Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
> Warp a ?crit :
> > There's a difference between an attitude like "I think this is a very
> >  plausible theory, and I'm going to try to find even more evidence to
> >  support it", and "this theory is the truth, and anyone who doubts it
> >  is nuts and deserves ridicule".

> And which one you think is more common among creationists?

  Who was talking about creationists? I wasn't. I was talking about
scientists.

  Or are you trying to say that since creationists ridicule scientists
it then becomes ok for scientists to ridicule creationists? That's
flawed logic.

> What do you think happens when a tenant of the first attitude tries to
> discuss the matter with a tenant of the second attitude? No discussion
> is possible, that's what happens.

  That's why it's impossible to discuss with some scientists (or, more
usually, scientist wannabes).

> > I don't disagree that any pseudoscientist or religious fanatic who 
> > presents completely unscientifical and implausible claims with no
> > proof nor evidence deserves to be ignored and if such claims get
> > widespread, it very much deserves scientifical debunking.
> > 
> > However, debunking and ridicule are two different things. The former 
> > shows scientifical thinking, the latter shows arrogance.
> > 

> Debunking has been done and redone and re-re-done, at some stage it
> needs to stop.

  So the next logical step is to start mocking and ridiculing? Yes, that
makes a whole lot of sense.

> Ridiculing a religious nutcase
> is in my opinion a valid weapon to use.

  Valid for what purpose? It certainly isn't constructive and can only
make things worse.

> I'm all for doubting a theory as long as something else, new experiments
> or a new interpretation of the old ones at least, is offered that makes
> some sense. Doubting for the sake of doubting is not really interesting,

  That's exactly the flawed logic. "Since there's no alternative plausible
theory, this theory must be true."

> because then you doubt, and then what?

  I don't even understand what you mean by that. Are you talking
philosophically now? Do you get some kind of existentialist crisis
if you doubt something and have no plausible alternative theory?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message