Those Defensive Darwinists

The Seattle Times ^ | 11/21/05 | Jonathon Witt

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So. You attack the argument not someone who is not "there" to argue. Dawkins already stated he had handled the arguments made by Gould."

Gould was a major part of Bradley's argument, and bringing it up again is not ad hominem. By your logic, if someone levels accusations at you based on the claims of one or more other people, you aren't allowed to reiterate your disagreements with and refutations of the these earlier claims because the people who made them did not write the article. This is insane.

[AndrewC]

Gould was a major part of Bradley's argument, and bringing it up again is not ad hominem.

No, that wasn't, but his attack stating that Gould did not read his book was, and was unnecessary.

[AndrewC]

This is insane.

No. That was a strawman.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker and plug for The List-O-Links.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No, that wasn't, but his attack stating that Gould did not read his book was, and was unnecessary."

Only if you redefine ad hominem. Gould either didn't read the book or lied about it's contents. I say lied; Dawkins said didn't read. You say, stop picking on poor Gould.

"No. That was a strawman."

Only if you redefine strawman. It was exactly what your logic implied.

This is getting very old now. It is apparent that no matter what evidence is laid before you, you will never concede an inch. We have spent the good part of a day arguing over whether Dawkins made an ad hominem, when your bringing up the alleged ad hominem had no point to begin with. What if he did (he didn't, but let's say he did for the sake of argument) ? So what? What does that prove? A scientist made a slightly snarky comment about a colleague? Have you ever read a bio of Newton? He excelled at the ad hominem, and I mean real ad hominems. That doesn't mean a damn thing about the validity of his science.

I should have taken Ichneumon's advice. This discussion is over.

[Right Wing Professor]

This is getting very old now. It is apparent that no matter what evidence is laid before you, you will never concede an inch. We have spent the good part of a day arguing over whether Dawkins made an ad hominem, when your bringing up the alleged ad hominem had no point to begin with. What if he did (he didn't, but let's say he did for the sake of argument) ? So what? What does that prove? A scientist made a slightly snarky comment about a colleague? Have you ever read a bio of Newton? He excelled at the ad hominem, and I mean real ad hominems. That doesn't mean a damn thing about the validity of his science.

An interjection from someone who has only cursorily read the thread. It would help if people who understood the atmosphere in biology in the late 70's. I was starting grad. school at the time at Harvard, where on the one hand Gould and Lewontin were standing for a particular left wing view of evolution; and on the other E. O. Wilson had continued, with his magnificent Sociobiology, Dawkins' insights on behavioral evolution in The Selfish Gene.

This wasn't a genteel argument. Gould and Lewontin were, if not organizing, then encouraging demonstrations against Wilson and disruptions of his lectures. Wilson and Dawkins they saw as the successors of the Social Darwinists. Gould and Lewontin justified their extremism as revolutionary action (they were, of course, Marxists). The argument went on for perhaps 20 years, though Wilson and Dawkins have unequivocally won.

What I find amusing is that all the while our creationist friends are claiming Darwinism to be at the root of Marxism, they are on the side of those who stood with Marxism against developments in evolutionary theory that threatened it. Dawkins' politics appear to be squishy liberal; Wilson was one of the founders of the National Association of Scholars, a conservative faculty organization.

Creationism has some strange bedfellows, and I don't mean the Senator.

[BushCountry]

Bump, because this Darwinist thread had a count of "666" and caught my eye.

[NewLand]

It doesn't matter if the site is biased; what matters is the substance of the arguments put forth. Creationist sites are equally biased against evolution

I guess you haven't been around here very long. Your "evo-leadership" has previously and automatically dismissed any and all info from sites that defend creation because they were "biased", but never disclosed the fact that their reference sites are equally "biased".

So, thank you for making my point and further discrediting your "leadership". I happen to agree with you, at least the point you made that I quoted here.

Again, thanks! That's all I wanted to accomplish.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I guess you haven't been around here very long."

Long enough.

"Your "evo-leadership" has previously and automatically dismissed any and all info from sites that defend creation because they were "biased", but never disclosed the fact that their reference sites are equally "biased"."

No they haven't. We have dismissed the arguments, repeatedly.

" So, thank you for making my point and further discrediting your "leadership"."

That's a laugh. BTW, we don't have a *leadership*.

"I happen to agree with you, at least the point you made that I quoted here."

Then you are a hypocrite for waving away the arguments from the site Talk Origins without addressing the substance of their claims.

[balrog666]

It is apparent that no matter what evidence is laid before you, you will never concede an inch.

The very definition of a disruptor, a troll, a thread clown, a fool, ...

[RogueIsland]

Your "evo-leadership" has previously and automatically dismissed any and all info from sites that defend creation because they were "biased"

Actually, I think they've dismissed info from such sites because that info is almost uniformally scientifically illiterate balderdash, not because it is "biased". It's the same qualitative reason even many conservatives tend to be dismissive of the daily excretions of WorldNetDaily and Debka in the political arena -- when you've established a track record of shoddy, erroneous, and occasionally outright dishonest work, it's hard to get people to pay attention to anything you produce.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I used to tell my management that I could build better and better RNGs (more unpredicatble) at higher and higher costs.

"Ignorance Is Expensive"

[AndrewC]

Only if you redefine strawman. It was exactly what your logic implied.

I implied nothing, which is evidence you made up a strawman as much as Dawkins did by bringing up an insult about Gould. Despite your obstinate refusal to read and understand, the fact remains, Dawkins stated an unproven allegation against a person. That is Ad Hominem. Second you asserted that I implied something. Well, I get to tell you that I implied no such thing, something that Gould did not get to do with Dawkins, since Gould was not involved as an author in the workers party exchange. See this?

Gould was a major part of Bradley's argument, and bringing it up again is not ad hominem.

No, that wasn't, but his attack stating that Gould did not read his book was, and was unnecessary.

Having told you that I did not imply what you drew from it, makes your stretch quite a strawman. Something you built to argue about and beat up. Nice job of strawman building.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I already told you that the discussion is over. Don't ping me again on this.

[AndrewC]

Buddy, I get to answer. If you don't like it don't ping me.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Buddy, I get to answer. If you don't like it don't ping me."

Second warning, don't ping me.

And no, you don't get to answer after I have told you to stop.

[AndrewC]

The heck you say I don't get to answer. I will in whatever way I want to. Now I have answered your idiotic traipse into illogic. Don't ever ping me again. Last warning.

[Heartlander]

I demand equal time for the hypothesis that ballistic objects have a parabolic trajectory because angels are pushing them, not because of Newton's laws.

Since ballistic physics seeks to promote 'no-angels' as a scientific concept, and since all scientific concepts are tentative and refutable, then the disagreement with the hypothesis of no-angels is scientific.

If you feel that strongly about your theory then go ahead and demand equal time. I would offer a little advice though… Get your tenure first ; )

BTW, we may call them ‘Newton’s laws’ but I think you and Newton might be on the same page…

Numero pondere et mensura Deus omnia condidit
-Newton

It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me a great absurdity, and I believe that no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my reader.
- Newton [letter to Dr Bentley dated 25 February 1693]

Anyway, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

[Andonius_99]

(raising hand excitedly) ooh, me! ooh, me! taking it up the poop shoot?!?!?!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Creationist Clueless about the Site Rules Placemarker