| Subject: Write specifically |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/26/06 3:07pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Fine, but you should still read more carefully." on 09/26/06 10:23am
>
>
>Paley was just one of several pieces of evidence to
>the case.
No, Paley was a red herring, plain and simple. I suspect your original intention was to get the edit made, and when it became apparent the edit wasn't going to happen you changed gears into "policy violation". Well, too little too late. If you wanted to make a case based on policy violation, that's what you should have done.
>
>I know, and I'm saying your impression is wrong.
Right, and your reccomended course of action was for me to "read your stuff again", not to further explain yourself.
>
>So was I when I said specifically "I get the feeling."
Fine, but your reccomended course of action is classic in the sense that it doesn't facilitate communication.
>
>
>If you read it carefully, you would see that my chief
>complaint is not at all about who is an
>intellectual predecessor (I specifically addressed
>this very issue), but more like violations of
>Wikipedia policy.
By the end, you are bitching about violations of the policy, I'll grant you that. But here is a quote in March 2006 from you: "I contend that the Bertalanffy citation (which refers to the quote I provided) does not provide adequate basis for the claim that Bertalanffy came up with the concept of irreducible complexity. And since that is the only citation provided to support the challenged material, I move that the claim be removed or the compromise I put forth replace it."
That is the summation of your position at that time. The reason, you say, is because there is only one citation to support the material that you disagree with. You do not invoke "policy" or anything else as a reason for your position. Simply put, you didn't get what you wanted and after the fact you found a policy to suit your needs and so you tried to change your argument around and substituted "policy" for "only one citation". This is the sort of thing that irks people who enjoy good debate.
>
>
>If you refuse to read it carefully and completely
>gloss over the portions where I specifically address
>that very subject, then I agree.
Which version of you should I read, Wade? March's version or September's? Which one of your positions is your real one? Or, is it as I suspect, you throw up one large cloud of dust with multiple targets and hope that you can eventually zero in on SOMETHING that will make your point worthwhile?
>
>Do I push intelligent design? In forums I do. What
>about changing the standards of evidence? Can you
>cite a specific example where I have done that?
See the above where you shift your own argument based on the evidence you say comprises your case. You shift from "a source" to "policy".
>
>Note that when it came to accusations, nobody was
>willing to back them up against me even when I
>specifically requested them (see the cabal entry).
>How do you explain that?
They probably suspect that since your history is such that you kick up clouds of dust and shift the arguments about that it would do no good to further speak to you about such things expecting more of the same from you. Actually, that is my conclusion about you overall as well. When I post to you, I honestly don't expect anything like communication to truly transpire. I expect that I'll invest some time that I don't mind spending attempting to engage you in some sort of productive way until I get tired of trying to accomplish that and then I'll do something else instead.
When it came to accusations,
>why was I the only one able to cite evidence
>and specific examples? What explanation do you have
>for that?
Because you are the "only one" who apparently doesn't see that communicating with you is often futile. In that case, I'd expect you to be able to cite examples because you seem to actually think you ARE communicating effectively.
>
>No, but that's going to happen sometimes with
>controversial topics.
Sometimes? How often has it happened with you?
>
>Here's my explanation: fervent emotions can fog up the
>lens through which we see if we aren't careful, an
>example of which is being too quick to make
>ill-founded accusations against opponents.
That is one explanation...but that rather assumes that you think others are being emotionally irrational. Maybe sometimes they are. Of course, equally others could make the same claim about you. It would explain why you seem to shift your arguments about and don't seem to notice that you are doing it. I think, in order for good debate to be had, one must give their opponent the benefit of the doubt. I think often people give you the benefit of the doubt only to later see that your methods are not quite conducive to good debate. At that point, they no longer care to deal with you because it is evident you aren't really interested in "good debate" but rather "debate to prove your point alone".
I think
>I'm a little better at watching out for this than
>some, which explains why they didn't (and couldn't)
>come up with evidence and specific examples to back up
>their claims like I did.
Again, that's one theory. I'm not sure they "couldn't" so much as they "saw no point in". The sites you have posted on are often rife with people who are well above average debaters. If this smaller subsection of the population repeadetly tells you something about the way you debate is off, then it would probably serve you well to listen.
>
>If the shoe fits...
Well yeah, but the issue is the shoe really doesn't fit. People aren't just "puzzled" by the things you post as though you are some sort of oracle beyond mere mortal communication. I very often see the case you are trying to make. I just happen to disagree with you about it, which you take as "oh, you just must not understand". No, the default isn't "I'm wallowing in ignorance because I disagree." Understanding someone is not the same as agreeing with them. Hence, you attempt to "slam" the shoe on others when in reality it simply frustrates them that you assume they must be "ignorant".
>
>I would like to think that most of the time people
>understand me correctly, but because I’ve spoken so
>much on controversial topics in web forums where
>emotions run high, misunderstanding is bound to happen
>from time to time.
I'd say this is probably true, but I'd also add that the way you debate is designed to foster misunderstanding, conciously or not.
>
>See above. This thing happens a lot in
>controversial debates. Don't believe me? Read
>Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning
>the Creation-Evolution Debate. And the people who
>made such misconstruals where not just people on the
>Internet—most of them were professionals.
Misconstruals eh? Well, once again, it isn't that people are incapable of understanding the creationist perspective. They simply don't agree with it. Creationism is particularly malignant because it doesn't really operate on evidence in a way that makes it easy for someone to say, "Well here, you clearly said this." Instead, the way of many creationists is to deny ever having espoused such a thing and that the other party must have misunderstood. To be fair, there are scientists who do the same thing, but it is a little harder to do that sort of thing in science as the rules of evidence are pretty strict.
If you
>wish, I can cite you a specific example where I
>explain something very clearly and yet was
>misunderstood--not surprisingly the subject matter
>involved was controversial.
I don't doubt this reaction does in fact happen to you. What I doubt is that it happens as often as you seem to think it does.
>
>Consider also you came away with the misconstrual that
>I based my whole objection on the "better fit"
>argument--because you evidently did not read the whole
>thing carefully. Do you really think you are the only
>person to have made this mistake?
No, I don't think it was a mistake on MY part. I think it was ambigious writing on YOUR part and I think you shifted it about afterwards to something different. As that's true, then I'm certain I'm not the only one who walked away with that impression.
As a matter of fact, I'd wager a guess and say MOST people who read that page are going to think roughly the same thing I thought about what you said unless they are strongly biased in some way.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 