Re: Responding to pseudoscience was Re: A stronger will than mine.
Mark R. Miller (dblpmrm@mayan.NoSubdomain.NoDomain)
Fri, 6 May 1994 20:29:13 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (5121 Student 09) writes:
|> My question is this: Why is it necessary to argue against the
|> AAT with emotion, ridicule, and character assassination? Should
|> it not be sufficient to simply point out corrections and leave
|> it at that? What happened to scientific objectivity? As soon
|> as someone presents high emotion to me I become wary and wonder
|> why they are so defensive over such a trivial matter.
So far the only "emotion, ridicule, and character assissination" I've seen
has come from you. Others, most especially Mr. Nichols, have demonstrated
"scientific objectivity". You have not. I believe the reason some are
"...so defensive over such a trivial matter" is the same one that brings
my blood to a boil when, despite one shred of evidence, people reject
the 'fact' of evolution in favour of a cultural myth (creationism).
|> Nothing short of hard fossil evidence will shift the dominant
|> paradigm and thus we wait.
This is true ...until someone discovers evidence to support the AAT.
my farthing's worth