Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Uncommon Descent: Contest Question 7: Foul anonymous Darwinist blogger exposed. Why so foul?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The guy had successfully hidden his identity for about five years, while posting all kinds of sexually charged abuse to the Internet about many people, including me. But now we know.

But Wendy Sullivan, the Girl on the Right, has officially found out who the mysterious Canadian Cynic is. Here is stuff he has said about me. He is Robert PJ Day. Small business owner. Computer genius. Well-read book nerd. Anti-creationist debater

A Linux genius, apparently. [Foul language warning re his posts and any reports on them. ]

Here is part of what Sullivan said, once she traced him:

Outing bloggers isn’t usually my thing. I don’t see a point to it. But when you repeatedly abuse and demean people because they do not march in lockstep with you, I’m sorry but you deserve it. I am not a cunt, Robert. Nor a douchebag. Neither is Kathy Shaidle, Kate, Connie Fournier, Sandy Crux, Suzanne Fortin or anyone else on the web you don’t like.

I am not above strong language and hyperbole, Robert, but I am not beneath you. You are not special. I do not dispute that you are extremely smart and well-versed in your subjects of choice. But referring to to those you feel superior to as “cunts”, “wankers”, “douchebags”, “assholes” and more doesn’t make you sound brilliant at all. It makes you sound sad and lonely. It also makes you seem very cowardly, because I know you would never call me a cunt to my face. You would never wander into downtown Toronto and meet with half the people you have insulted – on a one-to-one or at a party – and insult them the way you do behind your chosen alias.

Perhaps not. The thing I know from covering the intelligent design controversy is that a number of people like Cynic give themselves the right to pour obscene contempt and abuse at the public. Obviously, those people are frightened of something.

What would your mother say, Robert, if she knew that you referred to a woman older than she probably is as a douchebag? ( I assume that your mother is still with us. If not, I apologize, one orphan to the next. ) Is that how she raised you?

He had decided to raise the abuse level last night for me, presumably in response to being outed. The Centre for Inquiry is sponsoring it. Did those people really sit there and listen?

Can you be good without God? I’d never necessarily maintained that, but now I am beginning to wonder.

Apparently, Day proclaimed himself to be “coming out in public” at that venue. But only because bloggers outed him first.

Sullivan tells me his recent posts have featured greatly toned down language. It figures.

Some people have morality. Others rely on avoiding exposure.

Okay, now the Contest Question: Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?

The winner will receive a free copy of Expelled Here are the contest rules.

Note: Entries that merely claim it isn’t happening will not be judged. Too many people here know otherwise.

Comments
Herb, "I suppose anonymity had something to do with the vile tone of his blog, in view of the fact that he’s toned things down a bit." Now that I've given Denyse my essay, allow me to join the discussion. I think the removal of his anonymity is just a temporary setback, because new parameters have been layed out. He'll break through those parameters once he has support for his abuse among his group-think followers. It's only a matter of time, once all of the congrats and "way-to-go, she deserved its" are fed into the sputum machine. It will not cease to produce by the evolution I mentioned in my last post. It will in-fact get worse, without limits set. I'm all for free speech as well, and I think censorship takes us into the fascist area of suppression of ideas. However, we as a collective culture have to begin to understand the difference between ideas and merd, and just as we have made the KKK into a fringe group without a real voice in the forum of agreeable ideas, this guy's speech miust also render whatever ideas he has as on the fringe of a culturally acceptable vehicle. But I doubt if that will ultimately prove to be fruitful. Of course, he's in Canada. I wonder if the hate tribunals are watching him. I doubt it, because it doesn't seem to be the politically or culturally correct groups that are taking offense.CannuckianYankee
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
PPS: CY, you have my vote on contest winner. You are right about what happens when radical relativism compounded by disrespect enabled by a dominant worldview that discounts the "ought" prevails in a culture. Right now, your culture is looking like the USSR circa 1980, with 1989 - 1991 ahead. And I do not say that lightly or with relish.kairosfocus
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
Nakashima, Why do you go by the name Morpheus too?Clive Hayden
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT
Oramus, ------"Or maybe they have already mastered the art of one-hand clapping." They've definitely mastered the art of giving each other big bro-dude high fives at AtBC.Clive Hayden
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
Folks: I thought it would be wise to take a follow-up look here. (And in the 30 year letter thread, where I made a test case on a brief comment, at 101. (Cf as well DATCG at 106, and BA 77's remarks esp the Stephen Wiltshire case.) Predictably, the corrective on "emergence" on temperature, with links, was ignored and a turnabout accusation was made at 117, to try to claim that key ID-related concepts were in effect, "just as vague as" the materialist poofery in how "emergence" is used to brush aside the hard problem of conscious, reasoning, morally bound mind. I briefly responded at 125, drawing attention to the fact of a glossary and step by step corrective to the usual weak objections. [FYI, also, there is an IS-OUGHT gap, where by unless "ought" is embedded in the grounding reality of the cosmos, ought cannot be drawn out of what is, sot hat for instance materialism is inherently amoral, which enables immorality. In my always linked, I describe the materialist conundrum on mind, in App 8.]] This should suffice to further underscore the force of my basic point, now that the off-topic tangent du jour is to critique the approach to comments I have often made here at UD. On a few points: 1 --> Of course my remarks are often like the substantiating material -- often behind a now US$ 30 paywall -- that somehow gets attached to those nice little abstracts and keyword lists that are freebies for Journals. 2 --> To those who think a few abstracting remarks and/or PPT slides are enough, why is it that those paywalls exist? [Surely it is enough to have just the abstracts . . . ?] 3 --> For that matter, why is it that textbooks or professional reference works beyond the level of a Cliff's Notes summary or a "For Dummies" intro exist? [And, they have their place: indeed there are a few Schaums series books in my technical library -- including BOTH discrete math and statistics! there are also a few For Dummies books, too.] 4 --> It should also be evident that there is no one effective or helpful Internet style. Different presentations and approaches do different jobs, in the face of different communication challenges. 5 --> And, I must repeat: executive summaries and PPT slide summaries are not enough to guide serious decision making. That's why behind an exec summ there is a position paper or proposal, often with technical appendices. 6 --> I add, that there is often a little power game at work in the "give me a summary" game: (i) unless you win my attention in one minute I dismiss you, and -- in too many cases -- I want you up on stage in short form where my pre-briefed idea hit men can snipe at you on my talking points. (Or even worse, can go behind your back to those you have no access to and play the distract, distort, demonise, dismiss game). {Hint: guess why your US politics has reached the level it now is at, by comparison with what is in the set of newspaper articles now known as the Federalist Papers . . . after 150+ years of ever more progressive and expensive public education.} 7 --> Ever wondered why venture capitalists, for years, used to haunt watering holes in Silicon Valley and were thus able to consistently make 35% average ROI on rejected ideas and idea champions from established firms? [Starting with Fairchild . . . ] 8 --> So, do bear with me when I find that it is sometimes necessary to be a little more substantial than a breif remark or to simply make a link. ___________ Onlookers, observe how as a rule, when the point in a substantial remark is sufficiently solid, there is a studious silence and/or a resort to an onward tangent, or in some cases a reworded recycling of the already answered objection or an earlier one, without serious reckoning with the substantial point. [Cf what happened with the Weasel issue, and for that matter the challenge that I don't know what an ad hominem is. And, see if DK can find it in himself to acknowledge that I do know the difference between an emergence that is warranted and one that is poofery.] GEM of TKI PS: I favour enumerated points as they give a handy reference, and show progression of an argument step by step.kairosfocus
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
Question: "Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?" Simple: Many Darwinists believe that morality is defined by the culture. Yet the culture does not appeal to any authority above the common dictates of the culture. What seems to happen in cultures that do not appeal to any higher authority is that no-body questions the lowest common denominator of decency. When all speech is then allowed, since the freedom to express is held above the taking offense of one individual, there's a slippery slope into that lowest common denominator - such that what may have been appalling at one time, is actually relished now by a majority. If one seeks an example of this, go to the Darwinist blogs. There appears then to be this undefined contest to see who can out-do the other with indecency, and such defiance of "the common good" is then applauded. Think of how what is permitted today will be mild in comparison with what will be permitted in the future - it's an expected evolution. I think calling someone a "c**t" now will be common practice among a majority in the future, just as using the "f" word today is common usage, when only 20 years ago it was reserved for the most daringly perverse among us. We shouldn't be surprised by this phenomenon. It's simply an unguided process of the evolution of speech, right? Well, not exactly, clear decisions are made in reaching the current cultural limits of acceptable speech. Those decisions are based on testing the limits, and then waiting to see if the benefits outweigh the consequences, rather than upholding the limits as a desireable and agreed upon rule of law for everyone. You see, the Darwinian morality scheme doesn't really work, and these results only prove that too well.CannuckianYankee
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
Second your sentiments Herb, "AtBCists" don't seem to like KF's post very much. Probably because he won't let them get away with anything. All their responses are met head on, dissected and refuted piece by piece; you know, in that quintessentially scientific way. Curious thing though, that these supposedly scientifically minded folks would be against it. They should welcome the challenge and hit back in like style; point by point refutations. Or maybe they have already mastered the art of one-hand clapping.
Lots of us probably could use some editorial help with our posts. Why is KF being singled out? I find his posts a welcome break from the sound-bites and one-liners we often see from the Darwinists on this site.
Oramus
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
In support of Clive Hayden in 151, a quote from an evolutionist in Pharyngula it think, from memory: "William Dembski is an idiot. What was his argument?" I had refered to No Free Lunch and Dembski's discussion of Axe's research.merlin
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
So Jackson was into Krishna, not Kabbalah? Doesn't seem to have helped in the end. A sad life.Morpheus
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?
There is no single answer. Different people have different reasons. Some hate religion and therefore take out that hatred on anything which gives succor to the enemy, e.g. ID Some want attention and seek to be seen as witty among their fellow haters. P.S. I just wanted to share a blog I made a few years back about Michael Jackson: http://michaeljacksongod.blogspot.com/mentok
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
My cunning plan is already in tatters!Nakashima
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Hey, Did you notice how Nakashima tried to throw Lewontin and Gould under the bus? Clever move on Nakashima's part since Gould is already dead and cannot fight back and the signal that they can be compared to Chesterton and Lewis two hated theists. When something gets embarrassing, push it in a closet and make believe it doesn't exist. And didn't Gould say that neo Darwinism was dead. This follows David Kellogg's attempt to say that Lewontin is just using a little sarcasm and we are not subtle enough to pick it up. Do we see here the beginning of a a re-education program for the proletariat. Does sounds a little like Lenin and Stalin getting rid of any dissenters who might prove awkward. No Trotskys allowed here. Can't stand a little truth shining forth. Let's tow the party line and make sure we all know what is politically correct for the faithful as David Kellogg and now Nakashima try to take down a giant or two in the naturalistic field. I believe there were some other comments in past threads about Gould being out of touch or something similar. Only in the ground 7 years and his sainthood is in tatters. With nearly all of Darwin's ideas either dead or essentially weakened...gradualism, natural selection, Malthusian competition... is there anything left of the man that we must not let slip away. One more thing and they will have to take him out of Westminster Abbey.jerry
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
KF @ 153 It's a shame you weren't born in 18th century England. You would have been right at home. Your writing style is more suited to dusty journals than the fast-paced nature of the Web. You need to learn to adapt your style to the medium. That way you'll engage more readers. (I'm guessing that you don't Tweet??)JTaylor
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Lots of us probably could use some editorial help with our posts. Why is KF being singled out? I find his posts a welcome break from the sound-bites and one-liners we often see from the Darwinists on this site. herb (proud member of the Clapham Bus Stop Club)herb
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
GEM-san, "A few follow-up points"? You wrote 7 numbered paragraphs, plus introduction, plus 11 parenthetical remarks, twice doubly parenthetical. Your first three numbered paragraphs could be reduced to the following. If a remark is short it will be dismissed. If one instead bring up details, the answer is by tangents. In neither case will one see serious engagement. Which essentially repeats your valiantly short postscript in message 141. I trust that gives a little of why I am coming from where I am coming from. Perhaps 'a little' in comparison to what you are capable of, but still too much. May I suggest less Arte of Rhetorique, and more Strunk and White?Nakashima
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Jerry (And JT and Nakshima-San): Pardon a few follow-up points. I appreciate the well-meant advice on in effect arguing based on synopses and executive summaries. I do note that the executives who ask for such generally have trusted admin assistants who are tasked to look into details and render a verdict. IN THE END, NO-ONE TRUSTS SYNOPSES, A FEW POWERPOINT SLIDES OR TWO-MINUTE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES TO PRESENT AN ADEQUATE VIEW OF A SERIOUS MATTER, though such may give at least a vague idea of what is going on. At least, if they are wise. (And, in their correct situations, I can and do produce such for documents that need them. However, I find that we now live in an age of sound-bites that despises substantial exposition and warranting of the objective truth on serious matters. But, from my youth in Jamaica where our nation tried to live on a diet of political slogans, I long ago learned that it is substance, not style that counts in the end. So, to the merits, to the merits, to the merits we must go . . . or we will end up doing the equivalent of wondering why water refuses to flow uphill as we desire or even expect.) I have, unfortunately, found out from long experience that one faces a "heads I win, tails you lose" fallacy on this when dealing with those who insist on the pattern of argument by distraction, distortion, demonisation and dismissal that I have addressed above: 1 --> If a remark is short or simply points to a link, it will be dismissed or ignored a la Wilson's cynical recommendation in The Arte of Rhetorique. (ESPECIALLY if the substance in the link is substantial and decisive; e.g. cf my remarks and citations on Weasel circa 1986. And, SB's fate on using summaries.) 2 --> If one instead brings up a fair but fairly brief degree of details, one faces argument by tangential distractions and distortions, requiring exact statements and detailed point by point responses (or anticipations); i.e. more details, but in a context that will often suggest that you did not really understand or think through what you had to say at he first. [Indeed, observe onlookers, how this exchange is on a tangent to the issue at stake, and how I am trying to pull it back into focus.] 3 --> In neither case (on long experience, ~ 4 years on ID topics for me) will one see on the part of Darwinian advocates a serious engagement on substantial facts and issues. 4 --> Indeed, the weak argument correctives and ID glossary above are for several months now, standing testimony to the need for a fairly substantial response: in EVERY case where a FAQ was put up for discussion, the issue came down to "needing" more -- not less -- details. (In the back-story discussions, a strong restraint on the length of the responses was that they should not be overly long, not overly numerous. The harshest critiques have come up on matters that were deliberately compressed for brevity.) 5 --> So, it is rather like the story of the man, the boy and the donkey: whatever you do, someone will find fault with it. (And, far too often, not on substance but on style or distortions and distractions, frequently laced with ad hominems. [I trust BTW, that the above of earlier today will suffice to show that contrary to the one-sentence assertion cited above, I do know what an ad hominem is, and have used the term in ways that are fundamentally correct.]) 6 --> So, I have concluded that it makes sense to simply bear with the sniping [which far too often becomes nastily personal, up to and including the sorts of vulgarities Mrs O'Leary has been subjected to], and present enough substance on select points that across time and topics, serious onlookers will be able to find out for themselves where the real balance on the merits is. 7 --> the alternative being to allow a determined agenda of distraction, distortion, demonisation ands dismissal to win by default, I have chosen to take time to provide a fair degree of substance on select threads, as I judge required, and to provide a more substantial presentation accessible by all. 9One hopes that at length, someone will actually follow up on the Weasel appendix to my always linked and let us know why I am confident that it is targetted search that cannot reflect cumulative selection by incremental improvement in function . . . instead of the cycle of studious ignoring of a linked discussion with evidence, and presentation of a caricature complete with the insinuation that I am afraid of the truth. [Those who actually know me will readily tell you that I have put my life -- not just my career -- on the line on matters of the momentous truth; so the grotesque insult that is implicit in above ill-informed, thoughtless and disrespectful remarks should be plain.]) _____________ I trust that gives a little of why I am coming from where I am coming from. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Thanks Clive. Name calling cheapens debates.Davem
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
JTaylor, Notice I said "When there’s no oversight, civil discourse will be gone from Darwinists, at least, from those folks, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.” But you're right, AtBC is a bunch of lay onlookers, and doesn't represent science in general or Darwinists in particular. Their only common thread is absurdity.Clive Hayden
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Jerry: "When I first got into business, a friend who had worked with Proctor and Gamble told me about their writing style. All recommendations must be written in one page. One could have backup but the managers only wanted to see one page." Good advice. I also work for a well-known American corporation. We also work on the principle that "less is more". We frequently have to deliver executive summaries in one page or maybe 4-5 PowerPoint slides. These constraints really help you to hone the message. I do find KF's post's interesting and thought-provoking but unfortunately there isn't enough time in the day to read them all! (I also find the unconventional formatting rather off-putting, but that may just be me).JTaylor
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Clive: “We discuss ideas and science here, they discuss us there.” AtBC also hosts threads on Science, Evolutionary Computation, and Food. They are quite interesting. The UD thead is just one of several, including a few dedicated to specific ID personalities for their opinions to be aired freely. And vigorously debated freely, of course!Nakashima
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
GEM-san, My larger point was that your style is overwhelming your substance. This has been said several times by several participants. None of us wishes you ill. in re Lewontin, he and Gould are as tiresome in their use of the bully pulpit as Lewis and Chesterton in theirs. None of them was Pope, pace to any Catholics reading this. I think the recent statistics circulated here on UD about the religious stance of NAS members quite undercuts your position that Lewontin was speaking for anyone but himself, no matter how he wanted to project. Therefore, my opinion of your 'remarks' is "Bravo, Don Quixote! You have bested the windmill named Lewontin."Nakashima
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Clive: "Take a look at AtBC and I think you’ll have your answer. When there’s no oversight, civil discourse will be gone from Darwinists, at least, from those folks, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting." Talking of civility certain members of UD have in recent times compared Jerry Coyne to one of the Munsters and also sponsored the making of a Flash video. But I agree AtBC can be over the top. But again, does this represent "most Darwinists" - or is it a bunch of lay onlookers? Where's the evidence that the majority of professional biologists are engaging in this kind of thing? Or are they too busy doing science? Any actual scientists out there care to comment as to whether this is common behavior in professional circles? Or should I just accept Ms O'Leary's take on this as she seems to know more about this than the rest of us? Again, who are "The Darwinists"? (I don't call myself one). Clive: "We discuss ideas and science here, they discuss us there." When was the last time any experimental lab-based ID science was presented here?JTaylor
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Sorry: that quote [145] was in support of jerry's gentle advice.David Kellogg
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead." -- Mark TwainDavid Kellogg
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, I will try to read your site on "On Information, Design, Science, Creation & Evolutionary Materialism" to see what I can learn and maybe to suggest using it instead of writing the long posts. For example, I just looked quickly at your site. So the next time someone asks about information in a genome. Just say this From my site on ID http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Info_design_and_science.htm#orgel73 "We may therefore contrast three sets of letters that show the distinction among three classes of linearly ordered digital sequences, by way of illustrative example (one paralleled by Peterson as cited above): 1. [Class 1:] An ordered (periodic) and therefore specified arrangement: THE END THE END THE END THE END Example: Nylon, or a crystal . . . . 2. [Class 2:] A complex (aperiodic) unspecified arrangement: AGDCBFE GBCAFED ACEDFBG Example: Random polymers polypeptides). 3. [Class 3:] A complex (aperiodic) specified arrangement: THIS SEQUENCE OF LETTERS CONTAINS A MESSAGE! Example: DNA, protein."jerry
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
DaveM, AtBC stands for "Another tired baby crying" and if you go the that forum you will see exactly what I am talking about. It resembles a maternity ward...Joseph
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, I agree with Nakashima that your posts are often too long to be effective. Notice how he got in another ad hominem by saying "I would have missed it, lost amongst the oil of smoked strawman." When I first got into business, a friend who had worked with Proctor and Gamble told me about their writing style. All recommendations must be written in one page. One could have backup but the managers only wanted to see one page. My wife, who is a good writer, said her best writing instructor used the following technique. Write an essay on a topic. Cut it in half. Then write it again in only one page. She said it was the betting writing instruction technique she ever had. When I used to teach in college, I would refer to the student's strategy of using a mind dump to answer a question. One student wrote nearly a whole blue book on a question that could be answered in one paragraph. After my first year I gave a page limit in the blue book for each question. Boy, did that save time. Your posts are content full but may lose their force by covering too many topics and using too many arguments for a single topic. We are all guilty of long posts but it may be good discipline for you to limit your words to what you think is most essential.jerry
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
PS: Nakashima-San: you turnabout assertions are unworthy of your best standard. And, I have found that unless the facts and logic are laid out step by step -- and links are routinely ignored -- objections will be made by Darwinists to lack of warrant (cf. how my merely linking on Weasel is being treated currently). If they are laid out, objections are made to length or style. "Heads I win, tails you lose" is an obvious fallacy.kairosfocus
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Nakashima-San: The point is that this, from the review of Sagan's last book, in NYRB, January 1997, is the smoking gun (especially when it is tied to what the US NAS and NSTA et al did in Kansas,and Judge Jones did in Dover that same fateful year of 2005): __________________ >>. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . Sagan's argument is straightforward. We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of physical relations among material entities. The vast majority of us do not have control of the intellectual apparatus needed to explain manifest reality in material terms, so in place of scientific (i.e., correct material) explanations, we substitute demons . . . . Most of the chapters of The Demon-Haunted World are taken up with exhortations to the reader to cease whoring after false gods and to accept the scientific method as the unique pathway to a correct understanding of the natural world. To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . >> _____________________ It is not "obsessive" to repeatedly force attention to a credibly decisive point, one that all too many are fain to forget, distract attention from or ignore. The above, coupled to the trend of events since 1997, is a highly material admission against interest by a prominent member of the US NAS, which is reflected in the policy of said NAS and other key institutions. We the people have a right to demand accountability over such an outrage. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
Mr Jerry, PS - you are right, of course, that did not read GEM of TKI's posts very closely. That is exactly the problem. He could cured cancer somewhere along there, and I would have missed it, lost amongst the oil of smoked strawman. As someone who appreciates haiku I agree with the sentiment "let your words be few" and "only tell me what I don't already know".Nakashima
July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 7

Leave a Reply