The problem with EVC

Not sure how these questions demonstrate your contention that the site is "too political" or "a snobbish clique." They sound like individual decisions or inability to answer a question or something more like that.But maybe you can explain.The kind of evc problem I've talked about the most, though I don't fight it much any more, is the bias against creationists, but I don't see how that would be particularly your concern.Lately I'm getting a sense of this general great divide between the scientific mentality as such and the rest of us, which just got driven home to me rather sharply on the thread about teaching abstinence in the schools. Maybe CP Snow's essay on The Two Cultures, meaning the culture of the sciences versus the culture of the humanities, which I think NWR posted a link to recently, is related to this. {abe: The attitude on the science side is outrageously arrogant but this may mostly reflect their inability to grasp the language and frame of reference of the humanities at all. They sure aren't humble about it though. And we on the "humanities" side abhor the language of science -- when applied to social problems anyway, which is what that thread is about. At least I abhor it. Gives me a kind of nausea.}But again, this may not be what you are getting at.Edited by Faith, : edit to add link, and other is indicated in text.

That is no doubt the case from their point of view. From the point of view of the other side their arguments are just a conceptually inbred intellectually insulated self-propagating worldview, i.e. a hidebound bias in other words, that dismisses all other worldviews, and treats them as idiots in their dealings with them.

See, I don't know if this is what Robin has in mind or not. I hope he returns soon and clarifies his OP some. But your post is a perfect example of what I consider to be the snot talk, the snob talk, the arrogance of the science-besotted. It demonstrates no knowledge, no superior thought, and no class, just smugness and self-congratulatory arrogance.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Niceness isn't the point. I'm trying to say something serious about the science mentality that isn't personal although I suppose it gets to people who are proud of their science mentality. But it isn't personal and it is serious. It's about a way of thinking, a worldview, that has grown up around science, particularly when it addresses human and social problems. It makes a person with a humanities background truly sick to read that reductionistic crap. And then they are arrogant about it on top of their shallowness, their hamfistedness, their blundering around in this arena they have no feeling for. Well, the serious question is whether this could be this cultural divide that CP Snow is talking about or something similar, or even if it's what Robin's OP is about. Certainly what I'm saying is not complimentary to those who buy into it. But it isn't personal, and all I'm getting in return is this snotty personal commentary, so I'm calling them on it. And yeah, candy-coated is not my style. But you are missing the substance of the conversation. Just as they are.Edited by Faith, : Sorry, started out correcting some bad grammar, ended up making substantive changes.

I think maybe this IS a reflection of the cultural divide after all, the science mind treating the humanist mind as if it were retarded. They do misinterpret their opponents in the most bizarre and insulting ways, and do take these self-congratulatory postures that look pretty silly really. Nobody with a humanities education counts as having an education at all it seems.Funny that you get lumped with us creationists and evangelicals because of your wrangles with the scienceniks. That's insult to injury for you I would imagine. I've been exploring the CP Snow concept of the two cultures and getting the impression that he's on the science side but I think at least he's right about there being two cultures even if I'm against his ultimate position on it. I don't know how I missed this controversy as it's right in the arena of my own concerns for years. But I'll catch up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I always did appreciate your serious take on these things. HOW unusual to encounter such respectful openness from the other side of the debate. I know your convictions are mostly with the evolutionists but your perspective is really unique, outside all of it.

Your famous clarity. Famous with me anyway. Seems obvious in a way, but we're always being accused of arrogance. So nice when somebody sees what it really is.

But this is very very wrong of you. He is using the term "logic" in a completely valid way, the way anyone with a humanities education does, and for you guys to insist that he use it in your specific technical sense is quite unfair, and in fact a kind of snobbism, to use Robin's term. It makes conversation very difficult to insist on your narrow context when all you need do is recognize that it is a perfectly valid usage, and found in all dictionaries.

Logic as Robin has most often used it is not "casual" it's the official meaning outside the technical mathematical forms. He uses it to argue philosophical points, not political opinions. It's the meaning that pertains to language, that can be expressed by a syllogism and violated by fallacies. It's the reasoning that makes thinking possible at all and communication correctable.If it's not snobbery then it's plain ignorance that complains that he's not using the word correctly, and refuses to follow his argument and insults him about it and demands compliance with rules that have no application to what he's talking about.I've been harassed over similar offenses, maybe even this one as well, and it's nothing but high-handed abuse.==========Glad to hear the CDs arrived. Hope they're informative.Edited by Faith, : added last line.

What I see is that nobody even makes an effort to follow his logic, just get all priggish about mathematical logic and derail conversation. Why is it the opponents of the dominant view here who have to do all the accommodating? Seems to me the demands of communication ought to require the science mentality to do some learning for a change.

Satire is only effective when it represents the satirized ideas accurately and honestly. Otherwise it is only an excuse to humiliate and belittle. There is nothing accurate or honest about the FSM. It doesn't work as satire, it just exposes the ignorance of the would-be satirists.

How funny, a whole wagonload of irrelevant invective in response to my rather simple little and I would have thought unprepossessing statement about what makes for a valid satire, that it should make some effort to be recognizable or it's useless. I search in vain for one apropos statement in the above. Oh well.

I'm having trouble following you.FSM is just the usual debunkery of God we creationists encounter all the time here, put into a new silly form to give them new ways to laugh about it. They believe that the existence of God is unlikely to say the least, so they invent this FSM to express this unlikelihood and permit them a new mindless way to ridicule us.None of their concepts ever gets anywhere near the reality. It's always a gross misrepresentation of what we believe. Having a serious conversation about it has always been impossible here. I'm not sure why their putting it in this silly form is worth taking on as you are. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't recognize my views in it. I mostly ignored the thread. It's just the usual nutty objections turned into a concrete form for their own entertainment.

I think Robin knows the questions about God are serious questions and objects to the trivializing stupidities that are indulged in by people who have never given it a moment's serious thought; and he thinks he can show how this is the case by taking on the specifics of the satire. The problem is there isn't a shred of seriousness in the satire, it just reflects the silly stupidities we always encounter here.