The problem with EVC

I guess I can't really tell where you want to take this topic. If "the problem with EvC" is something inherent in human nature, that's one thing. If EvC itself is in some way contributing to the problem, that's another, but I sense that's not where you're coming from.I don't blame you for not being happy with the tone sometimes exhibited, but there should be some self-examination about whether you're an innocent victim or the culprit. I honestly don't know the answer, I haven't read enough of your threads, but not all questions deserve polite answers, though everyone at EvC is encouraged to exhibit decorum. But some people ask good questions, some don't. Some ask questions to learn, some just to challenge the answers. Some are thinking about the answers, and some are just asking "why" no matter what the answer.--Percy

If you are making reference to the questions I was asking on the thread entitled "Evolution Simplified," my goal was to try to figure out if there was something ineluctable about the facts presented in the OP--if, given the nature of the evolutionary process, these facts could be deduced rather than just observed. I mentioned that several times. The OP was written in an emotional state of anger, so initially I just wanted to express my anger. There's nothing wrong with EVC per se.I think there's something inappropriate about a poster's comment that I can't use the common meaning of the word "logic" because he and certain others prefer a specialized meaning. I think that's an example of snobbery. His meaning of the word is the only one that counts; his group is the only group that can think about something logically. The rest of us just have to say that something might be "reasonable." So according to him, I should be banned from using the word "logic" in the common sense, in which it is a synonym for "reason." Perhaps he thinks that I should be banned from expressing myself about these ultimate questions at all. After all, what do I know? Have I a degree in formal logic? Obviously not.ABE: Every man need not be a scientist, but everyone in some sense is their own philosopher.edited for typosEdited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

I don't know that I want to start parading examples, but the phrase "world-class university" is a direct quote from one boaster.

WHY WASN'T I INCLUDED ON THAT LIST????? WHY WASN'T I INCLUDED ON THAT LIST?????
HUH?????? WHY ARE ONLY FAITH AND IANO INTELLEGENT? ARE YOU CALLING ME STUPID!!!!!
Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

The contemptuous chuckling among the in-crowd.

I haven't had this much fun since Dark Shadows went off the air.

quote:

---

No, they've been saying that I'm stupid and I don't have degrees from world-class institutions. Also my tone is wrong; I make too many definite statements. And then they throw in a lot of sci-fi babble which is supposed to be impressive.

---

Oh, waa, waa, boo hoo.Welcome to peer review.If you can't take the heat...

quote:

---

But that won't do, unless you want to say that FSM is the creator, in which case you've made a trivial substitute for the word "God."

---

I believe it is likely that you only think the FSM is a "trivial" comparison because you are harboring residual cultural reverence for the word "God".

quote:

---

The problem I was noting in the OP was not receiving replies.

---

You have 3894 posts as of this reply.Surely, they aren't all OP's of one-page threads and "bump" messages, are they?

Robin was talking about specific instances of not being answered when he asked again and again for an answer.And characterizing his complaint as being about hurt feelings is similarly off base. It's about not being able to have a real conversation. That's the problem with the snobbery and the contemptuous chuckling. Oh it's annoying and stupid too, but mainly it prevents thinking about serious questions.

Is that how peers review? In which case they wouldn't be peers I imagine - more like supeeriors.Edited by iano, : formatting

No peer review is more savage than that - because it is your peers - people who's expertise is not in question. Here any bullshitter can claim to know about things*. The problem is - because that don't know what they don't know - they think must be right!* Generally they are quickly found out. Edited by CK, : No reason given.

I think Schraf was making the point that Robin was being peer reviewed HERE. Without pointing out by what method she determined the peers to be peers (other than referring to what Robin termed "snobbery and sci-fi babble"). The a priori assumption held that "this is the way you discuss and the way by how things are measured" is one of the very issues which is not accepted by some here. Without establishing that to be the case I can't see how the peers establish themselves as peers.With issues like something-out-of-nothing (one of Robins current interests) all there are are unevidenced hypotheses. Ideas, notions - thats it. Science fundamentalists cannot claim any high ground here.

Wrong. As much as "something out of nothing" is sufficiently ill-defined in layman's hands, this is part of active research. Was part of my active research. You may want to think that active theoretical research is no more valuable than the man-on-the-street's musings, but shall we compare track-records over the past century?Robin's use of the term "sci-fi babble" wrt to what I write I find highly offensive. He is in no position whatsoever to judge.

I think this was the very sort of thing that Robin objected to. No salesman can point to his past performance as a guarantee that he will sell in the future. No soldier to the fact he dodged 100 bullets that he is likely to dodge another.Until the big breakthrough for something from nothing comes it seems reasonable enough for someone to question it being possible. The sci-fi babble (an unfortunate way of describing it) are attempts at explaining how research is trying to discover how that can be (the "whether it can" might be presumed to be answered in the affirmative given that so many are naturalistically inclinded and spend their time looking for the how. 'God' for such people is a term which is used to describe a gap which they yearn to fill. And one which they suppose can be filled)If the nothing is re-defined to mean something then Robin would no doubt be satisfied. Its just not no-thing as we all understand it.