Syamsu writes:
quote:
You don't have any argument, much less a refutation. It is perfectly alright for a scientist to make subjective comments about beauty, and goodness and such, and attribute it to the spiritual, even in a science paper. But it is wrong for Darwin to talk about the less fit as less good, and the more fit as superior, because then he has blended ought with is. It is wrong for science popularizers to talk about the good being inherent in us by evolution as some kind of statement of fact. It is wrong for scientists to assert goodness, or the attribution of it, as a brainfunction. While ofcourse one can investigate things like the words used in morality, they are material things. But the words are used in reference to what decides, and scientists can't know about what goes on in people's hearts, except by judgement.
Yup. Same assertions. Slightly different words. No supporting argument made. No points, or refutations addressed. No questions answered.
Same old, same old.
As predicted.
[I hope you don't mind the use of your words, Straggler.]
Might you provide a single piece of documentation to support your assertions?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
