Re: pseudoscience and fossils

Scott H Mullins (smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu)
16 Jan 1995 18:18:47 GMT

In article <1995Jan14.183214.3393@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n8010095@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Phillip Bigelow) writes:
>gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:

>>As a result some of us are very sensitized to Velikovskyite
>>arguments. Scott has been one of the more brilliant posters in
>>defense of sanity and reason. Also as a result Scott is, I think,
>>very sensitive to unjustified name-calling.

> If I understand your point, here; we are supposed to avoid certain words
>or phrases because they are inflamatory to one person (Mullen), and because
>these inflamatory words (such as the word "Velikovsky") push Mullen's
>buttons?

I think you missed the point. IMO you should avoid inflamatory
rhetorical flourishes because they can do naught be hurt your
case with the unaffiliated. Such rhetorical devices are largely
targeted to the "back row", those that already agree with you.

BTW, my "buttons" were not pushed and I stand by my
comments.

> We are not running a word-association encounter group, here.

Goody. How about a 12 step program instead?

>If
>you are asking me, or anyone else on this group to coddle Mullen, forget it.

Coddling me wouldn't help, anyway. I still bite when the mood
strikes me.

>If I think there are similarities between Morgan and Velikovsky (there, I
>said the word again)

I will continue to say "Velikovsky" until you bring me
a shrubbery.

>, then that is my opinion. Mullen disagrees. Let's
>leave it at that.

Fair enough.

--

Scott

smullins@ecn.purdue.edu