Why are we all in such a Rush(ton)?

John Stevens (8859jstev@UMBSKY.CC.UMB.EDU)
Mon, 31 Oct 1994 15:56:18 EDT

First, I want to thank Scott MacEachern, Cliff Sloane, Lane S., Steve the
Seeker, and Mike Lieber for their assorted rebuttals, refutations, and
deconstructions of the Rushmeister's "work."

As an undergraduate, I'm sure my opinion is far beneath His Eminence's notice,
but on his posts alone I judge Mr. Rushton to be polemical, myopic, and the
most teeny-brained of scientists, a man who knows what he wants and won't
let anything like shoddily-compiled data, contextually questionable evidence,
and any amount of common sense interfere with his hypothesis ( a thing which
every science teacher I've had since 1975 has said *changes* during the course
of scientific inquiry. I'd like to ask Mr. Rushton how his understanding of
his subject has changed since his initial hypothesis, and indeed if his initial
hypothesis was ever significantly different?). Like lane, I'd be quite inter
ested in hearing more not only about why Himself got into the psychology racket,
but why feels this burning need to tell "the truth" tell it in this form, and
why whenever the furor dies down he feels compelled to say something pro-
vocative in order to stir it up again? Hurm.

Oh, and did we all enjoy Mr. Medina's post? Was that serious or sabotage? It
was almost too caricatured to be "for real," but I've known some White Suprema-
cists who can barely spell their name. . . a few of 'em in my own family. Hurm

And, Mr. R., I think that it is completely good and necessary to ask questions
about epistemology and assumptions regarding data while ignoring your rather
As I've said before, we make our facts as much as we discover them, and in
this world of information overabundance it's becoming easier and easier to
find "the right data," esp. if one uses data from the dominant paradigm (Gasp!
An assumption!).

Have a nice day. Enjoy your meal.


John H. Stevens
University of Massachusetts at Boston