Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- From: "Malcolm" <regniztar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
<EKurtz99@xxxxxxx> wrote
>
> So if his points appear incomprehensible you blame yourself or the
> nature of the discussion. That explains a lot.
>
>> I have on occasion interpreted what John is saying for another poster,
>> but I cannot
>> assume that role as a matter of course.
>
> But doing so might provide "the stimulus for investigating further".
>
Exactly, so I will clarify on occasion. This doesn't commit me to providing
interpretations of other people's ideas on demand.
>
>> 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
>
> Perhaps we can agree that the computer is a better place to test out
> ideas in population genetics than is mathematics. His refusal is
> perplexing unless he has something to hide. A result in his favor, if
> included in a resubmission of his paper (with appropriate credit to
> you), would improve his chances of acceptance, one would suppose.
>
It's easy to jump to the conclusion that the theory cannot be expressed in
computer language terms, and that is the reason for not accepting my offer.
There may be other reasons, for instnace ReMine may feel that to advocate
his own theory would be "creationist", and thus off-topic. Actually that's a
difficult one for the moderator. It may be that his own explanation that he
is here to document evolutionist's reactions to errors pointed out in their
own literature, and not to engage in actual scientific debate himself,
should be taken at face value.
>
> This misuderstands entirely the problem with crackpots; they are not
> people one disagrees with, necessarily; they are those whose thinking
> processes are so disordered that debating with them is pointless. They
> are invariably unaware of their condition, thinking themselves
> well-informed and intellectually honest, so they impute hostility,
> deceitfulness, evasion and conspiracy to those who refuse to engage
> them.
>
To be a "kook" one must advocate a theory with radical implications, that is
rejected by mainstream science as having any credibility, and must be
socially isolated. A creationist is not a "kook" because his ideas receive
social reinforcement from his religious or other peer group. Richard Lacey,
who took on Her Majesty's government over BSE and was deprived of tenure for
his pains, was also not a kook. His ideas seem to have been proved to be
false, he was socially isolated, but no scientist with any responsibility
said that he was without credibility. I didn't eat beef, because for me
personally having minced lamb in my spaghetti bolognaise is a very small
price to pay for avoiding an unquantified risk of developing a degenerative
brain condition. The problem for the government was that if everybody did
the same, it would be the end of the beef industry.
>
But what about "aquatic ape theory" Elaine Morgan? Is she a kook? What about
"archaeopteryx was a fake" Fred Hoyle? There is no unambiguous definition.
>
Social isolation and perpetual rejection does usually have a negative effect
on a person's perception of the world. Add to that that the "kook" is
probably psychologically unusual anyway for coming up with such an idea, and
you can understand why they may be difficult.
>
> It is necessary to comment on their posts from time to time to prevent
> uninformed lurkers accepting their nonsense as fact, eg:
>
> This is a more valuable service to lurkers, if there are any, than
> trying to be "credit" to them with phony politeness.
>
If you join a club, you have to accept the rules of that club. Some golf
clubs restrict membership to players of a certain standard, others let
anyone who can afford membership join. If you are a professional player in
the latter club, it's no use complaining about amateurs taking twenty shots
for a 4-par hole. On the other hand there may be an unwritten etiquette that
strong players may offer to partner weak players, but a weak player may not
ask a much stronger player to partner him. We maybe have a similar unwritten
rule here.
The written rules are that one must discuss evolutionary biology, one must
avoid offensive comments about other posters, and one must avoid the subject
of creationism. If someone obeys those rules, there's no requirement that
their ideas be particularly clever or well-founded.
.
- 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: Fundamental theorems, dilemmas, fitness, and information.
- Previous by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Next by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
