeopathist was
stupid enough to treat him.
So your nephew died because your sister-in-law
refused your nephew treatment at the hospital?
(The homeopathist has since joined Graham
in his "after life". She died because homeopathy didn't
work for her breast cancer either).
I just saw some ladies on Oprah who had
survived breast cancer because of some break-through research
on diet. I lost my cousin to kidney cancer when she was 43, leaving
behind two children, 6 and 8, and a very nice husband who is
a good friend of mine. She was only getting the orthodox treatment
though, cell poison. It didn't save her life either. (I don't
know if I should say that the treatment didn't work, or if it
killed her.) Cancer is often a vicious killer, and its curability
or incurability is a difficult area of research.
B) There was not even a trained homeopathist
on staff at my children's school and I got no response when I
asked [in writing] who was qualified to dispense this "treatment".
In spite of no authorization and my vocal and written concern
about this practice, my son was treated homeopathically anyway
after a fall on the playground. (Is it arnica?) HELLO - why send
out permission slips if you don't intend to honor the families
wishes.
This sounds alarmingly sloppy, irresponsible,
and disrespectful. If this is true, the Waldorf movement in America
obviously lacks discipline. As I pointed out in a previous post,
the quality of an educational facility depends a great deal upon
the qualifications and the personal characters, the integrity
and trustworthiness, of the teachers and staff.
Your semi-satirical reference to the "after
life" tells me that you were never comfortable with the
supernatural aspects of Anthroposophy. From my perspective far
away (in Norway), it looks like the Waldorf movement in America,
or at least part of it, is pushing their pedagogy as well as
their alternative medicine imprudently and unwisely, and that
this is a major reason for the WC list.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:48:41 +0100
Daniel wrote:
I have personally observed a homeopathic
"first-aid" kit in a local Waldorf school. Maybe you
and Tarjei are under the impression that this constitutes medicine.
Maybe you are under the impression that anthroposophical
medicine has nothing to do with medicine. In that case, I recommend
the book by Victor Bott, M.D. "Anthroposophical Medicine
- Spiritual Science and the Art of Healing." (Translated
from the original french: Thorsons Publishers Inc., New York.)
It is ignorant to say that a medical doctor
is not practicing medicine - i.e. is not a medical doctor - because
he is specializing in anthroposophical medicine. It's total nonsense.
It reminds me of the old prejudice in the West against Chinese
medicine. In the 1960's, I saw a television interview with a
doctor in China who explained that they used Chinese medicine
as a rule, but when Western medicine was more effective, they
used it instead. You're promoting a cultural and philosophical
prejudice that seeks to deprive people of available choices even
when their lives may depend upon such options.
Are you also saying that acupuncture is not
medical treatment? Oriental sciences and disciplines have their
origin in a spiritual world view. Should only atheists and agonstics
be licensed to develop medicines or to teach children?
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:09:49 +0000
Daniel "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable
resource" Sabsay, president East Bay Skeptics Society wrote:
Stephen Tonkin wrote
Considering that the bulk of Dr de Tollenaere's
recent posts have precisely nothing to do with Waldorf education,
on could certainly be forgiven for assuming that it is his amongst
his intentions to blur such distinctions.
I have personally observed a homeopathic
"first-aid" kit in a local Waldorf school. Maybe you
and Tarjei are under the impression that this constitutes medicine.
????
This is a bit of a non-sequitur and also appears
to, by innuendo, wish people to generalise from the particular.
Surely the East Bay Skeptics Society should eschew such fallacious
forms of argumentation in its public pronouncements?
Look in any first aid kit at the school at
which I teach, you will find it conforms to current "First
Aid at Work" practice, as does the advice therein on treating
various ailments. Parents wanting anything other than this "approved"
treatment (and that includes use of antiseptics) have to say
so in writing. I know this because it is my responsibility to
ensure that it is so -- and I periodically check.
Perhaps the EBSS would like to get back to
the point and tell us precisely the relevance of Scientology,
Christian Science, and homoeopathy to Waldorf education. We should
be able to have a field day with the Coker-alarm!
As an aside, if the recent findings at the
University of Utrecht are found to be replicable, the anti-homoeopath
knee-jerkers may be eating their hats... (however, it would still
not answer the charge that, statistically, homoeopathy is indistinguishable
from placebo)
Debra Snell wrote:
A) My nephew died as a result of his homeopathic
"treatment". For the record: Opium is not an appropriate
cure for meningitus. Antibiotics are the only effective treatment.
That's very sad, Deby, and I certainly would
want antibiotics *quickly* if meningitis was even suspected.
However, we have had several recent meningitis deaths in this
country, despite the use of antibiotics.
She died because homeopathy didn't work
for her breast cancer either).
I know several people who have died from cancer,
despite chemo- and radio-therapy.
The point I am making is only that medicine
is not an exact science; the outcome of treatment, even allopathic
treatment, is rarely a certainty.
That said, the homoeopath I will trust is
the one who survives after injecting himself with live, unattenuated,
rabies virus and treats himself only homoeopathically. Unsurprisingly,
I have yet to find one who has that degree of faith in his "art".
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Medical care/religion [fwd]
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:13:52 +0000
ckzfrey wrote of Dr de Tollenaere:
What I do appreciate, though, is that he
abstains from the kind of innuendo and ill-considered accusations
that are so often posted on this list.
He doesn't. Read the archives.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debra Snell
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:29:44 -0800
Debra Snell <[email protected]> wrote:
A) My nephew died as a result of his homeopathic
"treatment". For the record: Opium is not an appropriate
cure for meningitus. Antibiotics are the only effective treatment.
That's very sad, Deby, and I certainly
would want antibiotics *quickly* if meningitis was even suspected.
However, we have had several recent meningitis deaths in this
country, despite the use of antibiotics.
Very true, Stephen. My daughter was a lucky
one to get very fast treatment for the terrifiying bacteria.
My girlfriend's son is deaf [as a result] of meningitus. The
hospital did an inquiry on Graham's death and decided that since
they couldn't promise that Graham would have lived _with_ antibiotic
treatment, no charges were filed. That incident occured in 1984.
Since then, parents have been prosecuted for refusing treatment
for their child's meningitus.
She died because homeopathy didn't work
for her breast cancer either).
I know several people who have died from
cancer, despite chemo- and radio-therapy.
Absolutely. My mother is battling cancer now,
at age 81. (Cancer of the Lymph glands). Her cancer was arrested
32 years ago with radiation therapy and returned three years
ago. Chemo has been hard on her body. Today I'm taking her in
for an 8 hour chemo drip - her third in three weeks _this_ round.
We practically lost her due to sepsus two weeks ago. A blood
transfusion and new antibiotic brought her back. (My 8 year old
neice, sitting vigil with her mother, drew a picture of Grandma
in her hospital bed. Grandma was colored green. Unfortunately,
it was a true depiction of her color.) One tough woman - she
still runs the Water District in her small town. Applied for
and received a grant to improve the system a couple months ago.
I know she will breath her last breath with a full calandar.
The point I am making is only that medicine
is not an exact science; the outcome of treatment, even allopathic
treatment, is rarely a certainty.
That said, the homoeopath I will trust is the one who survives
after injecting himself with live, unattenuated, rabies virus
and treats himself only homoeopathically. Unsurprisingly, I have
yet to find one who has that degree of faith in his "art".
Like I've said before. If all Waldorf teachers
were like you, PLANS may be put out of business. <grin>
Deby
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:56:29 EST
In einer eMail vom 31.01.99 21:45:13 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
I have personally observed a homeopathic
"first-aid" kit in a local Waldorf school. Maybe you
and Tarjei are under the impression that this constitutes medicine.
I reckon there are one or two besides Steven
and Tarjei who recognise the immense wealth of benefits from
Homeopathy!!
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:49:50 EST
In einer eMail vom 31.01.99 22:08:44 MEZ,
schreiben Sie, Deby:
A) My nephew died as a result of his homeopathic
"treatment". For the record: Opium is not an appropriate
cure for meningitus. Antibiotics are the only effective treatment.
My sister-in-law received the diagnosis at the hospital, refused
treatment, and the homeopathist was stupid enough to treat him.
(The homeopathist has since joined Graham in his "after
life". She died because homeopathy didn't work for her breast
cancer either).
Clearly one is sympathatic to such cases,
and I wonder if to discuss deaths is really helpful..... however,
there are many many women who have benefited (probably by having
their lives saved, but that can never be proven) from the anthroposophical
homeopathic treatment called ISCADOR - made from mistletoe.
As for treating playground accidents I personally
feel more comfortable rendering homeopathic medecines (which
most non homeopathics say are only water and therefore harmless)
than alipathic ones - and they are far less dangerous! But I
would rather a qualified homeopath argued this case - I am, and
I suspect we all are, a layman in the medical field.
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:13:56 EST
In einer eMail vom 01.02.99 17:47:28 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
The point I am making is only that medicine
is not an exact science; the outcome of treatment, even allopathic
treatment, is rarely a certainty.
That said, the homoeopath I will trust is the one who survives
after injecting himself with live, unattenuated, rabies virus
and treats himself only homoeopathically. Unsurprisingly, I have
yet to find one who has that degree of faith in his "art".
Stephen really!
Homeopaths may be different, but theyre not
daft. Noone would play russian- roulette with what you describe
as a non-exact science. BTW I have been cured by a homeopath
(non-anthroposophist, she used MUCH stronger doses) for something
I neednt go into here! "Normal" doctors had given up!
Bruce
PS The affliction I had was not life-threatening!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:09:18 +0100
Bruce wrote:
I reckon there are one or two besides Steven
and Tarjei who recognise the immense wealth of benefits from
Homeopathy!!
Bruce
As a matter of fact, I am not schooled in
medicine, and I have minimal experience with homeopathy. My mother
used it a lot, but she found no cure or effective treatment for
the crippling and painful Parkinson disease, which took her life
a year and a half ago at age 74.
When my mother was too crippled to live in
her apartment, I arranged for her to be hospitalized at a regular
hospital and then placed in a convalescent home for the elderly.
She had for years hoped to move to a center for alternative medicine,
but that kind of thing can cost a lot of money when it is not
covered by your state health package. She was a dedicated anthroposophist
who read volumes of books about health and illness written by
*medical doctors* who had developed various kinds of alternative
medicines. These medicines alleviated her sufferings better than
what she was given by orthodox medicine at the convalescent home.
I am very grateful to the staff for how well they took care of
my mother and the other patients. They were warm and caring people.
But my mother always complained about the terrible side-effects
of the medication, which was basically painkillers. She also
complained about the diet, especially the white sugar for her
tea (instead of natural sugar), which she said was killing her.
I made some purchases for her at the health food store, which
helped a little. I did contact an anthroposophical doctor when
she requested it, and I prepared an arrangement with the staff
to set up a meeting with the resident orthodox physician who
came once a week, and who had been treating my mother. She died
before this came to pass.
One side-effect from some of the medication
made her feel drugged, less mentally alert. That is why she refused
to take it, preferring the pain. When the staff considered forcefully
medicating her for her own good, I became alarmed, and I am grateful
that she died before her will was violated in such a humiliating
way. The worst things society can do to you are administered
by caring, well-meaning people *for your own good.*
This post is about the rights of patients
and respect for the elderly, and respect for free choice in medical
care. It is also a little tirade against those who scorn our
approach to "the afterlife." It is about the fact that
a fatally ill anthroposophist has the right to an alert and awake
consciousness, because he or she is actively at work, preparing
to cross the threshold. This was a preparation for which my mother
had dedicated her entire life. As long as I can remember, she
was studying and talking about "the afterlife." Sometimes
I criticized her for this, saying that our existence here and
now was most important. But when I held her funeral speech (with
a Christian Community ritual), I recognized that I have never
experienced a departed soul more present and alert, an observation
I pointed out. Since then, I always receive a feeling of liberation
and relief from her, as though she is like a fish in the water
on the other side. This is not only because she she experienced
tremendous hindrances and opposition in this incarnation, and
eventually a disease so painful that she wished to die (earlier,
she had been dreading and fearing death), but precisely because
she had spent a lifetime learning to understand and prepare for
the journey between death and rebirth.
Some subscribers to this list may believe
that my mother would have been cured of her Parkinson disease
if she had first consulted an exit counsellor about her Anthroposophy
and then a Freudian therapist about her interest in the afterlife
and that I ought to do precisely those things for my own good.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debra Snell
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:03:17 -0800
As for treating playground accidents I
personally feel more comfortable rendering homeopathic medecines
(which most non homeopathics say are only water and therefore
harmless) than alipathic ones - and they are far less dangerous!
But I would rather a qualified homeopath argued this case - I
am, and I suspect we all are, a layman in the medical field.
How about a cold compress, a bit of antiseptic
and a bandaid?
-Deby
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:34:26 +0000
Debra Snell <[email protected]> wrote:
How about a cold compress, a bit of antiseptic
and a bandaid?
I'd need your written permission for the antiseptic.
Current First Aid practice is that wounds should be cleaned with
clean water only. (A growing number of people react to antiseptics)
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:40:02 +0000
Bruce wrote:
In einer eMail vom 01.02.99 17:47:28 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
That said, the homoeopath I will trust
is the one who survives after injecting himself with live, unattenuated,
rabies virus and treats himself only homoeopathically. Unsurprisingly,
I have yet to find one who has that degree of faith in his "art".
Stephen really!
Homeopaths may be different, but theyre not daft. Noone would
play russian- roulette with what you describe as a non-exact
science.
Ah, but isn't that just what some allopaths
did in the early days of vaccination? (Not rabies, but other
life-threatening diseases)
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 06:34:55 +0000
Debra Snell wrote:
Like I've said before. If all Waldorf teachers were like you,
PLANS may be put out of business. <grin>
I imagine that there is more than one person
reading this who would suggest that it would be because, if all
Waldorf teachers were like me, Waldorf schools would go out of
business <g>.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debra Snell
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:57:39 -0800
Debra Snell <[email protected]> wrote:
How about a cold compress, a bit of antiseptic
and a bandaid?
I'd need your written permission for the
antiseptic. Current First Aid practice is that wounds should
be cleaned with clean water only. (A growing number of people
react to antiseptics)
-
I would sign that request _over_ a homeopathy permission slip
anyday.
Deby
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:51:41 -0700
Bruce wrote:
In einer eMail vom 01.02.99 17:47:28 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
That said, the homoeopath I will trust is the one who survives
after injecting himself with live, unattenuated, rabies virus
and treats himself only homoeopathically. Unsurprisingly, I have
yet to find one who has that degree of faith in his "art".
Stephen really!
Homeopaths may be different, but theyre not daft. Noone would
play russian- roulette with what you describe as a non-exact
science.
When we were first planning to have a child,
my wife had not been exposed to Rubella (German measles), or
vaccinated for it. Now, Rubella is a very common disease, and
if a woman contracts Rubella in the early stages of pregnancy,
it's likely to lead to birth defects.
Naomi's chiropractor, who also practices homeopathy,
strongly advised against getting vaccinated for Rubella. He claimed
that if she were exposed to it, he could give her a homeopathic
remedy that would keep her from coming down with the disease
and endangering our baby.
That's pretty close to Russian Roulette, except
that he was only willing to play it with our child, not with
himself. She stopped going to that idiot!
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:31:01 EST
In einer eMail vom 01.02.99 23:16:30 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
How about a cold compress, a bit of antiseptic
and a bandaid?
-Deby
If bandaid is plaster then naturally I use
that - it is neither homeo or alo- pathic, cold-compress is more
likely homeopathic than alopathic, and antiseptic is not medicine,
it is disinfectant, and thus neither. I would use a suitable
homeopathic cream if I thought it would help - it certainly wouldnt
harm (in non-burn cases). For burns BTW I really find that a
homeopathic lotion is much safer than anything alopathic - I
use Combodoron - diluted 10 to 1 - in the lab! Once someone was
badly scalded, and rushed to casuality. The staff there were
really HAPPY that I had used the stuff.
Bruce
PS I would STILL like a doctor to come in
here - but I believe there can be no DANGER from using external
homeopathic medicines, naturally with some knowledge, and a deal
of common-sense!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:31:06 EST
In einer eMail vom 02.02.99 06:58:48 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
Ah, but isn't that just what some allopaths
did in the early days of vaccination? (Not rabies, but other
life-threatening diseases)
well if the homeopaths arent daft.... maybe
the alipaths were! The use of animals to test things is abhorrent
- the use of other humans is inhumane.... the use of oneself
is .. acceptable?? <g>
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:31:16 EST
In einer eMail vom 02.02.99 18:11:32 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
Naomi's chiropractor, who also practices
homeopathy, strongly advised against getting vaccinated for Rubella.
He claimed that if she were exposed to it, he could give her
a homeopathic remedy that would keep her from coming down with
the disease and endangering our baby.
That's pretty close to Russian Roulette, except that he was only
willing to play it with our child, not with himself. She stopped
going to that idiot!
I would have stopped going to him/her too!
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 23:04:21 +0000
Bruce wrote:
I would use a suitable homeopathic cream
if I thought it would help - it certainly wouldnt harm (in non-burn
cases).
My opinion (as a trained first-aider, not
a doctor) is that nothing other than clean water should be applied
to broken skin in a *first* aid context. One day I'm going to
have to take a swab from a long-opened tube of "patent-medicine"
cream and see what grows on agar...
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:41:16 +1300
Tarjei Straume says in passing, while remarking
on Deby Snell's disastrous experiences with Anthroposophical
(homeopathic) medicine in a Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
(SWA) school:
Your semi-satirical reference to the "after
life" tells me that you were never comfortable with the
supernatural aspects of Anthroposophy. From my perspective far
away (in Norway), it looks like the Waldorf movement in America,
or at least part of it, is pushing their pedagogy as well as
their alternative medicine imprudently and unwisely, and that
this is a major reason for the WC list.
And in New Zealand as well. All of the negative
experiences with SWA of the many critical contributors to this
list have been experienced by me and my family (except death
or serious physical harm).
This list has recently become a gentle-persons
chat room about philosophy. Some defenders of the faith [TM]
have remarked that this is a welcome departure from the recent
past. I take this to be an allusion to my strong criticism.
Some other defenders of the faith have used
the usual dismissive `don't listen to him, he's just bitter/strident/paranoid'.
Believe me, this is an effective technique, combined with my
family's desire for me to close this chapter of our lives and
get on.
Unfortunately, the SWA `movement' IS on the
rise everywhere, along with the rise of many other `new age',
but really medieval, world views.
And there are very few people within the SWA
movement who would agree with Tarjei about their "imprudence".
In fact, I believe, the expansion of the movement is not a grass-roots,
blundering, amateur effort. I think it is quite calculating and
shrewd.
I wonder how the SWA movement could _prudently_
push its pedagogy and faith? It would still be passing off old
codswallop as new-age, trendy, touchy-feely communitarianism.
The deception of parents would still be as deep and intended.
Recent articles on SWA in New Zealand -- one
in the widest-circulating national magazine, the only one passing
for intellectual -- have been almost totally uncritical of SWA.
And the slickness of the PR job done on the (otherwise astute)
senior reporter -- by the head Anthroposophist of my former school
-- has to be seen in light of the prevailing spin doctoring of
almost every public pronouncement in this country. George Orwell
would recognise Godzone.
Far from being `uncomfortable' about what
Tarjei calls the "supernatural aspects of Anthroposophy",
I was blissfully unaware of their true extent and meaning at
the start of our association with our SWA school. This was because
I was duped by mis- and dis-information, and I could not have
found the truth without having read half a shelf of original
Steiner works. The standard references on SWA for the general
public never give the truth in fullness or in plain language.
It was only after the weirdness of the occult,
spiritualistic mumbo jumbo inherent in SWA education started
coming home to me in my children's workbooks and minds that I
took fright and began asking questions of the school -- none
of which were ever answered.
It was only after I found this discussion
list that everything that I had discovered and assembled into
a picture of supernatural madness fell into place.
This list is vital not only for `keeping SWA
honest' but for exposing its dark underbelly of irrational beliefs.
Let's get back to critical comment on what
goes on in the schools, please. Steinerian erudition is peripheral
to this concern, at best, and dilatory, obfuscatory and a smokescreen
at worst
Belated cheers from Godzone (I've been off
ill),
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 05:41:25 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
Unfortunately, the SWA `movement' IS on
the rise everywhere, along with the rise of many other `new age',
but really medieval, world views.
And there are very few people within the SWA movement who would
agree with Tarjei about their "imprudence". In fact,
I believe, the expansion of the movement is not a grass-roots,
blundering, amateur effort. I think it is quite calculating and
shrewd.
Calculating shrewdness has always been inimical
to the very spirit of Anthroposophy. And so has proselytizing
or any way of "pushing" the movement. Anthroposophy
is experienced as something one seeks out and finds - not the
other way around. That is how it has been in the twentieth century.
Rudolf Steiner and his Anthroposophy has been
something you would find in a hidden niche in the library, or
in the home of a special friend. It has never been something
advertised on the street corners or in shopping malls. Anthroposophists
have not been out there competing with preachers and gurus. It
has been a quiet, candle-light experience for the discriminating,
philosophically thoughtful. Personally, I have always been reticent
and often silent about my anthroposophical cast of mind, except
when responding to inquiries from genuinely interested individuals.
Now when Anthroposophy is beginning to catch
the attention of the broader public, cultural collisions are
inevitable. I have pointed out on several occasions that Anthroposophy
is cultural heresy. We differ not only about the future of science,
which we seek to spiritualize, to redeem from materialism, but
also about the definitions of religion and faith. In addition
to this, there are differences of opinion what the art of healing
is concerned, about the relationship between orthodox and alternative
medicine. When I emphasize this thing about cultural heresy and
cultural collisions, it is because it is useful to think of it
as similar to the differences between the national cultures of
the past. We are living in an age when certain cultures are multi-national.
Acupuncture is thought of as "mumbo jumbo" by many
people because it comes from China. In fact, "mumbo jumbo"
is an expression applied to something that is not understood,
because it is foreign or alien or too demanding to comprehend,
especially to the intellectually lazy.
When Rudolf Steiner's methods of education,
agriculture, and other disciplines are gaining increased popularity
on a worldwide basis, this has nothing to do with shrewd or calculating
marketing by anthroposophists. It has to do with the needs of
the times. People seek it because they feel drawn to it. The
imprudent behavior of the Waldorf movement in America, New Zealand
and elsewhere, probably has to do with funding, and the insensitivity
among the new Waldorf enthusiasts toward those of a different
persuasion whose rights and sensitivities should be respected
with warmth. No anthroposophists are interested in holding back
any information about their philosophy, but Rudolf Steiner's
works consist of six thousand transcribed lectures and fifty
written books - over 350 volumes - ranging over the most diverse
of topics. Anyone interested in or curious about Steiner and
Anthroposophy must choose a specific subject. In relation to
Waldorf, it is pedagogy, about which I personally know almost
nothing, because I have been studying other parts of Steiner's
works.
Here in Norway, all Waldorf parents receive
a few magazines about the pedagogy, the curriculum, and some
of the philosophy. Many Waldorf parents are anthroposophists,
or they have friends who are, and they accept it. Every anthroposophist
has made an effort, and is still making an unceasing effort,
to understand Rudolf Steiner. Anyone do does not feel moved to
make such an effort - and all the literature is readily available
- will not be pushed to do so by anybody. Who are saying, then,
that information is being witheld from them, and begin to spin
conspiracy theories about shrewd and calculating anthropops,
just because these multiple and hard-to-digest volumes are not
shoved down their throats?
I think it is healthy to discuss any theory
of education critically, as well as a school system in general.
It is not my field. I also think that the anthroposophical approach
to science, whether it is the goethean method in general or Steiner's
research of invisible realms, should be approached critically,
but with respect - the same respect that I personally feel for
atheists and agnostics, and that also Steiner felt for his atheist
comtemporaries. The scientific aspect of Anthroposophy is fair
game as far as I am concerned, and so is biodynamic agriculture,
anthroposophical medicine, and Waldorf education.
What I resent is the slanderous attacks against
Rudolf Steiner's personal character. What has impressed me about
this man is not his gifts or his genius, but his lofty code of
ethics which he practiced but hardly preached, his self-sacrificing
love, and his ability to respond to hatred - a hatred that arsoned
the Goethanum and shortened his life by poisoning - with love
and compassion. His talents and his gifts are secondary to these
human qualities. For this reason, I see such attacks against
Steiner's personal character as signs of a desparate need for
ammunition when objective and scientific arguments against Waldorf
education or biodynamic agriculture are felt to be insufficient.
Secondly, I resent being personally labelled
as a duped, indoctrinated, brainwashed fool out of touch with
reality who does not lead a "normal" life, and who
needs an exit counsellor, a deprogrammer, and a therapist to
save me from my "mumbo jumbo." It is this arrogant
lack of respect for every person on earth who happens to be an
anthroposophist that I resent. Look, I have nothing to do with
Waldorf schools, except that I have a son who attends one in
a different city. So nobody should take their frustrations with
their local schools out on me. Don't take your disagreements
with homeopathy out on me either, because I have nothing to do
with it. What I am convinced of is the truth in Rudolf Steiner's
cosmology and Christology; his world conception. And what really
ticks me off is being called a racist, because this charge is
based upon either ignorance or malice, plus a total lack of understanding
and respect for the Hindu Scriptures.
And it would be helpful, next time the anthroposophical
cosmology is being maligned and dragged through the dirt with
all kinds of disparaging adjectives, to describe a cosmology,
a philosophy of life and its purpose, and a definition of truth
and reality, that should be preferred and why. All I see is a
lot of sniping, but the snipers are not playing with open hands.
Since New Age is so bad, what is Old Age to you? The Old Testament?
Or is it the world of Carl Sagan?
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:58:51 +1300
Tarjei Straume writes:
Michael Kopp wrote:
Unfortunately, the SWA `movement' IS on
the rise everywhere, along with the rise of many other `new age',
but really medieval, world views.
And there are very few people within the SWA movement who would
agree with Tarjei about their "imprudence". In fact,
I believe, the expansion of the movement is not a grass-roots,
blundering, amateur effort. I think it is quite calculating and
shrewd.
And STRAUME replied:
Calculating shrewdness has always been
inimical to the very spirit of Anthroposophy. And so has proselytizing
or any way of "pushing" the movement. Anthroposophy
is experienced as something one seeks out and finds - not the
other way around. That is how it has been in the twentieth century.
Rudolf Steiner and his Anthroposophy has been something you would
find in a hidden niche in the library, or in the home of a special
friend. It has never been something advertised on the street
corners or in shopping malls. Anthroposophists have not been
out there competing with preachers and gurus. It has been a quiet,
candle-light experience for the discriminating, philosophically
thoughtful. Personally, I have always been reticent and often
silent about my anthroposophical cast of mind, except when responding
to inquiries from genuinely interested individuals.
KOPP:
The recent reports here of the public appearances
of Betty Staley, apparently one of the head proselytisers for
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy (SWA) in the United States, and
the glossy, slick, spin-doctored video about SWA in which she
appears, put the lie to Tarjei's claims of SWA as a shy, retiring,
esoteric, eccentric hobby.
Methinks he's out of touch with the reality
of the modern, coordinated marketing effort, and the concerted
push by SWA, to promote itself into public schools -- and not
just for the money.
STRAUME:
Now when Anthroposophy is beginning to
catch the attention of the broader public, cultural collisions
are inevitable. I have pointed out on several occasions that
Anthroposophy is cultural heresy. We differ not only about the
future of science, which we seek to spiritualize, to redeem from
materialism, but also about the definitions of religion and faith.
In addition to this, there are differences of opinion what the
art of healing is concerned, about the relationship between orthodox
and alternative medicine. When I emphasize this thing about cultural
heresy and cultural collisions, it is because it is useful to
think of it as similar to the differences between the national
cultures of the past. We are living in an age when certain cultures
are multi-national. Acupuncture is thought of as "mumbo
jumbo" by many people because it comes from China. In fact,
"mumbo jumbo" is an expression applied to something
that is not understood, because it is foreign or alien or too
demanding to comprehend, especially to the intellectually lazy.
KOPP:
Mr Straume is misusing the term mumbo jumbo
and trying to redefine it by putting the onus on the receiver
of the information, accusing anyone who doesn't understand [Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophy] as being at fault themselves.
His attempt to blame the perceiver is in keeping
with the best tradition of SWA defenders such as the teachers
at my school who said of my questions about their pseudo-science
and mystical historical legends that they (my questions) were
good ones, but that the subject was deep and difficult, and it
would take much explaining and study on my part to understand.
Well, if that's so, why the hell were they telling these things
to children just into Steiner's "age of reason"?
However much he might wish to blame the perceiver,
Mr Straume cannot rewrite the English language (which I realise
may not be his native language, and therefore, appears as mumbo
jumbo to him, by his own definition).
Mumbo jumbo: "meaningless ritual; language
or action intended to mystify or confuse; object of senseless
veneration" (OED).
I use the term exactly and precisely to describe
both Steiner's thought -- intended to mystify, for the purpose
of creating a following and ensuring his place in history by
the ceaseless effort of such gullible but well-meaning people
as today's SWA adherents -- and the senseless veneration of his
body of work and his person by people who exhibit such veneration
whilst claiming the opposite to be the case.
[snip]
STRAUME:
In relation to Waldorf, it is pedagogy,
about which I personally know almost nothing, because I have
been studying other parts of Steiner's works.
KOPP:
Well, perhaps you would do us the favour of
not going on ad nauseam about Steiner and Anthroposophy, unless
you can relate it specifically to its use in the schools that
bear the names Steiner or Waldorf (it varies from country to
country).
As I've pleaded elsewhere, this list is not
about understanding Steiner or Anthroposophy, but about whether
SWA has any place or right in public or publicly-funded schools,
and what are the effects of an SWA education, for the benefit
of those people who wish to take a more critical, skeptical look
at SWA before investing time, money and their children's lives
in it.
For most rational people, I suggest, it is
not necessary to become a novice, acolyte or devotee of SWA in
order to see that it is mumbo jumbo, and to eschew it for their
children.
STRAUME:
Here in Norway, all Waldorf parents receive
a few magazines about the pedagogy, the curriculum, and some
of the philosophy. Many Waldorf parents are anthroposophists,
or they have friends who are, and they accept it. Every anthroposophist
has made an effort, and is still making an unceasing effort,
to understand Rudolf Steiner. Anyone do does not feel moved to
make such an effort - and all the literature is readily available
- will not be pushed to do so by anybody. Who are saying, then,
that information is being witheld from them, and begin to spin
conspiracy theories about shrewd and calculating anthropops,
just because these multiple and hard-to-digest volumes are not
shoved down their throats?
KOPP:
Would you be willing to provide copies of
these publications for me? Are any of them in English? If not,
I will pay to have them professionally translated for my own
study, and, if they are not copyrighted, for the benefit of this
list and anyone else who may wish to read them.
All the material of the sort you describe
that I have come across is deviously indirect and incomplete
about the true nature of SWA, in terms of the description written
by Dan Saykalay which I have reposted here from time to time
for the benefit of newcomers to the list.
Surely SWA owes it to people who are going
to place their children in the care of others for up to 13 years
to give those intending consumers full disclosure? And surely
it can't be that difficult?
STRAUME:
I think it is healthy to discuss any theory
of education critically, as well as a school system in general.
It is not my field. I also think that the anthroposophical approach
to science, whether it is the goethean method in general or Steiner's
research of invisible realms, should be approached critically,
but with respect - the same respect that I personally feel for
atheists and agnostics, and that also Steiner felt for his atheist
comtemporaries. The scientific aspect of Anthroposophy is fair
game as far as I am concerned, and so is biodynamic agriculture,
anthroposophical medicine, and Waldorf education.
KOPP:
Can you define the nature of this "respect",
please?
Does it mean that one must automatically allow
that someone else's belief system has as much validity as, say,
science?
Certainly, SWA does not show much of this
kind of "respect" for rational, modern science, judging
by the SWA rubbishing of what is actually society's technological
use of science, and SWA denigration of such scientific greats
as Newton in class lessons designed to replace Newtonian optics
with Goethean phenomenology.
Lip service is easy, Tarjei; the evidence
is otherwise, in my and many other critics' personal experiences.
STRAUME:
What I resent is the slanderous attacks
against Rudolf Steiner's personal character. [Snip hearts and flowers.] I see such attacks
against Steiner's personal character as signs of a desparate
need for ammunition when objective and scientific arguments against
Waldorf education or biodynamic agriculture are felt to be insufficient.
Secondly, I resent being personally labelled as a duped, indoctrinated,
brainwashed fool out of touch with reality who does not lead
a "normal" life, and who needs an exit counsellor,
a deprogrammer, and a therapist to save me from my "mumbo
jumbo." It is this arrogant lack of respect for every person
on earth who happens to be an anthroposophist that I resent.
KOPP:
Other than to say that Steiner was a self-made
guru who used all the age-old tricks of the trade to gain a following
and a place in history -- which seems like fair comment -- I
don't think I or any other critic here has slandered Steiner
(you can't slander the dead, anyway). Nobody has said, for instance,
that he was guilty of buggery.
The only insufficiency in my and other skeptical
scientists' "arguments against Waldorf education" is
that they fall on totally deaf ears where the faithful are concerned
-- even you, Tarjei, who claim to have some problems with things
SWA.
And if you wish to consider yourself lumped
in with the category of people I call defenders of the faith
[TM], whom I label as uncritical, unskeptical believers in spirits
and supernatural mumbo jumbo .... well, then, I guess you can
take all the umbrage you wish.
There is a difference between respect for
the person as a human being -- a frequent hobby horse of mine,
you may have noticed -- and respect for ideas and beliefs.
I respect your right to believe anything you
wish; to preach anything you wish; to educate your children in
anything you wish (privately); and to proselytise anything you
wish.
Your thought, beliefs and pronouncements are,
however, fair game for attack.
We are entering an age of poliltical correctness
where to attack someone's ideas is becoming forbidden in the
name of "respect". We will thus turn back the clock
to the days of the Inquisition. We will come to rue our carelessness
with intellectual rigour, our fatal attraction to fascistic repression
of debate.
It is just this "respect" for patently
ridiculous and fantastic mumbo jumbo which I have seen inculcated
in my children by their Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical educations.
The fostering of freedom of speech brings with it the duty to
allow robust criticism of that speech; the opposite is the case
in SWA schools. Every child may express an opinion, but, in the
name of "respect", none may attack another's opinion.
Thus does the light of reason dim, and the
"new age" become a "dark age".
STRAUME:
Look, I have nothing to do with Waldorf
schools, except that I have a son who attends one in a different
city. So nobody should take their frustrations with their local
schools out on me. Don't take your disagreements with homeopathy
out on me either, because I have nothing to do with it. What
I am convinced of is the truth in Rudolf Steiner's cosmology
and Christology; his world conception. And what really ticks
me off is being called a racist, because this charge is based
upon either ignorance or malice, plus a total lack of understanding
and respect for the Hindu Scriptures.
KOPP:
The above statement seems to indicate Mr Straume's
paranoia is showing. [Said with a malicious grin in Robert Flannery's
direction.]
STRAUME:
And it would be helpful, next time the
anthroposophical cosmology is being maligned and dragged through
the dirt with all kinds of disparaging adjectives, to describe
a cosmology, a philosophy of life and its purpose, and a definition
of truth and reality, that should be preferred and why. All I
see is a lot of sniping, but the snipers are not playing with
open hands. Since New Age is so bad, what is Old Age to you?
The Old Testament? Or is it the world of Carl Sagan?
KOPP:
Science is a ceaseless search for truth (and
beauty) in our understanding of the Universe. Science is the
only intentionally, self-designedly, _self-correcting_ method
of apprehending the Universe.
Science is not philosophy. Why do you demand
a philosophy of life, the Universe and everything from scientific,
rationalist critics of Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf? Why
should we have to replace mumbo jumbo with another metaphysics?
The world of Carl Sagan was -- and is -- the
world of the search for physical, not mystical, truth.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 08:10:42 EST
Michael Kopp wrote:
Unfortunately, the SWA `movement' IS on the rise everywhere,
Unfortunately for whom? I think its great,
and I expect the majority of those who have any idea what SWA
is would agree (not all are subscribers here!)...
Where would PLANS be if waldorf wasn't winning?
<wg>
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 08:10:45 EST
In einer eMail vom 07.02.99 12:05:44 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
......teachers at my school who said of
my questions about their pseudo-science and mystical historical
legends that they (my questions) were good ones, but that the
subject was deep and difficult, and it would take much explaining
and study on my part to understand. Well, if that's so, why the
hell were they telling these things to children just into Steiner's
"age of reason"? >>
It is one thing to teach something to a child
in a certain way, it is quite another thing to explain to an
adult WHY the thing is taught that way, especially when he is
a waldorf critic.
Bruce
PS The same applies to some extent to use
of homeopathic medicine! Known waldorf critics would not receive
anything more than the clean water referred to by Stephen! Who
suffers as a result need not be the subject of discussion! <wg>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 15:02:30 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
The recent reports here of the public appearances
of Betty Staley, apparently one of the head proselytisers for
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy (SWA) in the United States, and
the glossy, slick, spin-doctored video about SWA in which she
appears, put the lie to Tarjei's claims of SWA as a shy, retiring,
esoteric, eccentric hobby.
I have not lied, and I have not made any claims.
I gave an honest description of how I have experienced Anthroposophy.
Methinks he's out of touch with the reality of the modern, coordinated
marketing effort, and the concerted push by SWA, to promote itself
into public schools -- and not just for the money.
After many years as a saleman in the U.S.,
methinks that mr. Kopp knowledge about mr. Straume is extremely
limited. The invasion of the Waldorf movement by the promotional
marketing culture is obviously a pollutant that contributes to
the problems and chaos at hand.
Mr Straume is misusing the term mumbo jumbo
and trying to redefine it by putting the onus on the receiver
of the information, accusing anyone who doesn't understand [Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophy] as being at fault themselves.
Not anyone who doesn't understand these things,
but only those who match ignorance with bigotry.
His attempt to blame the perceiver is in keeping with the best
tradition of SWA defenders such as the teachers at my school
who said of my questions about their pseudo-science and mystical
historical legends that they (my questions) were good ones, but
that the subject was deep and difficult, and it would take much
explaining and study on my part to understand. Well, if that's
so, why the hell were they telling these things to children just
into Steiner's "age of reason"?
I don't think anyone is qualified to answer
that question except the teachers themselves, that are known
to you, but not to us.
However much he might wish to blame the perceiver, Mr Straume
cannot rewrite the English language (which I realise may not
be his native language, and therefore, appears as mumbo jumbo
to him, by his own definition).
Having an American-born mother, English was
in fact my mother tongue, quite technically speaking. For almost
twenty years of my life, I lived in English -speaking countries
and used no other language. Methinks that mr. Kopp knowledge
about mr. Straume is extremely limited and exceptionally bigoted
and subjective.
Mumbo jumbo: "meaningless ritual;
language or action intended to mystify or confuse; object of
senseless veneration" (OED).
Mr Kopp is saying that anthroposophists intend
to mystify and confuse him with their language and actions as
a part of a shrewd conspiracy.
<snip>
Well, perhaps you would do us the favour
of not going on ad nauseam about Steiner and Anthroposophy, unless
you can relate it specifically to its use in the schools that
bear the names Steiner or Waldorf (it varies from country to
country).
I do not write my post to please you, and
I do not tell you how to write yours.
As I've pleaded elsewhere, this list is
not about understanding Steiner or Anthroposophy, but about whether
SWA has any place or right in public or publicly-funded schools,
and what are the effects of an SWA education, for the benefit
of those people who wish to take a more critical, skeptical look
at SWA before investing time, money and their children's lives
in it.
In that case you may always delete those posts
that do not interest you and continue your tirades against a
world-conception about which you prefer to remain ignorant.
For most rational people, I suggest, it
is not necessary to become a novice, acolyte or devotee of SWA
in order to see that it is mumbo jumbo, and to eschew it for
their children.
You're contradicting yourself. I am not a
Muslim, but it is not mumbo jumbo to me because I have made an
effort to understand it. You lack respect, and that is your loss,
not mine.
Would you be willing to provide copies
of these publications for me? Are any of them in English? If
not, I will pay to have them professionally translated for my
own study, and, if they are not copyrighted, for the benefit
of this list and anyone else who may wish to read them.
They are in Norwegian. It should be a cinch
to reach the appropriate parties for your purposes through the
Waldorf links on the web. Good luck.
All the material of the sort you describe that I have come across
is deviously indirect and incomplete about the true nature of
SWA, in terms of the description written by Dan Saykalay which
I have reposted here from time to time for the benefit of newcomers
to the list.
Surely SWA owes it to people who are going to place their children
in the care of others for up to 13 years to give those intending
consumers full disclosure? And surely it can't be that difficult?
As I have pointed out, Waldorf education is
not my field. Someone else should answer your question.
Can you define the nature of this "respect",
please?
A positive regard for the dignity of a human
being who holds opinions with which you strongly disagree. The
recognition that such a human being can be as intelligent and
talented as you are. It is a question of fraternity and equality.
Does it mean that one must automatically allow that someone else's
belief system has as much validity as, say, science?
No, it does not mean that you must automatically
allow anything whatsoever. It simply means that differences of
opinion, also when it comes to science, may be sustained by mutual
respect, and somtimes mutual admiration (like the case of George
Bernard Shaw and Benjamin Tucker, or of Rudolf Steiner and Ernst
Häckel).
Certainly, SWA does not show much of this
kind of "respect" for rational, modern science, judging
by the SWA rubbishing of what is actually society's technological
use of science, and SWA denigration of such scientific greats
as Newton in class lessons designed to replace Newtonian optics
with Goethean phenomenology.
I think anyone should be entitled to the opinion
that Goethe's theory of color is closer to reality than Newton's
prism theory. I would also think it possible for the Newtonians
and the Goetheans to respect and like each other.
Lip service is easy, Tarjei; the evidence is otherwise, in my
and many other critics' personal experiences.
My statements are based upon thirty years
of personal experience with Anthroposophy, when I have gathered
empirical evidence for my points of view. I do not see what that
has to do with lip service of any kind.
Other than to say that Steiner was a self-made
guru who used all the age-old tricks of the trade to gain a following
and a place in history -- which seems like fair comment -- I
don't think I or any other critic here has slandered Steiner
(you can't slander the dead, anyway). Nobody has said, for instance,
that he was guilty of buggery.
You are ascribing to him egoistic motives
that are not fair. By slander I was thinking of anti-semitism
and the like.
The only insufficiency in my and other
skeptical scientists' "arguments against Waldorf education"
is that they fall on totally deaf ears where the faithful are
concerned -- even you, Tarjei, who claim to have some problems
with things SWA.
Like I said, Waldorf education is not my field,
and I have not read the relevant material, so I am not competent
to comment.
And if you wish to consider yourself lumped in with the category
of people I call defenders of the faith [TM], whom I label as
uncritical, unskeptical believers in spirits and supernatural
mumbo jumbo .... well, then, I guess you can take all the umbrage
you wish.
You may lump me anyway you like. The bigger
and more stereotyped the category, and the more disparaging adjectives
strewn on it, the more evident is the bigotry and the prejudice.
There is a difference between respect for the person as a human
being -- a frequent hobby horse of mine, you may have noticed
-- and respect for ideas and beliefs.
If you disrespect an idea, you also despise
the act of holding the thought behind it. What respect is then
left for the person with whom you disagree?
I respect your right to believe anything you wish; to preach
anything you wish; to educate your children in anything you wish
(privately); and to proselytise anything you wish.
Your thought, beliefs and pronouncements are, however, fair game
for attack.
We are entering an age of poliltical correctness where to attack
someone's ideas is becoming forbidden in the name of "respect".
We will thus turn back the clock to the days of the Inquisition.
We will come to rue our carelessness with intellectual rigour,
our fatal attraction to fascistic repression of debate.
It is always possible to respectfully disagree.
By isolating and making visible the logical error in a line of
reasoning and then proposing a correction, makes it unnecessary
to attack the entire mindset of the debater and stick all kinds
of disparaging adjectives to it. When that point is reached,
it is no longer a debate.
It is just this "respect" for patently ridiculous and
fantastic mumbo jumbo which I have seen inculcated in my children
by their Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical educations. The fostering
of freedom of speech brings with it the duty to allow robust
criticism of that speech; the opposite is the case in SWA schools.
Every child may express an opinion, but, in the name of "respect",
none may attack another's opinion.
Perhaps you should start your own school.
<snip>
Science is a ceaseless search for truth
(and beauty) in our understanding of the Universe. Science is
the only intentionally, self-designedly, _self-correcting_ method
of apprehending the Universe.
True. But it needs to be redeemed from the
one-sidedness of materialism and extended to the spiritual realm.
Science is not philosophy. Why do you demand a philosophy of
life, the Universe and everything from scientific, rationalist
critics of Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf? Why should we
have to replace mumbo jumbo with another metaphysics?
Why are you philosophizing?
The world of Carl Sagan was -- and is -- the world of the search
for physical, not mystical, truth.
If man were only physical, devoid of soul
and spirit, physical truth alone might have been sufficient.
But it ain't necessarily so.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kathy
Subject: allacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd]
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 10:48:21 -0800
Tarjei posts (in response to Kopp):
(KOPP:) Unfortunately, the SWA `movement'
IS on the rise everywhere, along with the rise of many other
`new age', but really medieval, world views.
And there are very few people within the SWA movement who would
agree with Tarjei about their "imprudence". In fact,
I believe, the expansion of the movement is not a grass-roots,
blundering, amateur effort. I think it is quite calculating and
shrewd.
(Tarjei:) Calculating shrewdness has always
been inimical to the very spirit of Anthroposophy. And so has
proselytizing or any way of "pushing" the movement.
Anthroposophy is experienced as something one seeks out and finds
- not the other way around. That is how it has been in the twentieth
century.
Rudolf Steiner and his Anthroposophy has been something you would
find in a hidden niche in the library, or in the home of a special
friend. It has never been something advertised on the street
corners or in shopping malls. Anthroposophists have not been
out there competing with preachers and gurus. It has been a quiet,
candle-light experience for the discriminating, philosophically
thoughtful. Personally, I have always been reticent and often
silent about my anthroposophical cast of mind, except when responding
to inquiries from genuinely interested individuals.
This is an interesting observation. How does
the "hidden niche" description fit with the many films
Rudolf Steiner College, Betty Staley, et al, have produced and
deciminated over the past few years *advertising* and attempting
to sell the Waldorf pedagogy and the (very expensive $$$) Rudolf
Steiner College Waldorf training to public school districts?
Secondly, I resent being personally labelled as a duped, indoctrinated,
brainwashed fool out of touch with reality who does not lead
a "normal" life, and who needs an exit counsellor,
a deprogrammer, and a therapist to save me from my "mumbo
jumbo."
I thought it was you that introduced yourself
to this list as an individual in need of help to leave the cult
of Anthroposophy. Your tongue-in-cheek introduction in which
you described yourself as indoctrinated led to responses you
may be referring to.
In recent days I haven't been following the
list as closely as I usually do; however, what I recall is that
you came to us under a guise that was vastly divergent from who
you really are. This is a Critics List, so I assume you know
that your views are going to be questioned and the attempt will
be made here to publicly discredit those that support the validity
of Anthroposophical methods/beliefs and Waldorf. You write extremely
well and hold your own with great aplomb, so I shouldn't think
you would be so offended by Kopp or any of us that question what
appears to be your unquestioning adherence to Anthroposophy.
Surely you knew the dynamics of this forum before you joined.
Kathy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd]
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:06:58 +0100
Kathy wrote:
This is an interesting observation. How
does the "hidden niche" description fit with the many
films Rudolf Steiner College, Betty Staley, et al, have produced
and deciminated over the past few years *advertising* and attempting
to sell the Waldorf pedagogy and the (very expensive $$$) Rudolf
Steiner College Waldorf training to public school districts?
My description of Anthroposophy as a quiet
and low profile phenomenon is exactly how I have always experienced
it. The activities of Rudolf Steiner College is something I have
not yet encountered. It is not happening in my part of the world,
and if this has been taking place during the past few years,
it is a new phenomenon which in my view may jeopardize the survival
of Anthroposophy in America (in its true form). This is what
we in Europe would describe as an Americanization (in the negative
sense) of Anthroposophy.
My description of Anthroposophy is not intended
to fit local conditions in your part of the world, which I understand
to be somewhat chaotic. My point is that anthroposophists are
for the most part quiet, autonomous individualists whose personal
philosophy of freedom is not to blame for your public school
problems. The Waldorf schools were established in 1919 as a strictly
private alternative to the public schools, with the expressed
purpose of keeping the state authorities out of education - its
bankroll and its administrators alike. The Waldorf schools were
never intended for people who did not approve of its principles.
If you Americans cannot manage to maintain a private, voluntary
alternative school away from the politicians and their never-ending
bickering about how to interpret the constitution in public schools,
I'm beginning to wonder what the hell has happened to the Land
of the Free.
I thought it was you that introduced yourself
to this list as an individual in need of help to leave the cult
of Anthroposophy. Your tongue-in-cheek introduction in which
you described yourself as indoctrinated led to responses you
may be referring to.
Dan Dugan didn't appreciate the satire and
came with an immediate suggestion that anthroposophists had problems
with re-adjusting to normal life after years in the cult, and
he recommended an exit counsellor. So it looks like I hit the
nail on the head with my opening post.
In recent days I haven't been following the list as closely as
I usually do; however, what I recall is that you came to us under
a guise that was vastly divergent from who you really are.
That is not true. I gave an accurate description
of my autobiographical background in relation to Anthroposophy.
The only twist was the adjustment of my attitude to that of recognizing
my cult-problem like an alcoholic and his drinking problem. My
cult, byt the way, consists of a bookshelf (Freudian bottle?),
so I guess that book burning might be a recommended treatment?
This is a Critics List, so I assume you
know that your views are going to be questioned and the attempt
will be made here to publicly discredit those that support the
validity of Anthroposophical methods/beliefs and Waldorf.
Interesting. Does that mean that the Waldorf
critics wish to discredit *me* because of my philosophy and my
sympathies? To prove that I am a person of poor character? I
thought someone suggested I was paranoid....
Another thing you may notice is that I say
rather little about Waldorf, because I am not too familiar with
it. I only throw a punch when I see insulting and disparaging
remarks about my philosophy (which is different from objective
criticism). I find the logic somewhat strange that I should have
to be discredited because of my philosophy so that extra weight
can be added to the arguments against Waldorf education. That
sidetracks the issue of education, child psychology, and curriculum
to a ridiculing of spiritual-religious *people.* That is why
I am here.
You write extremely well and hold your
own with great aplomb, so I shouldn't think you would be so offended
by Kopp or any of us that question what appears to be your unquestioning
adherence to Anthroposophy. Surely you knew the dynamics of this
forum before you joined.
Of course I did. And I thank you most sincerely
for that compliment.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:38:08 +1300
Tarjei Straume replied to Michael Kopp:
Michael Kopp wrote:
The recent reports here of the public appearances
of Betty Staley, apparently one of the head proselytisers for
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy (SWA) in the United States, and
the glossy, slick, spin-doctored video about SWA in which she
appears, put the lie to Tarjei's claims of SWA as a shy, retiring,
esoteric, eccentric hobby.
[And STRAUME replied:]
I have not lied, and I have not made any
claims. I gave an honest description of how I have experienced
Anthroposophy.
KOPP:
I didn't say you lied. However, you have made
claims for Anthroposophy. I said the evidence of Anthroposophy's
marketing makes a nonsense of your claims that it is simply a
personal philosophy.
[KOPP:]
Methinks he's out of touch with the reality
of the modern, coordinated marketing effort, and the concerted
push by SWA, to promote itself into public schools -- and not
just for the money.
[STRAUME:]
After many years as a saleman in the U.S.,
methinks that mr. Kopp's knowledge about mr. Straume is extremely
limited. The invasion of the Waldorf movement by the promotional
marketing culture is obviously a pollutant that contributes to
the problems and chaos at hand.
KOPP:
Move over, Tom Mellett! Tarjei Straume is
out to cleanse Anthroposophy of the heretics and snake-oil salesmen.
Hallelujah!
[KOPP:]
Mr Straume is misusing the term mumbo jumbo
and trying to redefine it by putting the onus on the receiver
of the information, accusing anyone who doesn't understand [Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophy] as being at fault themselves.
[STRAUME:]
Not anyone who doesn't understand these
things, but only those who match ignorance with bigotry.
[Snip...]
Methinks that mr. Kopp knowledge about
mr. Straume is extremely limited and exceptionally bigoted and
subjective.
KOPP:
Well, it won't be the first time I've been
called a bigot here. Last time I was a religious bigot. Now I'm
just a personal bigot.
(Last time I actually got an apology. I kinda
doubt I'm going to get one from Mr Straume. What does the list
owner reckon about this?)
[KOPP:]
Mumbo jumbo: "meaningless ritual;
language or action intended to mystify or confuse; object of
senseless veneration" (OED).
[STRAUME:]
Mr Kopp is saying that anthroposophists
intend to mystify and confuse him with their language and actions
as a part of a shrewd conspiracy.
KOPP:
Yeah, but it didn't work. I saw through it
-- just in time to save my kids from its worst excesses.
I think Mr Straume has got the gist of my
views of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy.
The real danger is to the very large number
of unsuspecting, uncritical, ignorant parents who send their
kids to one of these SWA schools.
[Snip...]
[KOPP:]
Can you define the nature of this "respect",
please?
[STRAUME:]
A positive regard for the dignity of a
human being who holds opinions with which you strongly disagree.
The recognition that such a human being can be as intelligent
and talented as you are. It is a question of fraternity and equality.
KOPP:
I have stated my regard for Mr Straume's dignity
as a human being. I think it's probably that he's as intelligent
and talented as I am -- perhaps moreso.
It's just that he believes in something without
evidence, despite his long years of study. He claims to have
found "empirical evidence" of these things. All I'm
asking is that he provide that evidence for us all to see. I
don't think he can.
And telling me that it's right in front of
my nose, that it's MY problem because I can't see it, because
I refuse to understand the system by which it is elucidated,
is insulting to MY intelligence.
Too bad that this guru trick (you will know
it when you have arrived at the appropriate level of your own
introspection) works on so many others.
[KOPP:]
Does it mean that one must automatically
allow that someone else's belief system has as much validity
as, say, science?
[STRAUME:]
No, it does not mean that you must automatically
allow anything whatsoever. It simply means that differences of
opinion, also when it comes to science, may be sustained by mutual
respect, and somtimes mutual admiration (like the case of George
Bernard Shaw and Benjamin Tucker, or of Rudolf Steiner and Ernst
Häckel).
KOPP:
And what of the "respect" of Steiner
for Madame Blavatsky, Annie Besant and all the others who didn't
see it his way? And the "respect" of Shaw for those
whose ideas he thought poorly of?
Here's a case of what you're talking about:
Stephen Tonkin makes enough sense about the real world to merit
my respect, though he still believes is something I do not. He
is a good teacher, by his own description. And, despite the fact
that I think he shortchanges students about the scientific method,
I would have wanted him teaching my kids science at our Steiner
school. (It would be immodest of me to characterise his regard
for me ....)
You, Mr Straume, do not make that sort of
sense to me, and you cannot provide for me anything emperical
about Anthroposophy, Steiner or your world view. So I do not
have the same regard for your thinking as for some others, especially
scientists.
But I have full regard for you as a human
being, and your right to believe in fairies, if you choose.
How does that make me an ignorant bigot?
Here's an example of why I have less respect
for your ideas:
[KOPP:]
Surely SWA owes it to people who are going
to place their children in the care of others for up to 13 years
to give those intending consumers full disclosure? And surely
it can't be that difficult?
[STRAUME:]
As I have pointed out, Waldorf education
is not my field. Someone else should answer your question.
KOPP:
Yet you pontificate on a *WALDORF*-oriented
mailing list! You beg off answering questions of substance about
the pedagogy -- which even the SWA people say is based on Anthroposophy.
Surely if you know so much about Anthroposophy, you can hold
views on its relationship to the schools? If not, perhaps you
should take your own advice, and get knowledgeable about Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools BEFORE you contribute to a
list about them.
You want me to be an Anthroposophist (the
only way for me to know enough about the subject to engage you
in discussion, according to your view of my knowledge of Steiner
and Anthroposophy). But you claim ignorance of the topic of this
list!
Pull the other one, Mr Straume.
[Snip ... snip ... snip]
[KOPP:]
The world of Carl Sagan was -- and is --
the world of the search for physical, not mystical, truth.
[STRAUME:]
If man were only physical, devoid of soul
and spirit, physical truth alone might have been sufficient.
But it ain't necessarily so.
KOPP:
Show me your emperical evidence, please.
Replicate Steiner's trips to the other side
-- and bring back something other than dream stuff.
There have been geniuses equal to Newton and
Einstein in science, and they are standing on the shoulders of
those earlier giants to show us ever more physical truth. (Please
don't tire us with the minuscule number of scientists who believe
in something more than science: they can't provide emperical
evidence, either.)
Where are the geniuses of Anthroposophy who
can replicate Steiner's experiences -- and stand on his shoulders
to advance and show us emperical evidence?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method (was Re: WOW!)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:05:55 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that anyone,
Steiner or otherwise, can "enter" some supernatural
realm through dreaming. There is no evidence of anything supernatural.
To you, there no evidence of the supernatural.
To others, there is. It is interesting that you mentioned dreaming,
because the initiatory technique in question consists of entering
a different realm in full consciousness equivalent to waking
consciousness. But when we sleep, dreaming or not, we leave our
physical bodies and dwell in the realm that you say does not
exist.
It sounds to me like what Steiner may have been experiencing
(if he didn't just make all this stuff up wholesale out of his
imagination, which is an equal possibility in my view) what brain
scientists now call "lucid dreaming", in which the
dreamer has a higher level of consciousness than in ordinary
dreaming. In this state, the dreamer may in fact _direct_ the
course of dreams.
The scientists you are referring to could
be the brain surgeons in California who announced in a Newsweek
cover story a few years ago that the human ego, or "I,"
is pure illusion resulting from certain chemical processes in
the brain. That could bring us right back to the fatalistic conclusion
held by some in the opium dens of Calcutta, namely that that
life itself is an illusion. This conclusion is reached by two
opposing paths, however. The Indian opium smoker has learned
that the physical world is maya, illusion, and cognizing no spiritual
reality, he finds all existence to be the figment of his imagination.
The American brain surgeon, on the other hand, has fallen victim
to naive realism by believing that nothing exists beyond what
can be verified by our five senses or recorded by instruments
and technology, which is an extension of these senses.
So it is likely that Steiner, having a belief in (or pretending
to have a belief in) this "Akashic record", could use
his lucid dreaming experiences, which he directed himself, like
a movie director, to bolster his claims of communication with
the supernatural.
If that is the theory you prefer and that
fits your understanding of reality, it's fine with me, except
that we obviously mean different things by the word "dreaming."
Steiner's writings of his "reading of the Akashic record",
like all his other "spiritual science", are, to me,
either self-delusion or fraud. Because of the absence of any
evidence at all, other than the words of the guru, I cannot give
any credence to any of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy (SWA)
where it refers to the supernatural.
Nobody is asking you to change your opinions
or points of view.
(This is not to say that I don't appreciate a few of Steiner's
insights and innovations in education -- but these are few and
far between, and don't carry enough weight to bear the rest of
the mumbo jumbo on my kids or myself.)
I think you should teach and raise your kids
the way that you believe is right, and you should find a school
where you have a better mutual understanding with the teachers.
<snip>
As to slandering Steiner or Anthroposophy:
Mr Straume has a fairly narrow view of what constitutes slander,
if he thinks that the criticism found here is slander. Steiner,
Waldorf and Anthroposophy were consigned to the heap of all spiritualistic
world views by most scholars and scientists.
Slander has to do with personal moral character,
not how one approaches science.
They are only enjoying a renascence now because of the poor science
educations of today's generations of people who look to the `new
age' for supernatural answers to questions that have already
been answered by science, or are yet unanswerable.
I think it is a little deeper than that. Religious
faith no longer meets the spiritual needs of as many people now
as, say, a few hundred years ago. Our cognition of reality has
become increasingly dominated by our logical intellect that we
use in science and mathematics. If faith conflicts with reason,
we are compelled to surrender to the latter unless we succeed
in suspending it somehow. In other words, people feel a longing
for religious truth, but they trust their reasoning intellect
more than their feelings, and traditional religion is presented
in mythical pictures that appeal to feeling only. the movement
called New Age covers a very broad spectrum, and people are searching
for cosmologies and theologies that make sense to them and can
stand the test of critical thinking.
This is part of an anti-scientific trend science has brought
upon itself by not properly educating the public on the true
nature of scientific thought and progress, and the difference
between pure science and applied technology. While the latter
has been misused by society, and the former is not blameless,
in general science has warned of the dangers of its misuse.
You mean that scientists have issued warnings
of course. Science does no such thing. (Semantic drivel I admit.)
However, people love to hate that which
they do not understand; and love to embrace that which promises
attractive, fanciful answers to our questions about life, the
Universe ... and everything.
You just took the words out of my ..... I
guess keyboard is the right word under the circumstances.
STRAUME:
My father was one of the heroes of Telemark
in the resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of Norway
during World War II, and my mother was arrested and incarcerated
by the Nazis in this country for the "crime" of being
an American citizen. As an anarchist, I belong to the number
one target group for the neo-Nazis, their prime enemy. So what
are you trying to tell me? That I have been a Nazi-racist all
along?
KOPP:
Excuse me? Can you point to anything said by anyone here which
in any way impugns you in such a way?
I was referring to the link that is trying
to be made between Anthroposophy and "Aryan Theosophy"
(and Ariosophy). (I understand it has been debated on this list
prior to my joining it, and I recently saw a reference to it
by Dan Dugan in his posted reply to a Waldorf man in the Bay
area.) My view of evolutionary epochs would, according to this
line of reasoning, make me an Aryan racist. Perhaps I have been
too counter-provocative.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 03:32:59 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
I didn't say you lied. However, you have
made claims for Anthroposophy. I said the evidence of Anthroposophy's
marketing makes a nonsense of your claims that it is simply a
personal philosophy.
I have not said that Anthroposophy is *only*
or *simply* a personal philosophy. All I said was that it happens
to be *my* personal philosophy. Please note the difference.
Move over, Tom Mellett! Tarjei Straume
is out to cleanse Anthroposophy of the heretics and snake-oil
salesmen. Hallelujah!
I am not interested in doing anything to heretics,
because if you check my website, you'll find that I am a heretical
anarchosophist. I don't know about snake-oil, but there is a
market for snake-venom among homeopaths. Amen.
Well, it won't be the first time I've been
called a bigot here. Last time I was a religious bigot. Now I'm
just a personal bigot.
(Last time I actually got an apology. I kinda doubt I'm going
to get one from Mr Straume. What does the list owner reckon about
this?)
I am quite generous with apologies, but you
are still expressing bigotry, also in this post.
[STRAUME:]
Mr Kopp is saying that anthroposophists
intend to mystify and confuse him with their language and actions
as a part of a shrewd conspiracy.
KOPP:
Yeah, but it didn't work. I saw through it -- just in time to
save my kids from its worst excesses.
So you do believe in an ahthroposophical conspiracy.
I won't mention what groups published warnings of this kind in
the early 1920's.
I think Mr Straume has got the gist of my views of Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophy.
The real danger is to the very large number of unsuspecting,
uncritical, ignorant parents who send their kids to one of these
SWA schools.
What you are clearly implying is that I am
uncritical and ignorant because I sent my son to Waldorf school.
I call that bigotry, because it is an indirect personal attack.
The conclusion is that if I were knowledgeable and capable of
critical thinkinhg, I would not send my son to Waldorf school.
It's just that he believes in something
without evidence, despite his long years of study. He claims
to have found "empirical evidence" of these things.
All I'm asking is that he provide that evidence for us all to
see. I don't think he can.
The fact that I cannot convince reluctant
critics to recognize this kind of evidence without exertion,
effort, does not make it untrue. The heliocentric astronomical
theory of Galileo and Copernicus was not recognized by the Roman
Catholic Church until 1827. (The Catholic church probably learned
from this mistake, because they did not resist Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution.)
And telling me that it's right in front
of my nose, that it's MY problem because I can't see it, because
I refuse to understand the system by which it is elucidated,
is insulting to MY intelligence.
This is, I think, a misunderstanding, and
it may be my fault if I have not expressed myself correctly.
There is nothing lacking in a person's intelligence when a he
or she is not capable or willing to grasp spiritual concepts.
there is also a partial truth in saying that spiritual concepts
are irrational, if we confine the meaning of "rational"
to the strict, physical logical thinking that is entirely dependent
upon those grey cells that the brain surgeons are so familiar
with. In addition to such ordinary intelligence, the apprehension
of spiritual concepts as something real requires a mode of cognition
that belongs to the "extra-rational" realm, i.e. so-called
sense-free thinking. This kind of thinking interacts with rational
intelligence, but it is related to, though not identical with,
religious feelings. This sounds perhaps awkward and clumsy, but
it is the most accurate way to describe it.
The absence of such "sense-free thinking,"
which would also entail the adamant denial of its existence,
does not diminish intelligence in any way whatsoever.
Too bad that this guru trick (you will
know it when you have arrived at the appropriate level of your
own introspection) works on so many others.
[KOPP:]
Does it mean that one must automatically
allow that someone else's belief system has as much validity
as, say, science?
[STRAUME:]
No, it does not mean that you must automatically
allow anything whatsoever. It simply means that differences of
opinion, also when it comes to science, may be sustained by mutual
respect, and somtimes mutual admiration (like the case of George
Bernard Shaw and Benjamin Tucker, or of Rudolf Steiner and Ernst
Häckel).
KOPP:
And what of the "respect" of Steiner for Madame Blavatsky,
Annie Besant and all the others who didn't see it his way? And
the "respect" of Shaw for those whose ideas he thought
poorly of?
Steiner had great respect for Helena Blavatsky.
He praised her as a great pioneer and as a strong and thoroughly
honest woman. He criticized the way her works were written, her
literary style, which was strongly influenced by her fiery temperament.
The only person of whom Steiner spoke with a marked dislike was
Woodrow Wilson.
Here's a case of what you're talking about: Stephen Tonkin makes
enough sense about the real world to merit my respect, though
he still believes is something I do not. He is a good teacher,
by his own description. And, despite the fact that I think he
shortchanges students about the scientific method, I would have
wanted him teaching my kids science at our Steiner school. (It
would be immodest of me to characterise his regard for me ....)
You, Mr Straume, do not make that sort of sense to me, and you
cannot provide for me anything emperical about Anthroposophy,
Steiner or your world view. So I do not have the same regard
for your thinking as for some others, especially scientists.
Rudolf Steiner's doctoral thesis on epistemology,
"Truth and Knowledge," is the best preparation for
an empirical appreciation of the "Philosophy of Freedom."
If these principles are recognized, Anthroposophy may be approached.
This is the hardest way to Anthroposophy. (I took the shorter
route and did the hard homework much later.)
But I have full regard for you as a human being, and your right
to believe in fairies, if you choose.
Actually, I do.
How does that make me an ignorant bigot?
Your bigotry seems to be something that comes
and goes with you on these posts.
Here's an example of why I have less respect for your ideas:
[KOPP:]
Surely SWA owes it to people who are going
to place their children in the care of others for up to 13 years
to give those intending consumers full disclosure? And surely
it can't be that difficult?
[STRAUME:]
As I have pointed out, Waldorf education
is not my field. Someone else should answer your question.
KOPP:
Yet you pontificate on a *WALDORF*-oriented mailing list! You
beg off answering questions of substance about the pedagogy --
which even the SWA people say is based on Anthroposophy. Surely
if you know so much about Anthroposophy, you can hold views on
its relationship to the schools? If not, perhaps you should take
your own advice, and get knowledgeable about Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical schools BEFORE you contribute to a list about
them.
I understand, and your objection is not unjustified.
Ihe thing is, I know a great deal about Anthroposophy (I think),
but pedagogy is one of my weakest points. I simple have not done
my homework on it. So I thoght it proper that someone more qualified
than I should answer that question.
You want me to be an Anthroposophist (the only way for me to
know enough about the subject to engage you in discussion, according
to your view of my knowledge of Steiner and Anthroposophy). But
you claim ignorance of the topic of this list!
As a Waldorf parent with a good knowledge
of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy in general, I thought I might
fit the bill here. I am not claiming ignorance of Waldorf education,
but very limited knowledge of the specifics in the classroom.
Pull the other one, Mr Straume.
[Snip ... snip ... snip]
[KOPP:]
The world of Carl Sagan was -- and is --
the world of the search for physical, not mystical, truth.
[STRAUME:]
If man were only physical, devoid of soul
and spirit, physical truth alone might have been sufficient.
But it ain't necessarily so.
KOPP:
Show me your emperical evidence, please.
Empirical means personal, direct experience.
I cannot conduct your experiences. This demand for empirical
evidence is equally absurd if I ask you to prove Carl Sagan's
anti-mystical reality to me. When I say "It ain't necessarily
so," it means we have some personal freedom to go on here.
You cannot prove atheism to a non-atheist - that is absurd. Nor
can you do it the other way around.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 05:31:36 +0000
Tarjei Straume wrote:
The heliocentric astronomical theory of
Galileo and Copernicus was not recognized by the Roman Catholic
Church until 1827.
I'm no defender of the Church on this one
but, in all fairness, neither Galileo nor Copernicus (nor Kepler
nor Giordano Bruno) showed any actual evidence that the Earth
moved around the Sun. Galileo was a shameless self-publicist
and was vindicated because he was correct, but his scientific
argument in this respect was somewhat lacking -- it boiled down
to "if you don't believe me, it's because you are an idiot".
The first evidence that earth moves was the
discovery of the aberration of starlight by James Bradley in
1729, nearly a century after Galileo died.
If anyone wants more detail on this, it's
a tad OT here, but I have a tutorial on historical astronomy
on my web site.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:35:28 -0800
Bruce, you wrote,
Clearly one is sympathatic to such cases,
and I wonder if to discuss deaths is really helpful..... however,
there are many many women who have benefited (probably by having
their lives saved, but that can never be proven) from the anthroposophical
homeopathic treatment called ISCADOR - made from mistletoe.
It is exactly this promotion of unproven remedies
that earns Anthroposophical Medicine the name "quackery."
-Dan Dugan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Fallacious argumentation (was: Medical care/religion
[fwd])
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:37:54 EST
In einer eMail vom 12.02.99 11:36:00 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
It is exactly this promotion of unproven
remedies that earns Anthroposophical Medicine the name "quackery."
you and proof Dan - what do you want NOW?
25,000 people to write to you personally that Iscador has saved
their stomach, breast, testicle, ....
Bruce J
PS I thought this was a *waldorf* critics
list!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"