Re: Labels and Obfuscations

From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:51:21 -0500 (EST)

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:cvqjif$2tse$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote or quoted:
> > "Larry Moran" <lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:cvd3en$1eqi$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> > > Unfortunately Dana Kossy doesn't discuss the kook-enablers - those
> > > people who continue to respond to kooks long after everyone else has
> > > given up. Jim, do you think we have some of those people on this
> > > news group?
> >
> > That is a rather curious question to ask, after I embraced the
> > "kook-enabler" label and offered a defense of the practice.
> > Perhaps you missed it. It was titled "A kook-enabler's apology".
>
> It is true that good things can arise as a consqeuence of almost
> anything. However, it seems that here we are dealing with a case
> where the *main* effect is likely to be low-return dissipation of
> your energies. I don't pretend to be party to your motives or goals
> in this area - but you are clealy a keen student of evolution - and
> I can't help wondering sometimes why you don't find more productive
> ways of furthering your interest in the area.

Oh, I think that the "rate of return" has been quite reasonable. My
big problem is self motivation. I don't think critically about
concepts unless I have an (artificial?) motivation for doing so. If I
were still in school, that motivation would be provided by tests
and such.

I have learned a lot thru (not from!) Edser. My epistemological base
is much solider than when I started (Mach is my guru here, though
Popper also had some points.) Three years ago, I had barely heard
of Hamilton - now I think I understand the innards of the rule as
well as anyone in this NG. Admittedly, the rule and kin selection
are not all that important in practice, but they do form a basis for
more sophisticated theorizing about symbiosis and social effects.
And I need to understand symbiosis for OOL reasons.

> FWIW, you are in good company here - I think much the same things
> about Mr Dawkins' attempts to combat creation science. I feel
> it to be sad that he finds it necessary to respond to these folk
> at all. I know it's a real force in America - but doesn't Richard
> have something better to do that debate with these folk?

Hmmm. Am I really perceived as THAT combative? I don't receive the
comparison to Dawkins as much of a compliment. Dawkins strikes
me as an evangelical atheist. In America, that is considered gauche
and rather pointless. Perhaps our disestablishmentarianism (never
thought I would use that word!) makes Dawkins seem irrelevant, and
actually something of an unhelpful ally in the fight against creationism.

> There are signs that Dawkins is coming round to my view in this
> area, though - see the "Unfinished Correspondence..." essay in
> A Devil's Chaplain.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Labels and Obfuscations
    ... >> people who continue to respond to kooks long after everyone else has ... Jim, do you think we have some of those people on this ... it to be sad that he finds it necessary to respond to these folk ... There are signs that Dawkins is coming round to my view in this ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Id like a better understanding of the debate
    ... folk, but here's the key, not even he does it in his science" ... how science works AND there are people like Dawkins, ... one of the most important scientific theories out there, ...
    (talk.origins)