Re: Responding to pseudoscience was Re: A stronger will than mine.
(szpltdwn@dale.ucdavis.edu)
Sat, 30 Apr 1994 21:03:04 GMT
Scott Tzibra Leah (scottt@storm.cs.orst.edu) wrote:
: In article <2prgot$9om@access3.digex.net>,
: Robert Grumbine <rmg3@access.digex.net> 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
: >it?
: >
: 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
: manage somehow.
|