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

Oh, so you are just saying that some scientists are not as open minded
as they should be. Who would have thought, really ;-)

As far as I can judge, it is not the case of the one that wrote the blog
post...

>> 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.
> 

Well what would be your next step then? I'm not saying it's the only
thing that can be done...

>> 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.
> 

For a purpose that I tried to make clear in the rest of my post that you
didn't quote. In order to cause a shift of mentality in a part of the
population that unfortunately would not understand a scientific
debunking. It is possible that the slight shock, or comical effect, make
people think about it...

So of course it's lost on the strongest proponents of the "alternative
theory", but everything is lost on them. There is nothing constructive
you can do about it. It's not a reason not to do something.

>> 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."
> 

It is true as far as we can check. If really you want to talk about
absolutes, define truth, then.

If you bring something different or new to the table, it's another story...

>> 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?
> 

Existentialist crisis is a bit over the top ;-) , but yes, it's a problem...

As Phil put it earlier:
> (unless you're saying that you don't like a theory as it doesn't 
> explain everything, in which case welcome to a permanent state of not
>  liking things)

If you doubt everything without doing anything to make something better,
well, from the general point of view it's exactly as if you were
agreeing with the current theories... Except that it makes you look
angry ;-)

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message