Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
PS: despite what you read above, I am a native English speaker. Apparently my hands type on autopilot. :(
-
There used to be a time when 'Jewish Science' was discredited by those who looked at who they were rather than what they produced. The same was said about 'Negro music' Lets just give a label to unpopular views,that means what they say doesnt have to be examinedat all
So which racial group is being singled out for persecution here? Your analogy is 100% wrong. Those wasn't labels for unpopular views, or unpopular art - those were labels for the art and views of unpopular groups. For your analogy to be valid, the professor and his mates would have to have been unfairly hated BEFORE their views were publicised.
But if you want historical analogies, I think much better one is with the uncovering of the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer. Heavily disputed at first. Vigorously opposed by tobacco companies and also legitimately by scientists who doubted the evidence presented, or who had alternative hypotheses. The doubters grew fewer, the supporters more, and over time it became obvious that almost all the doubters were recipients of funding from tobacco companies.
-
Argument from authority is a shorthand. Authorities may be speaking outside their competence - eg the physicist who comes out in favour of "intelligent design". Or they may not even be authorities at all. But in practice, we have to rely on authority when the only alternative is to become authorities ourselves.
So the real problem is that often, the only people who can reliably tell us whether someone is an authority are... other authorities.
This is one area where the media frequently let us down. I think they ought to put some effort into qualifying the standing of the people they present as experts, but not only do they often not care, sometimes they actively promote bogus authority. Like "Dr" Gillian McKeith.
And this is a real problem for actual authorities. Because they have work to do, damnit. If Tony or Bart put in all the effort required to correct misconceptions in the media they'd never get any research done. Not to mention that without suitable framing from a presenter, you wouldn't know that they were authoritative! (Although it might help if they wore lab coats on camera).
A long time ago I worked at the late Meat Industry Reseach Institute of New Zealand. And that taught me that scientists and engineers LOVE talking about what they're up to, and very often will patiently break it down for you, if only you'll ask them to. But they like doing it even more than they like talking about it.
-
This was a fun read, and sort of apropos:
The convoluted politics of zombie cinema
which perhaps reads more into the zombie flick than is wise.
-
"peeps actually fighting to protect those who assault their kids,"
No, that's a really disrespectful caricature.
I think the motivations behind the bill are admirable. I think the aim is admirable. I just think it's going to be bad law. And that has nothing to do with protecting people who assault their kids, and everything to do with opposing the idea that the best way to send a message is to pass a law.
If you want to send a message, use a courier.
-
And more seriously, I'd never heard of the Moniac. Wow. A real analog computer.
-
It is charmingly naive of David, if we can call him that, to gloss his own text, or "explain himself" if you will, as though an authorial meaning inhered or could inhere in a pedestrian sequence of words or syntagmic units, whereas we have previously demonstrated that a paradigmatic account must be brought to subtend the text by every or perhaps any individual reader, or not.
-
"Darwinian thinking as it applies to human nature should be brought to bear on social policy"
How would Darwinian thinking be brought to bear on social policy? Eg, it seems obvious that stepfathers would have an in-built disposition to improve their reproductive success and murder their stepchildren having impregnated their new partner - what policy decisions might we make on that basis?
Your statement has raised my eyebrows so far I think I've strained a muscle in my forehead.
-
And if it comes to that, I understand that Rose is in a tiny and probably wrong minority with his views on the role of genes in determining behaviour. But what has he done that could possibly compare with the efforts of the Discovery Institute?
This really seems like false equivalence, Neil.
-
"t could be argued that it's the resistance to Darwin from left-wing academics that's hindered science far more than conservative Christians."
Go on, Neil. Make that argument.