I was very disappointed in Harvey Newstrom's response to my point,
>> It would seem appropriate to debate the assertions made in the
>> article, rather than instantly dig into what you think the author's
>> personal agenda is, or what that of the group that he works for is.
>> Such investigations should be secondary, and later, IMO. Surely you
>> agree that what someone says should not be dismissed just because
>> the person also happens to be religious?
> 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.
> What I did was follow standard, scientific critiquing
> methods for peer-review of any scholarly publication.
> - I read the article
> - I visited their site as the article suggested
> - I read their supporting documentation as the article suggested
> - I followed the url links the article presented
> - I double-checked the source references given in the article
> - I reviewed the methodology used for their historical "reinterpretation"
> This is standard for a scientific or scholarly review. Did you want me to
> read the article without reading their support documents? Accept their
> interpretations without reading the originals? Accept their findings
> without reviewing their methodology? Debate the conclusions without
> questioning the "facts"? As an author, consultant, researcher and
> scientist, this scholarly or scientific review is the only one I know how to
> do. On what other basis should I form an evaluation of 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 are clearly attacking the post *not* by what's in it, but by
who wrote it. That would be exactly if I rebutted an anti-evolution
scientific argument by saying, "This person is a Creationist. He
belongs to an organization....".
Therefore, I will re-phrase Mike Lorrey's original question to you:
>> Why do [often] start off your denounciation 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 critcize them instead? (Honestly,
it does give the impression that you cannot.)
Can you answer these two questions?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:05 MDT