From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 18:14:44 MDT
>
> > > - The beginnings of a book
> > > manuscript, "Debunking for Dummies."
> >
> > Or "Ranting By Example" would work equally well.
>
> Was this comment meant to be clever or enlightening?
>
> > (snipped lots of reasonable-ish text descending gradually
> into ranting)
> >
> > I'm picking this up here where the writer really begins to
> go off the rails.
> > Hopefully someone else will have the time/energy for a
> point-by-point
> > debunking.
>
> You just had the time/energy for general smarminess?
Yep, pretty much. You dignify an article which defines a strawman "debunker"
as, amongst other things, a person who feels insecure about their belief in
rationality when faced with alternative theories. It's just a bunch of silly
name calling; I didn't feel the desire to rise above it's level. That was a
mistake; I should have put up or shut up. So I'll shut up.
I did agree with some of your criticisms of my post. I'll just point out one
error though; you assume, when I refer to relying on knowledgable skeptics
who can debunk dodgy claims well, that I meant myself. I didn't... I'm not
quite one of the unwary; more like a wary observer who relies on the advice
of the credible.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 12 2003 - 18:24:47 MDT