tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5756303728829844088..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Mark Anthony Signorelli Doesn't Like DarwiniansLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3198453803660232722010-10-25T01:07:48.740-04:002010-10-25T01:07:48.740-04:00gosh, Signorelli seems to simultaneously want to b...gosh, Signorelli seems to simultaneously want to blame scientists for modernity and modernity for scientists. I think that means he really, really doesn't like us.gilltnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40668647014824662992010-10-18T00:34:30.253-04:002010-10-18T00:34:30.253-04:00To John A. Davison,
Come on. There is a list in ...To John A. Davison, <br /><br />Come on. There is a list in an FAQ. Scroll down to section 5.<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlThe Other Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17570666738076378921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36408762119576519862010-10-18T00:27:21.248-04:002010-10-18T00:27:21.248-04:00Seriously. Is he complaining about relativism, or...Seriously. Is he complaining about relativism, or is he for it? He appears to be saying that historically, when science emerged and became predominant, it popularized the notion that some claims are more certain than others, which would run <i>counter</i> to relativism, where all ideas are essentially on equal footing. Yet, he later declares that if one believes that science has a sole claim to truth, this <i>entails</i> relativism, contradicting his initial claim's implication.<br /><br />I know what he's getting at, but he expressed it so poorly despite being an "essayist." He wishes to state that science's bid to end relativism on <i>matters of fact</i> leads to relativism on <i>matters of values</i>. Even though I consider myself somewhat of a moral relativist, this is still a non-sequitur and a silly argument.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793741972385047253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68672521193816927022010-10-17T22:51:19.056-04:002010-10-17T22:51:19.056-04:00Oh, everyone has the "right" to criticiz...Oh, everyone has the "right" to criticize science. They just don't have the "right" to have their criticisms taken seriously, especially if they don't know what they are talking about.Harriethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17953435368705942387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53963944723648424812010-10-17T12:46:57.243-04:002010-10-17T12:46:57.243-04:00There is no question that both evolution and extin...There is no question that both evolution and extinction occurred in the past. Today we witness only extinction without a new Genus in the past two million years. Long ago I issued the challenge to provide a documented instance of the appearance of a new species with its known immediate ancestor in historical times. To date that challenge has not been met. <br /><br />Just as ontogeny is a self-limiting process eanding with the adult, so, I believe, phylogeny has also been a self-limiting process which has ended with the present biota. In short -<br /><br />"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."<br />John A. Davison<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comJohn A. Davisonhttp://jadavison.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13683269079788545812010-10-17T11:00:40.899-04:002010-10-17T11:00:40.899-04:00...an ideology that is false, ignorant, and dishon...<i>...an ideology that is false, ignorant, and dishonest to its core.</i><br /><br />Seems a smoodge broad. As a brilliant poet once said, "Bitter is as bitter does." <br /><br />Hey! Don't be jumpin' all up in my stuff about me not knowin' nuthin' about the gooder poetry. Damned elitist snob with your uppity ideology and disdain for the unread masses. For your information, <i>I</i> read the hip hop*. <br /><br />On a side note, don't they still teach in poet-playwright-essayist school that you should write about what you know? (Or at least know about what you write?)<br /><br />*a tribute to Barbara Billingsley, who....whom....who I understand spoke the jive.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41373987868622126182010-10-17T10:24:59.926-04:002010-10-17T10:24:59.926-04:00That video of Signorelli on relativism was very in...That video of Signorelli on relativism was very interesting. Needless to say, I think Signorelli has everything wrong.<br /><br />Here is my take on what his argument is actually implying:<br /><br />Once upon a time (i.e. before science), we were all adrift in a sea of relativism. But we never noticed that drift or that relativism, because we measured everying on how it was relative to our position. Science has now provided an anchor that firmly connects us to reality. And now that we measure relative to reality, the drift is all too apparent. So let's pull up anchor, so that we can go back to not noticing the relative drift.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73932827330132992322010-10-17T10:18:26.058-04:002010-10-17T10:18:26.058-04:00Signorelli apparently does not understand the crit...Signorelli apparently does not understand the criticism of Fodor and Piatelli-Palmerini. (Note - I'll only mention Fodor in the rest of this, since it is shorter).<br /><br />He thinks reviewers are saying to Fodor "Hey, you are not a scientist, so keep out of our scientific domain." By contrast, I think reviewers are saying to Fodor "You got it all wrong - you would have been wiser to stay out of our domain until you understood it well enough to get it right."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21611828890924826752010-10-17T10:03:50.656-04:002010-10-17T10:03:50.656-04:00This guy seems to be a bit of a doofus. Scientific...This guy seems to be a bit of a doofus. Scientific hypotheses aren't true because they have math in them, they are true if they are supported by experiments and explain observations (or at least more likely to be true). Yes, scientific truths are more certain than theological truths or literature truths. Of course.MattKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81560513752399181892010-10-17T09:11:15.775-04:002010-10-17T09:11:15.775-04:00I put that link up just for you, Larry :-)I put that link up <i>just</i> for you, Larry :-)John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.com