Re: Savanna nonsense


JAE wrote:

> [snipped, the usual crazed, self righteous, pedantic ranting]

Jason, it's no wonder creationism is on the increase in America if
people like you represent the case for evolutionary science there. Such
constant, tedious hostility is bound to put any would-be scientist off
for life and send them running to the nearest comfort zone, even if it
happened to be a church (in my case, however, it would be a pub.) I bet
when students walk out of your class for the last time they thank God
they'll never have to hand in a piece of work to you again. The irony
is: You're probably taking this as a compliment. Putting people off
science is what you *want* to do, isn't it? Only really clever people,
like you, should be allowed to do that.

You seem to have decided, on day one, that this thing, mislabelled the
'AAH', is wrong and that anyone who has the audacity to argue for it
simply must be wrong too. So, you have set about on your crusade,
trawling the newsgroups day after day, hour after hour, for anyone
daring to "bastardize the scientific method" by giving it serious
consideration. I accept that it's not *only* AAH proponents that incur
your wrath. Anyone who you perceive as not being "in with strict
orthodoxy" gets your goat just as much.

When you find someone like me, who has even gone back, far too old, to
academia to study it and is trying, naively probably, to actually *do*
some science, (because they have not found the answers satisfactory
from your sacred orthodoxy, to why this thing *is* wrong) you have to
intensify your efforts: Pick all the holes in any words and phrases you
can; Take literally any piece of conversation said in haste and, as if
you were the editor of some pretentious scientific journal reading a
carefully worded manuscript, attempt to tear it to shreads; And,
whenever the opportunity arises, twist any sentence that happens to use
the word "you" (even if used generally, as in "one") into lies,
accusations or pretend insults against your oh-so-precious reputation.
When you can't find any, at least question the correct use of some
words there - maybe that will cause a crack to appear in the reply and
then you can crow-bar your way in to extract the next fatal error or
pretend damning insult. In any case, and at every opportunity, you try
to up the ante. In true George Bush style, you've been determined to
have your war and damn the consequences.

Well, look. I'm even less impressed with this now than I was before. If
you represented scientific orthodoxy (and thankfully, you surely do
not) I'd think more than ever it's time someone knocked it down from
its arrogant high horse. I hope some objective minded people out there
can see that. I might well have been at fault with some of my
statements over the years here. I've tried to correct them when they've
been fairly pointed out but I've learned that this just doesn't work
with you, Jason. No matter what I say or do about the AAH, you're going
to most vehemently attack me about it anyway. You say it's *me* that's
at fault, not the message, but curiously, you didn't attack me about my
similar speculations on the hybridisation idea, only the AAH. There,
you engaged me in a debate civilly and we had, I felt, an interesting
and useful conversation. Why's that? Because, apparently, you happen to
think the hybridisation idea's not so stupid, so that's ok, so *I'm*
ok... there.

But you *do* think the AAH (and some other ideas touted on this
newsgroup) is stupid, horse ***, crap etc. etc., right? and so - no
holds barred there. Every argument must be shown to be wrong, every
fact must be shown to only be opinion, every piece of evidence *for*
must be diminished and questioned, every piece *against* emphasised as
some kind of final word on the matter. And you have a licence to say
anything you like to do with my academic record, even to the extent
where the excellent reputation of UCL, where I received a hard earned
distinction for my degree, is brought into question. You defend 45
years of do-nothingism, as if it has always been good science to do no
AAH-related research and enough, instead, simply to sneer. I can
imagine that you think you're being really scientific in these
endevours, but I honestly don't think you are. I can't see how any
objective person could.

Call me a poor student, naive about the scientific method and
inadequate at doing research if you will but I thought science was
supposed to be about open-minded, fear-free enquiry into interesting
ideas. I thought scientists were supposed to be people with an infinite
cappacity for curiosity about new ideas and how they might or might not
fit into what we know already.

The brand of 'scientific' orthodoxy you espouse is nothing like that.
It's the sort of methodology that builds reputations of superiority but
hinders progress and enlightenment.

Bugger.... Yet more time wasted arguing with you. Thanks, Jason. I'm
going to bed.

Algis Kuliukas

.

Quantcast