Re: [OT] Why People Don't Put Much Stock In Science These Days

In article <p4t742lb36ce8rieumeh0spphfb5goo0r1@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 02:39:10 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article <nlo042t82va4kh0qpsvkej9vvgkn5g44ui@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:02:42 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

I see. So you believe the scientific literature consists of childish
namecalling and character assassination?

[snip]

If you are claiming that there is no childish namecalling and cheap
shot character assissination in that document then you are seriously
deluding yourself.

The document lays out well-documented facts. Most of them related to the
scientific claims the book makes, and not to its author. If the facts
happen to make it appear that one of the Discovery Institute's premier
authors has absolutely no academic integrity and is, for lack of a
better term, a con artist, that hardly constitutes character
assassination.

The man takes differences of opinion and attributes malice to those
who disagree with him.

They're not differences of opinion, Mayor. The review presents accurate
representations of current science. The book presents inaccurate
representations of mostly outdated science. And it's not just a few
innocent mistakes, but a consistent pattern of distortion, not only in
this book, but in anti-"Darwinist" material in general.

He frequently attributes this directly to the author and not to the
book. He clearly is more interested in destroying the author than in
reviewing the book.

Which is why he goes through the book argument by argument....

And when are you going to address my questions about the New York
Times? You claimed people always got fired when they printed lies. I
provided two recent, high profile ones. Who got fired?

You're claiming that the same paper which gleefully supported the Bush
administration in its run-up to the Iraq war is actually controlled by a
left-wing conspiracy. Nice.

And you keep picking the one time that they did some honest reporting
and acting as if its the only that matters. They've got a helluva lot
more history than the few months you keep waving around. Any honest
examination of that history will show a strong leftwing bent.
Here's another one:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JonathonBurns/2006/04/15/193782.html
Who got fired?

Jesus ***, Mayor, do you ever read anything that's not from right-wing
propaganda sources? No wonder you're wrong about, well, everything. I'm
done here. This is basically the equivalent of arguing with a religious
fundamentalist.

Oh, wait. You *are* a religious fundamentalist.

[snip]

--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
.

Loading