On Blogging, Passivity, Party Lines & The Pursuit Of Truth
Posted in Blogosphere, Ethics, Politics, Thinking Critically on | 6 minutes | 25 Comments →
If you’re at all like I am, you probably consider the pursuit of truth to be pretty valuable. I think most of us can agree that the pursuit of truth is an important task. That’s the way I see it at least, and as an extension of that principle, I say one cannot accurately call oneself a pursuer of truth if they allow falsehood to remain uncorrected.
With that in mind, I’d like to discuss how passivity, especially selective passivity, can obscure the pursuit of truth – and more specifically – how these ideas relate to blogging.
The reluctance to correct others is perfectly understood for several reasons. In the real world, nobody likes the annoying know-it-all who corrects every incorrect thing everybody says all of the time. While I can’t speak for you, the vast majority of people I’ve come across in the real world and online simply do not like to be criticized whatsoever.
In real life, we may not correct people that much or enjoy being corrected ourselves, and that’s fine. But this is blogging, folks. It’s different. It’s an intellectual medium, the purpose of which is often to serve as a marketplace for competing ideas. Granted, not every blog post is necessarily an argument, but blog posts that are arguments deserve to be scrutinized ruthlessly. Any statements found to be errant or wanting deserve to be addressed. To fail in this regard is to disrespect the pursuit of truth.
It’s certainly expedient for bloggers to be politically correct and non-confrontational with their regular readers, especially when so many guests do little else but backpat and make coy jokes. Who wants to criticize or correct someone who’s constantly lavishing praise on their writing while keeping their guests entertained with circus?
Party lines can also have much to do with reluctance to criticize, as can personal and other factors. Myself, I’m not a party lines type of guy. If I were to agree with what they say about me being a troll, at least I’d be an equal opportunity troll. If I see that some believer made an error in argument, delivery or fact, I’ll speak up. Enough with this ‘I only correct the dissenter’ attitude when members of your own party are fumbling so unbelievably badly they’ve given Len Dawson a run for his money! And that’s no offense to Len, either, because his is quite an illustrious career: 200+ career games, 2,100+ completed passes, named to six AFL All-Star teams and the 1972 Pro Bowl squad to boot.
The point is, if we are pursuers of truth, why should we fear reasoned criticism? Although ad hominem nonsense certainly gets droning and usually derails discussions, I welcome reasoned criticism, and when I think someone’s right or I’m wrong, I’ll say as much. For those with proof fetishes, this openness to reasoned criticism is something I can support with evidence. How many bloggers return to threads and critique their own arguments? How many bloggers have a ‘Corrections’ category? I’ve even got another screw-up I could add to mine! On the other hand, I’ve seen people offer blatantly false claims about facts of history, religion, and science, then lash out with ad hominem insults in a fit of virulent hypersensitivity when challenged on them.
In the science example, this virulent hypersensitivity was in the face of a microbiology professor, a biology postdoc, and a biology undergrad who all seemed to think I had some valid points. Worse, instead of respecting truth by backing me up on the relevant matters, the bloggers and many commenters simply took passive stances in their pursuit of truth. The bloggers seemed unconcerned altogether, and my most of my detractors simply persisted in their complaints du jour while allowing their own false claims and others to persist. These are not rational approaches, and they deserve to be underscored.
In the history example, rhetorical concessions were later made, but only because I raised a big stink and refused to answer a certain commenter’s questions until that commenter apologized for insulting me when he was wrong. The problem is, one shouldn’t have to raise a big stink to see truth vindicated by those who profess to pursue it. Neither should the corrected react irrationally by making it their pet habit to reply with ad hominem arguments whenever the person who corrected them is around. Again, these are not rational approaches, and they deserve to be underscored.
In the religion example, everybody ignored my objections entirely, because it was on a site where I’ve butted heads with the blogger and many commenters, so whenever I’m around there’s usually a lot of personal nonsense hindering the pursuit of truth over there. This, too, is not a rational approach, and deserves to be underscored.
Like evolution, learning and the acquisition of truth are dynamic and ongoing processes that by their very nature entail correction and improvement. Neither in life nor logic do we begin at the end. We should not fear making mistakes or being corrected. These are narcissistic fears many of us carry over from the parent-child relationship, and as reasoned adults and pursuers of truth we’d all do well to deconstruct them.
If there’s one thing I can say about TWIM, there are no party lines here and I hope you can agree that’s a breath of fresh air. I am truly honored to have intelligent people who demonstrate willingness to cross party lines here. For example, Brad and Lifeguard, both regular readers; Freidenker, new to the scene and still kinda feeling it out; even my harshest and most insolent critic who goes by many names: OMGF / GCT / Anonymous / cl is a coward and liar… and more! Each of these people have stuck up for me on other threads when they did think there was at least a possibility I was right about something. That alone speaks more about their character and the seriousness with which they pursue truth than any well-written treatise or cogent argument ever could.
By no means is it my business to tell other bloggers how to police their threads. However, going by my aforementioned principles that the pursuit of truth is an important task, and that one cannot call oneself a pursuer of truth if they allow falsehood to go uncorrected, it follows that any blog owner or debater who calls oneself a pursuer of truth is obligated to take a stand against falsehood – whenever and wherever they find it, as within their means.
It’s a tough job, but welcome to the life of those who pursue truth. The results are more than worth it.
MS Quixote
says...Hey cl,
Great post. I attempt to follow guidelines much like these, but I’m particularly guilty about passivity. Then again, I don’t always feel right in entering other’s conversations.
Party lines are definitely a problem, but I always take note of the indivduals who break party lines in favor of what’s true. BTW-great line: “members of your own party are fumbling so unbelievably badly they’ve given Len Dawson a run for his money!”
Oh yeah, in the spirit of your post, we may need to discuss first cause arguments a bit :)
cl
says...Thanks for the good words Quixote. You were the last person I had in mind when I wrote.
I didn’t quite follow that part – were we talking about that, somewhere else perhaps?
MS Quixote
says...Not you and I. I was lurking in my normal passivity fashion :)
“but even with this distinction clearly made, the argument fails to persuade. Incidentally, Mills is correct to point out that even if we accepted it, the First Cause argument doesn’t prove which God created the universe. Further, I don’t believe there’s a discussion about the creation of the universe that doesn’t suggest an infinite regress.”
Versions of it are very persuasive, IMO. It may not prove which God created the universe, but it does argue for a personal God, if done properly. And, the Kalam actually incorporates the impossibility of an actual infinite to demonstrate that the universe began to exist. I may have misunderstood your infinite regress comment, but it doesn’t seem right to me. Lastly, I think you mentioned also that a cause must precede its effect with regard to a similar question about time…not necessarily. They may be simultaneous.
cl
says...I see what you mean now. I thought you might have been referring to our ongoing quest to aptly name the atheist’s version of a GOTG argument. Did you catch the part in the Mills review where he made an UFO of the Gaps argument? I left you a note.
Anyways, here’s my take on First Cause arguments. No matter which way we cut it, we simply have to assume something always existed. If God can exist uncaused, why not matter? On the other hand, yes, I think nature is a persuasive argument for a personal God.
What about the infinite regress comment didn’t seem right? Did any of the above clear it up?
As far as cause and effect, maybe it’s something I’m taking for granted. Do you have any examples of phenomena whose cause and effect are simultaneous? Vacuum fluctuations, perhaps?
cl
says...QUIXOTE,
Nevermind my “UFO of the Gaps” comment. I got ahead of myself and it will make sense on Thursday… :)
Arthur
says...cl,
Well… I know I’m the petty whiner in that science example, but the ongoing process of learning might benefit from the mention of one or two of its details.
First, I have to point out that your original response to Deacon made no effort to distinguish itself from G&T and their trivial objections to evolutionary theory. For the record, they said:
To which Deacon said:
To which you said:
Your point here turned out to be that Deacon’s second sentence (macro = lots of micro) conceals a significant lack of scientific consensus about the nature of macro—that Deacon speaks with inappropriate confidence and finality. But it appears not to have been in your interest to make this clear up front. Your assertion might just as likely have been a creationist bumper sticker aimed at Deacon’s first sentence.
R.C. Moore took your bait, pointed to the Modern Synthesis (probably in support of Deacon’s first sentence), and suggested that G&T—and, by extension, you—were being either ignorant or deliberately deceptive.
You then quoted Larry Moran (title and all!) and, disdaining (again!) the opportunity to speak plainly on the subject, threw down the Offended Card instead, with all the force capital letters and exclamation points and long strings of interrogatives could provide you. This came to mind when you mentioned “fits of virulent hypersensitivity,” although I don’t know if I should assume it came to yours.
This was the stage of the science example, and I think it’s safe to say that you, cl, had a fair amount of choice in the setting of it. Did you have a valid point? Absolutely. Did you present it clearly and carefully? Absolutely not. Were you trying, or were you looking for another pissing contest? It’s hard to say from here.
I agree—I agree—that everyone involved could learn a little something from that whole stinking interpersonal episode. Your version of it here, though, makes me worry that you might have come out of that mudbath without learning any lessons of your own—you know, re the search for truth and stuff.
MS Quixote
says...Thanks for the UFO clarification. I thought I was losing my mind for a moment:)
“Anyways, here’s my take on First Cause arguments. No matter which way we cut it, we simply have to assume something always existed. If God can exist uncaused, why not matter? On the other hand, yes, I think nature is a persuasive argument for a personal God.”
You’re right. It’s logically required that something always existed, unless you buy that something can come from nothing, and there’s nothing illogical about matter having the power of being. I often use this very argument. It;s one of my favorite first cause conceptions. When you start looking at the two options, I think there’s a strong case to be made for God.
“What about the infinite regress comment didn’t seem right? Did any of the above clear it up?”
That it seems logically impossible, and that in fact the Kalam first cause argument actually uses the impossibilty of an actual infinite as support for its premisses.
As far as cause and effect, maybe it’s something I’m taking for granted. Do you have any examples of phenomena whose cause and effect are simultaneous?
I’d say personal agency is a good example. the will seems to be able to gchoose and have the effect spring out simultaneously. Quentin Smith also postulates matter arising in this manner as well (without the agent obviously) in the singularity, and the simultaneity portion of the claim is never questioned by philosophers and theologians from either camp, so I’m assuming it’s well accepted. Now that you mention it, that’s pretty close to a vacuum fluctuation, as you suggest.
cl
says...Quixote,
That’s better than I’ve ever heard any atheist state it, and it seems we pretty much agree about that aspect of the First Cause argument. As far as my infinite regress comment, is this the one you’re referring to? Here’s the whole paragraph on it:
The reason I include it all is, I’m not sure where the “logically impossible” part comes in? The gist of the argument was to say what we already agreed on: Either way we cut it, it seems something always was.
I’m not so sure. Say I will to quit smoking. The effect would be that I don’t smoke anymore, but it would take time to establish that my volition was cemented in reality. Or, take something more spontaneous, like spitting on the sidewalk. Even then – if we go by traditional medical understanding – the will originates in the brain and sends signals to the appropriate body systems to produce the act of spitting on the sidewalk. The travel time this process takes can reasonably be considered a transition from cause to effect, no?
cl
says...I openly encourage any commenters to get involved here. Let’s get down to the truth:
Arthur,
How do you know? You’re assuming here, Arthur, and that’s not rationalism. Ask, don’t assume. There was a reason I didn’t name names, and that’s because I want to get past the polemical stupidity of all this – and speaking of taking the bait – also to find out who would jump to conclusions. You were not the petty whiner in the science example, Arthur – and curiously, the words “petty whiner” do not occur in the science example. Nor was “virulent hypersensitivity” intended for you, either – although I have to admit, you’re being a little oversensitive here.
To be honest, the folks I was mostly referring to are the ones having their cute little blog huddle bashing me while not allowing me to plead my case. Pretty funny. As far as I thought, we ended with you agreeing I had valid points and me apologizing because I honestly overlooked your concession. I further stated that I really had no problem with you, and that you were welcomed here anytime, and all of those things would be reasonably perceived as olive branches by most rational people I know.
All of that is still true, BTW – I’d love for you to come by here and critique my arguments – I just wish you wouldn’t jump to conclusions to get a “gotcha” because it just makes a mess, and now today’s mess needs to be cleaned up.
You’re absolutely right to point out that G&T’s original paragraph addressed both macroevolution and abiogenesis. You’re absolutely wrong to omit the fact that I addressed the abiogenesis part of the comment separately, both in my original response to DD (note: not all of you), and in the thread.
This is what I mean by “jumping to conclusions to get a gotcha.” My point didn’t “turn out to be that Deacon’s second sentence (macro = lots of micro) conceals a significant lack of scientific consensus.” That was my point all along. I figured if Deacon Duncan had a question, he would ask. I didn’t anticipate that R.C. Moore (in his 30+ years of experience, you know) would make a scientifically oversimplified statement and then claim I was either ignorant or purposefully misleading because I disagreed. It should have been self-evident that the abiogenesis part of the comment was addressed separately: The macro comment was point #11, the abiogenesis comment was point #13. Interesting that you overlooked it.
And Arthur, how in the hell could you possibly know that “it appears not to have been in [my] interest to make this clear up front?” This is tied entirely to your personal feelings and presuppositions about me. All you’re doing here is adopting jim’s and pboyfloyd’s strategy, which is to jump to the conclusion that I’m some dishonest scumbag, when in reality it’s fully possible any or all of you might be the ones misunderstanding a thing or two.
Again, “jumping to conclusions to get a gotcha.” That’s either an intensely gross oversight on your behalf, or a bald-faced lie, and I’m glad you linked to R.C.’s comment. I hope everyone clicks on it to see the truth. Here’s how it begins:
R.C.’s opening argument is undeniably addressing macro/micro, not abiogenesis, and the ignorant or deliberately deceptive part of R.C.’s comment was undeniably attached to the macro/micro part of his response, not the abiogenesis part. And you’re right – he was accusing me using G&T as a proxy – he freely admitted it later. That’s the thing I don’t get with you guys. Instead of assume I might know what I’m talking about and that we’re just having difficulties communicating, you guys assume all kinds of negative BS so you can talk sandbox and say stuff like I don’t know science, even at a high school level. Yet the record shows otherwise. Why? Why did R.C. disrespect DD’s wishes to focus on arguments and not people? Why did everyone else follow suit? Please, feel free to answer..
I threw down the offended card for good reason – ironically, the very same reasons you seem to have overlooked in this post. The reason – and it’s a reason DD has agreed with me on – is that stupid little personal jabs like R.C.’s, jim’s, pboyfloyd’s and whoever else’s only serve to screw things up. And look what happened?
I’m glad we agree I had a valid point. It’s nonsense that I didn’t present it clearly and carefully. Rather, I presented it clearly and consistently, and it was my detractors who, presumably looking for more accusational fodder, jumped straight to the conclusion that I must be “ignorant” or driven by the desire to “purposefully mislead.” If my point wasn’t clear and consistent, the biologists wouldn’t have agreed with me, and here’s my open challenge to you:
1) Admit that R.C. Moore jumped the gun with his demeaning insinuation;
2) Admit that your “took the bait” paragraph is completely wrong;
3) Admit that you presupposed “petty whiner” was meant for you;
4) Admit that all of you chose to engage me about a near-exclusively on a sub-point I left DD about macro/micro, when I left 10+ points of overall agreement with DD that G&T were fumbling;
5) Admit that R.C. insulting my science education was incorrect and uncalled for, as you yourself said I had a valid point, and the macro/micro issue is not even discussed in high school (at least not when I went);
6) Forget about all the polemical BS and start fresh with me by leaving another comment on this post or any other post that indicates 100% willingness to move forward, not backwards.
Really, all of those are true, and I could go on. You can kiss those guys’ asses by overlooking their errors and play party lines all you want Arthur, but it’s only going to hurt my opinion of you, and that’s too bad, because I think deep down you’re a reasonable guy – maybe just blinded by whatever it is that makes you dislike someone you’ve never even met before –
only disagreed with online.
Let’s pretend you and I are stuck in an elevator together for the rest of our lives. Do you want to continually find reasons to fight and disagree? Or figure out how to co-exist until we can get out?
Arthur
says...I don’t put too much stock in my speaking ability, but I had no idea I was completely incoherent. But why would I, if I were incoherent? Shit.
The “petty whiner” bit was just me trying to be self-deprecating. It’s the way I feel when I talk about that No Stinkin’ Evidence episode, and nothing more. I wasn’t claiming that you used the words on anybody, and I’m not claiming that the science example is all about me. It was empty self-referential noise. If you’ll forget I said it, I’ll forget your elaborate reaction.
I didn’t quote G&T in order to add their “spontaneous generation” material to the conversation. I just left those bits in because I felt like the quote would be overburdened with ellipses if I took them out. I recognize that you made other points—you had plenty to say to Deacon in that thread—but I was referring specifically to the macro/ micro megillah you refer to specifically in this post. My Deacon quote has two sentences, both about macro/ micro, and those are the two sentences I’ve been talking about.
Also, for the record, when I say that something “appears” a certain way, I mean that it has that appearance. People who can’t read minds are still qualified to talk about appearances. And on the subject of presuppositions, did you really just assert that I’m here as some sort of cheerleader for a clique of ass-kissing, name-calling cl bullies?
Arthur
says...Oops, I forgot:
5) R.C. insulting your science education was incorrect and uncalled for.
Does that help?
cl
says...Sorry for the delayed response; I wanted to let the polemic dissipate. Going back through this, I realize I might have misread something you said here:
I thought ‘first sentence’ referred to the abiogenesis part of DD’s original comment, and that explains my #2) “..that your “took the bait” paragraph is completely wrong.” So I can see why you misunderstood that if you did, and I apologize. Correct me if I’m wrong, but ‘first sentence’ actually refers to DD’s “Macroevolution is not a distinct process from evolution (or microevolution).” Right?
However, even if that’s the case, your claim is still wrong. I disagreed with both of DD’s sentences in point #11 from the getgo, and I maintain that assuming otherwise for whatever reason was your error, not mine.
Not much, as the preservation of truth is the goal here, not the stroking of wounded egos. My wounded ego isn’t the problem, but it certainly could help the preservation of truth if you went back to the original thread and re-posted your comment. While we’re on the topic, did you ever speak up to R.C. Moore about his post hoc reasoning, as I’d mentioned before? I’m honestly curious.
That’s a little more than I had in mind, but yes, I did imply that I felt you were kissing those guys’ asses. The reason I said such is because sustained selective focus eventually makes one wonder. Here’s my own mental subtext: “Why do Arthur, DD and the others attempt to crucify me for what they perceive as post hoc reasoning, when the same exact argument on the same exact thread goes unnoticed when made by an atheist? Why does Arthur and others focus on my errors and completely ignore everyone else’s? Is Arthur just not looking? Is it the result of a personal beef with me?” All of those answers seem to preclude rational motives, and when I see people following this formula, such is certainly consistent with the social phenomenon we describe as ass-kissing.
The lessons I learned from that thread were described here and can be summarized thusly: Passivity, party lines and personal motives can irrationally obscure truth. People can be so eager to get a ‘gotcha’ that they make vaporous, accusational responses. I’m curious what points you think I missed, so by all means, let’s lose the “empty self-referential noise” and have an intelligent, non-emotional discussion about them.
Arthur
says...People can be so eager to get a ‘gotcha’ that they make vaporous, accusational responses.
Indeed. Like this one. I’m glad you’re feeling better. Let me know if anything on that list is real.
I apologize for my inadvertent subtlety with the Deacon quote, and I’m glad to see we’re on the same page now. Since you’ve lobbed my “empty self-referential noise” back over the net, I’ll trust that you’ve gotten past that pretend “petty whiner” issue as well. As a bonus, it looks like we’ve definitively answered the question of whether or not normal folks are permitted to talk about the appearances of things and entitled to draw presuppositions based on limited information. So it’s a good day, I guess.
Now that all that’s taken care of, the point of my original comment stands, as far as I can tell: your original micro/ macro comment was vague; you made the first obviously emotional comment in the thread; you had, therefore, a significant vote on the tone and direction of that conversation; and there is no mention of this in your Truth post.
And if you did intend to criticize both of Deacon’s sentences (after I was so sure I understood what you were saying!), then you had more explaining to do, not less. Are you telling me that nobody said anything meaningful in support of either or those sentences? And am I still supposed to believe that neither of Deacon’s own micro/ macro posts on the subject are relevant?
In that case, I submit that you are talking about something which you have not yet succeeded in making clear.
P.S. You are the lucky recipient of my only post hoc reasoning argument. You made me realize that nobody really cares about deductive validity, no matter how many words like “strict” and “rigorous” they throw around. People want induction, abduction, analogy, observation, correlation… That’s why they like science so much—it’s more permissive.
Arthur
says...Oh, brother… “Like this one” refers to April 27 at 10:38.
Arthur
says...Oh, brother… “Like this one” refers to April 27 at 10:38.
cl
says...Why would you call that list “vaporous accusation” when you’ve already conceded to one of its points? Did you not concede to 5? Is 5 not related to 1? Did not R.C. concede to 1? My original macro / micro comment was a direct response to both of DD’s macro / micro sentences; any decision to assume otherwise is arbitrary. I explained that in my last comment to you here, why didn’t you address it? Had I meant to only address one of those two sentences, I would have noted as much.
Is 4 not also undeniable? Note that nobody over there had anything positive to say about the way I – not an atheist – also skewered G&T’s arguments alongside DD.
Lastly, 6 is neither vaporous nor accusational – rather – it’s an invitation I hope you’ll one day take.
As far as your sarcastically implied claims of special pleading, I’d say it’s normal for folks to discuss their differences – amongst themselves, as we are here, as opposed to in the middle of a debate with five other people – but that’s just me.
I strongly disagree with you that I made the first “obviously emotional comment.” That would be R.C., who later conceded to using G&T as a proxy to insult me. I’d say the desire to insult one’s opponent is emotional – wouldn’t you?
The “truth” I’m interested in pursuing here is truth that can be reliably deduced – which would mean the actual issues. I can only chuckle when I see you press on with your post hoc reasoning comment, as you still seem to believe that deductive validity was claimed, and your selective emphasis on who you think reasons post hoc has not been sufficiently justified.
In general, I doubt I’ll ever be able to convince you that my character is something other than you’ve already decided it to be..
Arthur
says...I’m sorry. My mistake. I will treat your April 27 comment with due seriousness. I’m having a little trouble posting stuff, though, so I’m experimenting with installments.
Well, no. You issued your statement, and he made a perfectly reasonable assumption of its meaning given the context (a comment thread attached to a blog post). Why should he have assumed that you were embarking on a tangent about the questionable sufficiency of micro to explain macro?
And at the risk of kissing his ass, I can’t find the part where R.C. used G&T “as a proxy to insult” you, or the part where he admitted it. I suppose you could say he insulted their motives, and the motives of others who make the same argument (“I think any claim to the otherwise, as G & T have made is based on ignorance or a desire to purposefully mislead”). But you seconded his assessment of G&T’s motives, though not at the time (“I agree with you [Arthur] that when G&T make their, ‘no evidence for macroevolution and spontaneous generation’ argument, they are ‘distorting, misrepresenting, or otherwise getting macroevolution wrong'”).
If your argument were distinct from theirs—as it turned out to be, let me carefully add—then why jump to the conclusion that you were being insulted? R.C. didn’t insult you, because you did not agree with G&T; and in fact he didn’t insult G&T but delivered, by your own lights, a fair verdict.
After you accused him of being insulting (“FOR CRYING OUT LOUD”) R.C. said, “DD was clear that comments aimed at G & T were entirely fair and acceptable. I assumed that by extension, anyone who believed as they did could be included in such comments.” If this is the concession you mean, then see above.
Arthur
says...2) Admit that your “took the bait” paragraph is completely wrong;
I’m ignoring this one, right?
3) Admit that you presupposed “petty whiner” was meant for you;
I presupposed that my meaning would be clear, and I apologize for confusing you. If the yardage you covered with that ball is any judge, you react strongly when you’re confused.
4) Admit that all of you chose to engage me about a near-exclusively on a sub-point I left DD about macro/micro, when I left 10+ points of overall agreement with DD that G&T were fumbling;
In point of fact,
I addressed you on an entirely unrelated point (unrelated to your tangent, I mean—it was pretty fundamentally related to Deacon’s actual post) and you chose to ignore it. I’m sorry, I mean you chose to act as if you were ignoring it. Even when I tried to draw your attention back to it.
As far as people not nodding assent to your points of agreement with Deacon, it doesn’t seem unusual to me that a thread would focus on points of disagreement instead. And as far as engaging in good-faith efforts to find common ground, that’s what I was doing—trying to show that your assertion and Deacon’s main assertion were compatible.
Arthur
says...5) Admit that R.C. insulting my science education was incorrect and uncalled for, as you yourself said I had a valid point, and the macro/micro issue is not even discussed in high school (at least not when I went);
Done! But I feel obliged to state for the record that your entirely valid point is connected to Deacon’s actual post by only the barest of threads, and that this—along with your bumper-sticker haste—should have counseled you against assuming that reasonable people would assume your meaning correctly.
I should also point out that R.C. was responding to your “group note” asserting that “some folks seem prefer parroting knee-jerk responses over critical analysis….” Your point stands, though—he should have kept his cool better than you kept yours.
6) Forget about all the polemical BS and start fresh with me by leaving another comment on this post or any other post that indicates 100% willingness to move forward, not backwards.
Ah, you’ve confused me! I’m not sure what this means, in light of the polemical BS it’s buried in. Was all that sound and fury supposed to indicate your willingness to move forward? Is this one of those times when you say something, explicitly, which is implicitly contradicted by the other things you’re saying? Like that time you “apologized” by accusing me of playing the victim and failing to ever give you the benefit of the doubt?
A couple of other statements of interest:
My point didn’t “turn out to be that Deacon’s second sentence (macro = lots of micro) conceals a significant lack of scientific consensus.” That was my point all along.
Do I ignore this, now that you’re feeling better? Do I file this under “vaporous accusation”?
I’m glad we agree I had a valid point. It’s nonsense that I didn’t present it clearly and carefully. Rather, I presented it clearly and consistently, and it was my detractors who, presumably looking for more accusational fodder, jumped straight to the conclusion that I must be “ignorant” or driven by the desire to “purposefully mislead.” If my point wasn’t clear and consistent, the biologists wouldn’t have agreed with me…
So, for what it’s worth, you simply assert that you did, after all, make your point clearly. Well, um, nuh-uh you didn’t. And I’ll concede, again, that knowledgeable people agree with your point; but it isn’t actually relevant to the question of whether or not you made your point clearly. And for “jumping straight to the conclusion,” see #1 above.
cl
says...Let’s focus on #16 and see if we can resolve it, then address the others:
I disagree. Insults by proxy or otherwise are emotional, not reasonable.
He shouldn’t have. When one perceives unclarity, isn’t asking more rational than assuming?
Certainly, and that is the concession I’m alluding to.
R.C. insulted me because he mistakenly assumed I was making the same argument as G&T. He connected my comment directly to theirs, then said “any” similar claim comes from ignorance or bad faith. My position is that disagreement does not entail ignorance or bad faith.
Arthur
says...But you seconded his assessment of G&T’s motives, though not at the time (“I agree with you [Arthur] that when G&T make their, ‘no evidence for macroevolution and spontaneous generation’ argument, they are ‘distorting, misrepresenting, or otherwise getting macroevolution wrong'”).
R.C. didn’t insult you, because you did not agree with G and in fact he didn’t insult G&T but delivered, by your own lights, a fair verdict.
Arthur
says...This doesn’t have to be any longer and more complicated than it is. I submit that, when you painted yourself clean in your “science example” account, you rendered the account a fiction. I submit that the bits you shoved under the rug are important to the pursuit of truth, and that they should have been important to you.
If you really believe that you did everything right, then power to you. I doubt I’ll ever be able to convince you that the truth is something other than you’ve already decided it to be.
cl
says...Yes, I agreed with you and R.C. that G&T blew it, but that I disagreed with G&T does not entail that R.C. didn’t insult me. R.C. said G&T were either ignorant or arguing in bad faith, and R.C. assumed I was making G&T’s argument, so R.C.’s comment also applies to me – and that’s exactly in line with what he himself said.
Here’s my full account of the science example:
That paragraph contains 5 statements:
1) There was virulent hypersensitivity on behalf of some commenters;
2) A microbiology professor, a biology postdoc, and a biology undergrad all seemed to think I had some valid points;
3) DD and many commenters took passive stances in their pursuit of truth (Yourself, Nal and Freidenker are not in this subset);
4) My detractors simply persisted in their complaints du jour while allowing their own false claims and others to persist (Yourself, Nal and Freidenker are not in this subset); and,
5) These approaches are not rational.
Which of those 5 statements do you claim to be fictitious?
I don’t believe I did everything right and I’ve already stated as such in the original thread. I conceded that I jumped the gun with jim re Dan, as one example…
Yet, you already have. You convinced me that my perception of the truth was wrong re your concession that I overlooked, and I apologized. Is that not an instance of you convincing me the truth was something other than what I’d already decided? I say yes.
cl
says...Yes, I agreed with you and R.C. that G&T blew it, but that I disagreed with G&T does not entail that R.C. didn’t insult me. R.C. said G&T were either ignorant or arguing in bad faith, and R.C. assumed I was making G&T’s argument, so R.C.’s comment also applies to me – and that’s exactly in line with what he himself said.
Here’s my full account of the science example:
That paragraph contains 5 statements:
1) There was virulent hypersensitivity on behalf of some commenters;
2) A microbiology professor, a biology postdoc, and a biology undergrad all seemed to think I had some valid points;
3) DD and many commenters took passive stances in their pursuit of truth (Yourself, Nal and Freidenker are not in this subset);
4) My detractors simply persisted in their complaints du jour while allowing their own false claims and others to persist (Yourself, Nal and Freidenker are not in this subset); and,
5) These approaches are not rational.
Which of those 5 statements do you claim to be fictitious?
I don’t believe I did everything right and I’ve already stated as such in the original thread. I conceded that I jumped the gun with jim re Dan, as one example…
Yet, you already have. You convinced me that my perception of the truth was wrong re your concession that I overlooked, and I apologized. Is that not an instance of you convincing me the truth was something other than what I’d already decided? I say yes.
Arthur
says...Re R.C.’s insult: Deacon claimed a point against G&T. You claimed Deacon was mistaken, and did not see fit to elaborate. R.C. made a perfectly reasonable assumption of your meaning given this context. Why get angry and emotional? Why not simply explain what you failed to explain in the first place WITHOUT getting angry and emotional? And if we agree that R.C. made a fair judgement of G&T’s position, and then mistakenly assumed it was yours as well, where is the insult?
Re your #4: I’m not on that list anymore? What happened? I was on that list even after you were finally made to realize you hadn’t actually read my comment: “…don’t act like the victim after a whole thread of heaping coal at me by the same 4 or 5 people, of which you were one. None of you gave me the benefit of the doubt from the getgo…” That realization did not appear to have aided you in your perception of the slightly bigger picture.
Re your account: are you sure that’s all there is in your science example? No implications? No meaningful omissions? Let me try again: if you really believe that those five statements convey the truth of what happened, then power to you.