It is a ‘WAY out there’ concept, but alien seeding is still on the table as an idea,

This is more to do with abiogenesis than with evolution, ubnless you are implying that the aliens have visited us frequently in order to guide the course of life on Earth. It does not change that evolution has occurred on Earth, and if it shifts abiogenesis (i.e. life’s beginning) away from Earth to some distant planet, it simply means that we cannot investigate abiogenesis.

I do however see the evolutionary theory as we currently understand it is the most valid scientific theory regarding how life arose. Again .. I will still leave my mind open to other theories .. and philosophical arguments.

Bear in mind also that if any aspect of evolutionary theory were wrong in any major or significant way, we would already know about it. Modern evolutionary theory is the result of so much experimentation, observation and thought that we can be confident that even if it is wrong, it is still a very good approximation.

I do agree with what you say about science giving us the best description of how things work that we have knowledge of today. I see validity in evolutionary theory as a science and I see how it fits nicely with the given evidence. I am more-so indicating that there is still much more to be discovered regarding this issue and the results may differ from what we currently understand today. It is a ‘WAY out there’ concept, but alien seeding is still on the table as an idea, although a really far fetched one (one that I am not too convinced is a reality) and I still like to leave my mind open to other concepts. Science is a learning process, and one I respect highly. I do however see the evolutionary theory as we currently understand it is the most valid scientific theory regarding how life arose. Again .. I will still leave my mind open to other theories .. and philosophical arguments.

My issue was that, if you go around proclaiming you need to educate the public, and especially kids, about science and reality, you should also teach them by example that having a scientific and realistic standpoint is a position strong enough to not need insults to defend it.

Had you left it at that, instead of all the ghostly silliness, I would have agreed you 80%.

The other 20% of the time, however – such as when large media companies pollute the public airwaves with junk passed off as science – is a perfect occasion for direct, open and unapologetic ridicule.

“See how this works?”

I appreciate you trying to teach me a lesson, but honestly, I know how this works. I’ve nowhere made a claim I didn’t back up – except the one we’re just talking about. But in this case the reason simply was that I thought it’d be redundant, and I didn’t wanna be too anal about it. See, I didn’t really expect anybody to ask for evidence for that kind of behaviour around here, it being as common as it is.

As you see, I choose to complain here, and I back up these complaints. It’s not that I’m so easily offended, or that I take issue with using words like that in general every once in a while – like I said, we’re all just human. My issue was that, if you go around proclaiming you need to educate the public, and especially kids, about science and reality, you should also teach them by example that having a scientific and realistic standpoint is a position strong enough to not need insults to defend it.

Phil’s behaviour seemed a little strange to me, so I pointed it out.

Well, you are funny, I gotta give you that. I’m just not sure whether the things that make me laugh are the ones you intedend to do so.

Well, apologies then for assuming you like the things you do to make sense.

All I am really pointing out here is that science is limited in it’s understanding, due to the simple fact we haven’t discovered everything yet, and what we haven’t discovered yet, one could argue … doesn’t exist .. but just because science hasn’t discovered it yet .. doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Erm, yes, kinda.

Science has more to it than this, of course. There are some areas in which we have a very high level of confidence, and other areas where known uncertainty exists. It is possible to argue that even some of science’s best theories may be wrong in some fashion, but we also know enough to be able to state that certain theories, even if they are wrong, are at the very least a pretty good approximation of how the universe works.

Examples of such theories include quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, thermodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, and, of course, evolution.

@Nigel .. again .. paraphrasing part of what I said does not indicate the entirety of my point. Again I point out (in your paraphrasing) I am indicating dogmatic extremism that SOME atheists have. SOME .. a minority … not all. They exist. I have had the displeasure of talking to a few in my time. These same people tend to have a little knowledge of the scientific process and like to ride on the back of other more rationally minded atheists viewpoint …. all time stressing their point with gobs of hate in the mix too. These ones can be just as annoying as listening to a creationist try to convince you the world is 6000 years old. Same ballpark, diametrically opposite viewpoint.

By paraphrasing just that sentence it looks like I am indicating ALL atheists, which digresses from the context of my entire opinion.

I am aware what most rational and scientific based atheist’s view are on this matter.

OK, QD, I take your point. You referred only to a (perhaps tiny) minority of atheists.

My point, however inadequately expressed, was that I have not read any atheist writing that exhibits the behaviour you describe, whereas I have frequently read essays / book excerpts / blog comments from those who claim to be religious that do display the poor argumentation that you mention.

Based solely on my own reading experience, there exists a dramatic contrast in the quality of arguments expressed by, on the one hand, the religious fundies who decry science and, on the other, those atheists who criticise religious viewpoints in general.

So you insult them? What’s that gonna accomplish?

Who said it had to accomplish something? if someone really is committed to the evidence it won’t matter.They’ll walk away with their tail between their legs, like I did when I was a Big Pharma conspiracy nut.

By paraphrasing just that sentence it looks like I am indicating ALL atheists, which digresses from the context of my entire opinion.

I am aware what most rational and scientific based atheist’s view are on this matter.

The only thing just as annoying as a religious nut trying to prove 100% that God exists based on science, is an atheist trying to prove 100% he doesn’t exist based on science

Well, it seems that all attempts to prove God exists have been founded on poor theology and even poorer science. However, I have not read of any atheist attempting to prove that God doesn’t exist. Instead I have heard and read of enthusiastic atheists questioning the sanctity (for want of a better word) of religious “knowledge”, and highlighting the illogical nature of religion (i.e. there is no evidence for God, the natural world has no necessity for God, so belief in God is superfluous and therefore not parsimonious).

For me, if a religious person is prepared to accept that their beliefs are illogical that’s fine – they can believe whatever they want and I’ll live and let live if they do the same. If they insist that there is a logical basis for belief in God, I have a hard time accepting that. If they also insist that there is proof for God’s existence, I will object. If they then try to teach someone else’s kids that there is proof of God’s existence, I will get upset.

Of course, there’s science in batteries too – science that is lagging behind other technologies and is a direct impediment to making effective electric cars. How’s that for a segue back onto topic

Well, I’ll give you 7/10 for the segue, but only 4/10 for the battery-science comment.

Compare where we are today with battery technology a mere 15 or so years ago. Back in the early ’90s, if you wanted rechargeable batteries, your options were NiCd (limited capacity, severe memory effect if you weren’t careful, toxic waste for disposal afterwards, no option to trickle-charge) or Pb-acid (very poor capacity-to-weight ratio). The advent of NiMH batteries (driven by the mobile phone industry) opened up a new vista of portable power. Li-ion cells have taken this a step further.

That’s not to say that Li-ion cells are the be-all and end-all of rechargeable batteries, but you seem to have forgotten how much progress has happend in the last couple of decades compared with the preceding 3 or 4 decades.

Thank you! Now you’re learnin’! You made an argument, and you backed it up with real data. I can’t disagree with your claim that Phil has used words like those before, but I stand by my comment that nobody used those words in this post until you did.

I also cannot argue that I never used any of those words, because you provided the evidence. See how this works? Again, I can say I never used those words against you or at anyone else in this post.

Now, as to the usage of words like “crank,” “kook,” “crackpot,” or “nutter,” these are descriptive terms used to describe those who are so blinded by their beliefs that they completely ignore cold hard facts. They are technically equivalent to the term, “insane,” but are way more fun to use. If those words do not apply to you (and I don’t think they do) then you can safely ignore them. If you are offended by such words, then perhaps you shouldn’t be reading blogs on the internet.

Lastly, not everyone can be as quick on the draw as kuhnigget, and not everyone agrees with his in-your-face attitude. However, he’s never afraid to call a duck a duck (or a crank a crank) when he sees one. He’s very good at pushing people’s buttons, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It keeps us on our toes.

If you don’t agree with Phil’s choice of words, you don’t have to read them. You can choose to ignore them, or you can choose to surf someplace else. You can also choose to complain about them here, as you did, as long as you back up your arguments with facts.

Finally, I do not think someone who disagrees with my views constitutes a foul. I thought you did. I do not expect to agree with everyone, nor have everyone agree with me. But if I’m going to take a stand, one side or the other, I’d better have facts.

Sorry, couldn’t help but respond to your comments to Todd.

That offending people isn’t really a clever way of establishing dialogue or educating them on what science is.

Yes, it’s much better to try and broaden the definitions of science to include non-scientific concepts such as the paranormal and supernatural. While we’re at it, let’s teach Bulgarian grammar in shop class.

That offending people who you have decided are closed to dialogue is just bad and childish behaviour.

Nah, only when they’re nutters.

That teaching kids to use these phrases is not good education.

Good educating, perhaps?

.

By the way, you still haven’t looked back on all those UFO nutter posts, have you? Fit to a tee. Although we really could use some more plugs for woo-woo websites such as the Society for Scientific Exploration. I have to tell you, I was seriously disappointed to read their International Remote Viewing Conference had been cancelled this year. I guess too many people were planning to view it remotely so they lost the hotel reservation.

Have a nice day.

Sheesh.

Lesson 12

Remove any and all sense of humour from your brain, place it on the ground, and stomp it flat.

Lesson 13

Pretend others have no sense of humour and take offense when presented with contrary evidence. Anecdotal evidence need not apply.

First of all, these three phrases (crackpot, nutjob, woowoo) were meant as examples for the general insults around here. Maybe I should have clarified that by adding the little word “like” in front of them – for anybody not picking that up. That out of the way…who would I be to refuse your rightful demand for backing up my claims ? Here you go…

Phil titled this post about an Oscar-winning actress “Oscar-winning woo”. And then he goes to make fun of her with a riot of a picture. Such a nice man, that Phil guy !
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/02/oscar-winning-woo/

“Kooks”…

“Cranks”, right in the first line…

As for you…“crackpot”…

For anybody interested in more, in general…Google yields a real treasure trove.

If in these search strings you replace “nutjob” with the terms “woo”, “crackpot”, “kook”, “whacko”, “whackjob”, “loon”, “crank” or “flake”, you’re gonna get many, many more examples of civilized, reasonable adult behaviour at its finest. I’m sure you understand I don’t have the time to browse through all these hits for more specific examples.

And just out of curiosity – do you really think someone disagreeing with your views constitutes a foul ?

“That someone continues to hold onto to something that has been disproven, despite the facts being presented to them, is a clear indicator nothing you say will change them.”

So you insult them ? What’s that gonna accomplish ?

I made a couple of points here, namely…

That phrases like that are basically useless.
That whether you personally define them like that or not, they are offensive to the addressed.
That offending people isn’t really a clever way of establishing dialogue or educating them on what science is.
That offending people who you have decided are closed to dialogue is just bad and childish behaviour.
That teaching kids to use these phrases is not good education.

So if you don’t agree with any of these points, why don’t you specifically address them ? And if you agree – why evade just admitting it, and instead try to steer the topic toward a discussion of what constitutes an insult and what doesn’t ? Or the difference between sporadic negative connotations of the word “school”, and the obvious suggestion of belittlement in an informal term like “kook” ?

Now do you see how I feel with you ? I still see no point though in asking for citations without specifying for what. That’s even worse than asking for citations/evidence for claims I didn’t even make.

So, is a person “insane” or “reality challenged”? It’s like the news story I heard of someone that wanted to ban the use of the word “school” because of the negative feelings associated with it for the parents. Instead, they wanted to use “places of learning”. (Heard that story on NPR’s Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me.)

There are certain terms that would probably be best to avoid, like “nutjob” (which I don’t think I’ve read in any of Phil’s posts), and others that are less insult and more descriptive, such as “woo-woo” (as in believing in leprechauns, fairies, ghosts, psychics, Indigo chilrden, etc.) and “dangerous” (a la Jenny McCarthy).

The thing is, it doesn’t matter who you address. I don’t dispute that there’s people out there who behave highly irrational. And I can see why someone would be tempted sometimes to call them names. We’re all just human after all. But in written form, in public forums, that shouldn’t happen. No matter how irrational the addressed might be.

When scientists and “reality-loving” people do that, it gives people, especially kids, the idea that it’s okay or even helpful to use insults to get your point across. It isn’t. It does the opposite, it widens the gap between you and who you’re trying to reach. And in cases like the whole vaccination situation, that’s even dangerous. You want to bridge that gap to make these people understand your point, not drive them away through insults. By that you’re in the way of establishing discourse that could ultimately save lives. Insults are human, but they aren’t of any help, and people like Phil especially should refrain from them in public.

And besides – if you have decided that someone is not available for a dialogue anyway because they can’t really leave their irrational point of view…what’s the point of insulting them ? To me that just looks like a frustrated kid on a playground, pissed off at something that’s not going they way he wants it to. Take Julian for example. He says himself you can’t reach certain people, and is making a fool out of himself by insulting them instead of just leaving them to the destiny he pities so much.

Thanks dude. But citations for what ?

“Like teaching by example that scientists and reasonable people engage in discourse over controversial topics by calling their opponents “nutjobs”, “crackpots” and “woo-woos” ? You have an intriguing idea of raising kids to be respectable, level-headed members of society. Way to go.”

My first question to you was “who called anyone these names?” You made a claim that Phil and others here call those with differing views “nutjobs,” but you did not back up your claim with any evidence. If you were to look at the history of Phil’s posts, you would see that he clearly goes out of his way to be nice to everyone, even if they have a different viewpoint.

I try to do the same thing. The only thing I have asked, and would expect from anyone, is that if you are going to make an argument, you’d better darn well have data to support it. Name calling, in most cases is simply an emotional attack. However, there are a few cases where a person or group of people are so far in the deep end of the gene pool, that words like nutjob, crank, woowooist, or loon is a fair and valid description.

So again, my point was you made a claim that Phil and others call their opponents names you seem to find offensive in some way, but the evidence suggests otherwise. If you can find an example of where I personally called you or anyone else a nutcase, please post it. Otherwise, your argument has no support.