Warp wrote:
> 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.

I know. I asked you something different.

Do you doubt that the fundamentalists think you're crazy and deserve 
scorn if you don't believe what they do?

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

No, the creationists deserve ridicule because they have crazy fixations 
with no support. They deserve ridicule just as we ridicule people who 
believe we've never gone to the moon, people who believe the earth is 
flat, and people who believe that Zeus makes lightning.

>> 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 think if you want to actually discuss scientific things with a 
scientist, they'll be happy to talk to you without ridicule, no matter 
how wrong you are. If you spout unsupported and unsupportable 
creationist babble, and try to claim it's scientific, you won't get much 
discussion. Mostly because most people willing to discuss such things 
are tired of bashing their heads against unreasoning insanity.

>> 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.

Indeed it does.

>> 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.

In what way? You're not going to change the mind of the religious 
person. The best you can do is to get others to look at the 
fundamentalist's claims with common sense. Hearing ridicule often turns 
on the common sense, waking you up from seductive nonsense.

>> 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."

That's not what was said. You can doubt the theory, but on what grounds? 
Why would you doubt it, if it explains all the evidence?

>> because then you doubt, and then what?
> 
>   I don't even understand what you mean by that. 

He means, what do you do with that doubt?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message