Re: Responding to pseudoscience was Re: A stronger will than mine.
Scott Tzibra Leah (email@example.com)
30 Apr 1994 02:06:30 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Robert Grumbine <email@example.com> wrote:
> That sets up the heads I win, tails you lose situation. If you (a
>person knowledgeable about the science) argue the pseudo theory, it
>lends that sort of credibility to the pseudo theory. If you don't, then
>people who don't know the science think that it means that the theory
>really is good, because after all, nobody disputed it.
If you want to debate, than do so. No one's stoping anyone from that. But
why being insulting by saying "pseudo science."
Without ANY fossils evidence yet in showing just how and when bipedalism
actually developed I'd say all bets are on.
What I'm talking about are those who start with "this is a stupid topic"
or words to that effect and end with "so shut up and stop talking about it."
> So, is more harm than good done by debating the AAT rather than ignoring
what harm? sounds like a silly thing to say. debate is good, as long as
people respect each others opinion. If you can't, well, that's sad.
Again, if you just can not stand being in the same room as people who
talk about AAT (in a manner of speaking) then stop. Even if you aren't
here to be sure we know what the "good" science is, I'm sure we'll