Yquotes.com

 

Political, scientific, or religious debates are often distorted according to an immutable principle: one brings together the person who is wrong, who is a hardened demagogue, and whose cause one secretly espouses, to face an opponent who is right but who does not know the case well enough to counter his adversary on precise technical points.

Take the case of the charlatan who claims to transmit thoughts at a distance. A newspaper that claims to be objective, well-balanced, reader-respectful, and nonpartisan will put two discourses in opposition: that of the charlatan who claims to have abilities not explained by physics, and that of critics: academicians or Nobel Prize winners who will bring out their authority, express their righteous indignation, say that they cannot give any credence to a phenomenon so manifestly opposed to the most sacred laws of physics, and the like. The reader to whom the two contradictory discourses have been served up will not fail to congratulate the newspaper for its remarkable objectivity.

The only one who will not be given the floor is the professional magician who "knows the trick" and could perform it without further ado for the public. Had he been allowed to speak, the reader would understand everything right away, and there would be nothing left to write in the next few days on this subject. The whole art thus consists of getting the charlatans to speak on the one hand and the distinguished scientists to speak on the other, provided the latter have nothing relevant to say on the subject. But it sometimes happens, alas, that an independent journal comes along and lets the cat out of the bag.
--
Source: The Science of Illusions; English translation by Franklin Philip (emphasis added)

 

Jacques Ninio

» Jacques Ninio - all quotes »

Similar quotes

 

Although this little book (which is called “discourses,” not sermons, because its author does not have authority to preach, “upbuilding discourses,” not discourses for upbuilding, because the speaker by no means claims to be a teacher) wishes to be only what it is, a superfluity, and desires only to remain in hiding, just as it came into existence in concealment, I nevertheless have not bidden it farewell without an almost fantastic hope. Inasmuch as in being published it is in a figurative sense starting a journey, I let my eyes follow it for a little while. I saw how it wended its way down solitary paths or walked solitary on public roads. After a few little mistakes, through being deceived by a fleeting resemblance, it finally met that single individual whom I with joy and gratitude call my reader, that single individual it is seeking, to whom, so to speak, it stretches out it’s arms, that single individual who is favorably enough disposed to allow himself to be found, favorably enough disposed to receive it, whether at the time of the encounter it finds him cheerful and confident or “weary and pensive,” –On the other hand, inasmuch as in being published it actually remains quiet without moving from the spot, I let my eyes rest on it for a little while. It stood there like a humble little flower under the cover of the great forest, sought neither for its splendor nor its fragrance nor its food value. But I also saw, or thought I saw, how the bird I call my reader suddenly noticed it, flew down to it, picked it, and took it home, and when I had seen this, I saw no more. Copenhagen, May 5, 1843 Preface

 

Soren Aabye Kierkegaard

 

Types.—To show that the Old Testament is only figurative, and that the prophets understood by temporal blessings other blessings, this is the proof: First, that this would be unworthy of God. Secondly, that their discourses express very clearly the promise of temporal blessings, and that they say nevertheless that their discourses are obscure, and that their meaning will not be understood. Whence it appears that this secret meaning was not that which they openly expressed, and that consequently they meant to speak of other sacrifices, of another deliverer, etc. They say that they will be understood only in the fullness of time. The third proof is that their discourses are contradictory, and neutralize each other; so that if we think that they did not mean by the words "law" and "sacrifice" anything else than that of Moses, there is a plain and gross contradiction. Therefore they meant something else, sometimes contradicting themselves in the same chapter. 658

 

Blaise Pascal

 

Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.

 

Freeman Dyson

 

I would give Wells' book a grade of an "F", because he distorts and mis-quotes scientists and does not write to encourage people to build upon a logical foundation, but rather to blindly accept his "proofs" that evolution is wrong. Wells offers no alternative scientific theory to explain the fossil record. If not by Darwinian evolution, then HOW did life gradually change from single-celled simple bacteria 3.5 billion years ago (which Wells says he accepts), to the present explosion of life in all of its complexity all around us? In short he fails to convincingly demonstrate to me, as a fellow molecular biologist, that most of the "Icons" are really the essential foundations of evolution he claims, and he offers no compelling evidence to me that these are indeed 'frauds'. However, I am seriously concerned that Wells claims himself to be a "molecular biologist", and yet questions the very foundations of molecular biology (DNA makes RNA makes protein) as some sort of Darwinist conspiracy.

 

Jonathan Wells

 

His grammar is foolishly correct, offensively precise. It flaunts itself in the reader's face all along, and struts and smirks and shows off, and is in a dozen ways irritating and disagreeable. To be serious, I write good grammar myself, but not in that spirit, I am thankful to say. That is to say, my grammar is of a high order, though not at the top. Nobody's is. Perfect grammar—persistent, continuous, sustained—is the fourth dimension, so to speak: many have sought it, but none has found it.

 

Samuel Langhorne (Mark Twain) Clemens