EFTA02710493

From: Lawrence Krauss Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 8:10 PM To: jeffrey E. Subject: Fwd: an article you may both hate. or like. Lawrence M. Krau=s Director, The Origins Project at AS= Foundation Professor =div s e="orphans: auto; widows: auto;">School of Earth & Space Expl=ration and Physics Department Arizona State Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Noam Chomsky" «mailto Date: September 10, 2015 at 12:01:39 PM M=T To: Lawrence Kraus Subject: RE: an article you may ot= ate. or e. Then we're in complete agreemen=. Noam From: Lawrence Krauss Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:46 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: an article you may both hate. or like.=/p> EFTA_R1_02122007 EFTA02710493 I couldn't agree more.=Re ridicule. I never suggest ridiculing people. However by pointing out the=inconsistency, or contravening evidence associated with various ideas, incl=ding for example American exceptionalism, then we are essentially subjecting ideas to ridicule. That is what I meant.=nbsp; Lawrence M. Krauss Director, The Origins Project at ASU Foundation Professor School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics D=partment Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Noam Chomsky Thanks for sending. A wide area o= agreement, but not total. wrote: On confronting dogma, I of course agree=— though in my opinion the secular religions — nationalist f=naticism, etc. — are much more dangerous. And if some find rational discussion offensive — as, for example, mainstream academi=s find dismantling myths of "American exceptionalism" or =80 Israeli self-defense" or Obama's mass murder campaign,=etc., offensive — so be it. But I don't see why that should=extend to ridicule. That includes astrologists. Astronomers can=refute astrology, while recognizing that perfectly honest and deluded people may believe it and should be treated with respect, while the=r beliefs are confronted with evidence. I also don't see why w= should ridicule religious dogma, just as I don't think we should r=dicule the much more pernicious secular dogmas. Rather, we should respond to irrational belief with argument and evidence, w=ile recognizing that their advocates (like most of the intellectual world i= the case of secular dogma) are people who we should be responding to but w=thout ridiculing them. It may be hard sometimes. For example, when the icon and founding father=of sober non-sentimental Realism in International Affairs informs us that t=e US, unlike other countries, has a "transcendental purpose,"=and the fact that it constantly acts in contradiction to its 2 EFTA_R1_02122008 EFTA02710494 purpose doesn't matter because the facts are just "a=use of history" while real history is "the evidence of history as our minds reflect i=," then it's hard to avoid ridicule. But we should.&n=sp; There's no point ridiculing virtually the entire IR profession a=d the major journals, even though such extraordinary irrationality leads to major=human disasters. On Davis, I frankly think that'= a non-issue. If she decides she cannot do her job as the conditions o= employment require (including following the law), then she can quit and look for another job. As in any other such case. Noam From: Lawrence Krauss Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:51 AM To: <jeevac=tion@gma .com <mai oleevaca ion s gmai m> > Subject: an article you may both hate. or like. &nbs=; hope all is well. =o:p> Lawrence Jeffrey E. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news=desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists chttp://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/al=-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists> Lawrence M. Krauss Director, The Origins Project at ASU Co-Director, Cosmology Initiative Foundation Professor <=pan style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;col=r:black"> School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department</=:p> EFTA_R1_02122009 EFTA02710495 <image001.png> 4 EFTA_R1_02122010 EFTA02710496