Irrational, paranoid, psychotic, laughable, delusional, "take my word on faith", moronic, insane, sophistic, farcical, con-artist, opportunist who engages in "selective scrutiny"?

Do you think some or maybe a little of all of them describe the author formerly (and currently) known as David Icke? Because, I don't. To ME he seems to be extremely intelligent, a master dot-connector, very open-minded (but not to the point of letting his brains fall out as the old adage goes), and quite sincere. Maybe I'm just impressionable/gullible/naive, but I don't think I am. Sure his ideas buck the trend to some extent, but don't you sort of intuitively expect a bizarre answer when diving into a realm like "What is the fundamental deep reality of the Earth and Universe?"

Which brings me to another point: The use of intuition as a tool to procure ostensible information and then discern from said info which of it is true and which isn't, has been demonized, at least in modern society, in favor of "hard," "controlled lab experiment" evidence. I for one am not convinced, and likely never will be, that relying on intuition as a source of guidance will only lead one to believe in a geocentric model of the solar system etc. etc. I'm one less than everyone. I suppose my skepticism of this idea is based partly in solipism/a questioning of reality at the most basic level. This is not to say that evidence is worthless. Obviously science has brought the human race a plethora of life-sustaining and extending tools, if the mainstream version of events is to be trusted in this area. Rather, they should work hand in hand, evidence and intuition. I don't claim to have anything remotely close to a great understanding or knowledge of philosophy or proper argumentation-technically you could pin me down by asking the ironic "What evidence do you have that intuition is valid like evidence is valid?." My response would be I can't think of any, but this is most likely more due to me being stupid than my argument being flawed. Also I don't necessarily think intuition and evidence are diametrical. Rather intuition MIGHT be a cumulative collection of memories of past realizations attained through past exposure to evidence....more subtle and something that one doesn't know on a conscious level and can't articulate. Anyway, I think the question is circular-reasoning. Think about it: (assuming someone who read this thought this) You're asking someone who believes intuition is at least as valid as evidence to provide evidence that intuition is as valid as evidence.

I am not "kidding" about this at all. And to anyone who says Icke provides no evidence for his wacky claims, I just can't agree in the first place. and although I'm not at all educated on the presumably various definitions of metaphysical naturalism, I think it is, as I understand it, an only moderately strong position at best, and one that will make persuasion/convincing of IMO plausible, rational things a futile endeavor.

I can guess that those who will argue with the above are largely either the religious or the anti-theists...

Feel free to "shoot holes" in any and all of the above...It would only be an educational experience for me.

And finally, a note to the mods: I realize you may take this down because you think it is too long, too nebulous, too fertile of ground for trolls. I'm putting up anticipating this because I stand behind at least a lot of it, and ultimately I gotta "bite the hand that feeds" and be able to say that I tried...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2012 01:51PM by Musicisdivine.