Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/26/06 5:06pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Write specifically" on 09/26/06 3:07pm
>>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.
You're hairsplitting. Suppose it is true that my case against the removal of the quote evolved over time (I found more reasons to exclude the quote). That doesn't change the fact that the Paley quote is only one of several pieces of evidence. I don't see why the Paley matter is a "red herring," and I would like you to explain yourself here.
Actually, the Wikipedia violations were brought up before I made the cabal entry (see this Wikipedia section). Should I have included them from the beginning? Perhaps so. My guess is I just wanted to simplify the matter and deal with Paley's quote first.
>If you wanted
>to make a case based on policy violation, that's what
>you should have done.
I agree. I probably should have brought up the policy violation right away instead of pointing it out later on. Nonetheless, it is now part of the cabal entry as one of the reasons to exclude the claim.
>>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.
Read it carefully because you evidently did not do so before (see my previous post).
>>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.
Failing to carefully read the material in question (the cabal entry) isn't exactly conducive to 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."
Since you seem unwilling or unable to carefully read the cabal entry from which you criticize me, I'll just quote the relevant material for you:
....Therefore, attributing the concept of irreducible complexity to von Bertalanffy does not seem appropriate; and crediting the concept to von Bertalanffy gives a false impression to the readers. (An intellectual predecessor is one thing, attributing the concept is another.)
>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".
Again, the policy violation was pointed out before the fact I just neglected to include it right away. Also, the idea that I "didn't get what I want" seems groundless. Where did you get that idea? Nothing was refused to me at the time I pointed out the policy violations.
>This is the sort of thing that irks people
>who enjoy good debate.
Like refusing to carefully read the pertinent material under discussion? I know that irks me. Still, you bring up a good point that I should've noted the policy violations right away.
>>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?
Just read the cabal entry as it is right now. It hasn't changed that much from March to September.
>Which one of your positions is
>your real one?
Have you found any of my positions to contradict each other?
>>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.
That isn't the same thing as changing standards of evidence. And I don't see anything objectionable about introducing additional evidence (e.g. more reasons to reject the claim) to strengthen my case.
>You shift
>from "a source" to "policy".
I didn't "shift" it. I think both the policy violations and the fact that Ludwig never mentions the concept of irreducible complexity are both good reasons to reject the claim. As I said, I have several pieces of evidence. You seem to have misconstrued me again.
>>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.
So don't produce evidence for the accusations because I'll kick up clouds of dust (whatever that metaphor means) and "shift the arguments" (as if that would make the mysteriously invisible evidence go away).
Think about this please. If my kicking up clouds of dust makes communication futile, why bother making personal attacks at all? It doesn't make sense--unless of course the personal attacks are ill-founded and no evidence can be found. The first rule of making attacks on a person's character is to provide evidence (as I did). I've noticed FeloniousMonk is often shifty, but that doesn't stop me from backing up my objections against his behavior with evidence even though I know he won't listen. Why? Because that's what everyone should do if they make such attacks: to back them up.
>>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.
I find communicating with FeloniousMonk is futile, but that still doesn't change the fact that if I accuse him of inappropriate behavior, I should provide evidence. And if communication is futile, he shouldn't bother trying to attack my integrity (without a shred of evidence) to begin with.
Answer me this please: Why is it not a waste of time to attack my character but it is a waste of time to provide evidence behind such attacks? This is nonsense, if not completely conniving.
>In
>that case, I'd expect you to be able to cite examples
>because you seem to actually think you ARE
>communicating effectively.
Not at all. I don't think I'm communicating effectively with FeloniousMonk at all. But I do think I can communicate to other readers. Note for instance FeloniousMonk is not communicating primarily to me when he attacks my character, he speaks to other people--but he provides no evidence.
>>No, but that's going to happen sometimes with
>>controversial topics.
>
>Sometimes? How often has it happened with you?
I've lost count--but that's also true of how many times I've made posts on controversial topics.
>>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.
If those "others" misconstrue me so horribly, then yes.
>It would explain
>why you seem to shift your arguments about and don't
>seem to notice that you are doing it.
Please give me a specific example of where I have done so.
I'm sure I have on some occasion--if for no other reason I found one piece of evidence was flawed but found some other evidence that works. Still, I haven't done so here even though you have assumed I did and believed it--all without evidence.
>I think, in
>order for good debate to be had, one must give their
>opponent the benefit of the doubt.
You don't seem to have done so with me. Take for instance your explanation of why they didn't provide evidence for their personal attacks even when I requested specific examples. Your explanation was not that they didn't have evidence, but that they did and just didn't want to show it.
>>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".
How about integrity? Isn't that a good enough reason to backup an attack on a person's character?
>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.
Yes, I listen to their groundless accusations that they never seem willing to back up. Hence, I conclude it is merely bluster.
>>If the shoe fits...
>
>Well yeah, but the issue is the shoe really doesn't
>fit.
You have misconstrued me on this very thread e.g. seemed to think that the Paley quote was my entire basis for rejecting the claim because you didn't read carefully enough to notice the other reasons I brought forth. The shoe fits just fine.
>>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.
Oh? How exactly is the way I debate prone to misunderstanding?
>>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.
And I bet you said that without carefully reading the book. In fact, I bet you said that without reading the book at all. Did you just assume that the author doesn't document a long list of misconstruals that evolutionists have done against creationists and vice versa?
>>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.
I don't suppose you mind giving a specific example to adduce your case?
>>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
Did you really find this section ambiguous?
Also, (as another editor pointed out) the somewhat novel interpretation of von Bertalanffy's writing that he originated an "early concept" of irreducible complexity appears to be original research, since the claim can apparently be found nowhere else besides the Wikipedia entry. The viewpoint that von Bertalanffy did indeed come up with an “early concept” of irreducible complexity appears to be an extremely small minority (namely, a few Wikipedia editors) and would thus not be suitable given Wikipedia policy on what viewpoints to include. (Certainly, one should at least not present the viewpoint of this extremely small minority as fact as the entry currently does.)
Granted, this might not be clear if one does not know Wikipedia policy, but that's what the links were for (they link to the applicable Wikipedia policy).
If this writing of mine really is amibiguous, please tell me how you interpreted it. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think that you just did not read the whole entry carefully.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 