Lee Corbin wrote,
> I was very disappointed in Harvey Newstrom's response to my point,
>
> > I did not bring in any additional information not referenced in
> the original
> > document you posted.
>
> Hah! You *began* by complaining that the *organization* is religious.
> You have yet to show me *anything* in that article that is religious.
You seem to have missed my point. The article itself invited me to review
their website for more information. The article itself gave the references
to the other documents. The article itself claimed that it was incomplete
due to space, and that the remainder of the information was at their site.
I did not pull together unrelated information from their site to say they
were wrong about X, therefore I assume that Y is wrong. All the materials I
looked at was claimed by them to be connected to the article, either as
supporting docs, references, methodology or some way contributing to the
document. I did not do a Google search for unrelated views of the author to
unfairly link to this article.
> That is all well and good, even commendable; but I don't care whether
> you read so-called "supporting" documents from the web site or not.
> Again, you *began* with
>
> > Why is this stuff on the Extropians List?
> > The Claremont Institute is not only a conservative
> organization, but it is
> > specifically a religious conservative organization. They
> believe that the
> > US was founded....
You keep repeating this. So what? You asked for my conclusions of the
article. My conclusions were that the religious institute set out to
rewrite history using prayer and God's guidance, and this article is one of
those produced by this method. The facts determined therein seem to be from
faulty sources. You don't have to agree with me, but you seem to be
implying that I am not allowed to point out these flaws.
> Therefore, I will re-phrase Mike Lorrey's original question to you:
>
> >> Why do [often] start off your denunciation of any post you
> >> disagree with by claiming that the website that is hosting the
> >> information is owned by [someone of a certain stripe]?
>
> I will also ask, why don't you just begin by quoting parts of the
> article that offended you, and criticize them instead? (Honestly,
> it does give the impression that you cannot.)
>
> Can you answer these two questions?
I have already answered Mike, and I have answered you twice now.
Sources of information are important. Scientific methodology to determine
"facts" are important. It is fair to point out that statistics were
specifically funded by an organization to counter more established
statistics that they don't like. It is fair to point out that someone's
"scientific" method involves mystical methods or beliefs that are not
scientifically repeatable. It is fair to point out faith-based components
that are not falsifiable or testable.
It is not fair to demand that I go through and refute every single fact
without checking the sources for myself. This is how science works.
Scientists try to replicate results by reviewing the methodology. To ask me
to determine the validity of results without reviewing the experimental
method is unfair and time-wasting.
This is really my answer. You may disagree. You may not like it. But it
is an answer. If you still think I have not answered, try rephrasing the
question.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:05 MDT