Re: pseudoscience and fossils
Scott H Mullins (smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu)
16 Jan 1995 18:04:07 GMT
In article <3f67dr$dv0@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu writes:
>Scott H Mullins (smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
[all context removed to protect the guilty]
>Let me, unasked, jump into this. Scott Mullins is a regular
>poster on talk.origins, a group dealing not only with the never-
Whoops, I've been found out. Thanks for ratting me out, Paul. :-)
>ending attempt by creationists to show that the world was created
>"as is" last Thursday by green unicorns from outer space, but, in
>addition, a group more or less infested with Velikovskyites.
Infested might be a good word for it.
>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.
The "brilliant" statement was completely uncalled for, Paul. I
expect a retraction and apology. :-)
>It is one thing to argue about interpretations of actual evidence,
>accusations of ignoring other evidence, and other quite serious
>professional things. It is another to label someone or something
>a nut-case.
Bingo. Thanks for the (unasked) interjection. This is precisely
my perspective on such things.
>If the distinction is not clear, and I confess I've probably not
>made it clear, I invite any and all to visit talk.origins and read
>posts by some of Velikovsky's more fervent successors.
ObTalk.OriginsInsideJoke:
Seems clear enough to me, but then I'm one of the guilty. I've
got the badge to prove it.
--
Scott
smullins@ecn.purdue.edu
|