Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- From: "Malcolm" <regniztar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:25:13 -0400 (EDT)
<EKurtz99@xxxxxxx> wrote
>
> Malcolm wrote:
>> My discussions with John haven't gone nowhere.
>
> Example?
>
I have a much better understanding of Hamilton's rule now, as a result of
responding to John's posts. I don't agree with John, but he certainly
provided the stimulus for investigating further.
>
>> His points are original, so
>> they force an original response, or at least a conventional response with
>> some re-presentation.
>
> Then perhaps you would like to explain the principle behind "Hamilton's
> Rule in the Mirror" to us.
>
I find a lot of the points very difficult to understand, often because of
way in which discussion becomes ill-mannered and contentious. I have on
occasion interpreted what John is saying for another poster, but I cannot
assume that role as a matter of course.
>
> Why would we wish to be a credit to observers?
>
This is a basic human instinct, to be thought well of by other humans. A few
very powerful men can hold the mass of other men in contempt, with some
violence to their personalities. Maybe you are such a powerful person. The
majority of us are not.
>
> And why ReMine, who has, as far as I can tell, has simply repeated "cost
> is confused in
> the literature" and "Ewens and Crow said I was correct" ad nauseum for the
> last couple of months.
>
ReMine said "I am here to document the response of evolutionists [sic] to
the confusion in their own cost literature". His purpose seems not to have
been to promote his own theory, and in fact he declined my offer to model it
on computer, but to gather intelligence on the social dynamics of
evolutionists.
The problem is that if he says with any degree of plausibility that
evolutionists are a deeply divided, contentious lot, who are constantly
accusing each other of evasion and stupidity and ignoring evidence
(fortunately no one has accused anyone else of deliberate fraud), then it
does make the job of marginalising the creationists much more difficult.
>
> But we also we would not wish him to report that we suffer crackpots
> gladly.
>
That is a point. Politeness doesn't mean agreeing with an argument you in
fact disagree with, but in registering that disagreement with sensitivity.
It does help if the other person shows the same courtesy.
.
- References:
- Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- From: EKurtz99
- Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Prev by Date: Re: Fundamental theorems, dilemmas, fitness, and information.
- Next by Date: Re: sbe & philosophy
- Previous by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Next by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
