|
Can't go into detail, short of time. However, the blog post you linked to was NOT an example of discussion about GW. I don't think it was meant as a contribution to the discussion - it does not contain any scientific arguments to argue about. So your remark "don't look like the arguments characteristic of correct theories" is completely out of place - it was never meant to be that (I suppose). Criticizing the "argument tactics" is just "ad hominem". Surely you could find lots of examples for Anti-GW folks arguing in a away you find inappropriate. It does not prove anything. What are you trying to say, Anti-GW people are nice people and GW-people are rude, therefore we should believe the Anti-GW? I highly doubt such a generalization, sorry. You write "that doesn't excuse invalid arguments "on the correct side" - sorry, that is complete nonsense, as we are talking about individuals, not about organizations. How could individual A be responsible for what individual B is saying, even if they appear to be on the same side? It is impossible, they can not censor each other. For all I know, some Antio-GW people could be posing as rude GW people to give GW a bad name (it is a standard tactic in warfare, agent provocateur). On the other hand, yes, McIntyre's stuff LOOKS impressive, but it could also be compete nonsense, for all I know. For somebody who does not know anything about the subject, the "detailed" mountains presented by creationists might also LOOK impressive, but to someone in the know they might immediately be recognizable as irrelevant. "Either failing could be used as a starting point for a complete rewrite, building something intellectually honest over the rubble of Myers' indignation" What rubble? Myers did not present any arguments for GW in that article, so there is no rubble. I am also not sure that GW defendants should be obliged to deal with McIntyre's theories, if they are convinced that they are irrelevant (I can not judge that, I have no idea). It could just be a major waste of time. I remember when I read all those books about evolution theory, like Dawkins. Half of the books were dedicated to refuting useless creationst claims, and I kept thinking for myself: the evolutionists wasted so much time over this, they should have just skipped over it and dedicated that time to advancing their theories. It could just be a tactic by Anti-GWs to seed lots of irrelevant "problems" to distract GW proponents from their main cause. |
When a discussion is devoted to trying to resolve a technical question, it is indeed bad to get distracted by personalities and sociology. But Crichton's article is not a technical article, it's an article on some meta-level like sociology. Not every thread has to resolve technical questions, and it is not a fallacy to talk about sociology in a thread started by a sociological analogy. There is a technical question underneath, certainly. But there are also entire websites (and professional journals, and other things) devoted to the underlying technical question. This thread doesn't need to be devoted to the underlying technical question too.
Imagine if the thread had started from an article analogizing Singularity attitudes today to Christian millenarian attitudes ca. 1000 AD. (Riffing on the "rapture for nerds" idea.) On such a thread, it would not be off topic to talk about personalities and behavior. Sociological discussion isn't necessarily trumped by the question of whether Singularity ideas are technically correct.
Of course, it would be bad if some reader got confused and thought that sociological considerations settle technical questions. If someone correctly perceived that was a major danger, it might even be OK to remind people: "let's remember not to delude ourselves into thinking that talk of personalities and sociology trumps the underlying physical truth." But it would be bad if a reader started firing off accusations of attempted rhetorical trickery at selected nontechnical/sociological remarks. Such a reader would himself be falling prey to the fallacy of being a major twit.
"What are you trying to say, Anti-GW people are nice people and GW-people are rude, therefore we should believe the Anti-GW? I highly doubt such a generalization, sorry." You have willfully misunderstood my argument and then attacked the misstated version. Do you know any technical terms for that?
I stated explicitly some of the things I was trying to say. One thing I was trying to say is that martythemaniak's remark "the horrible politicization by GW opponents is perhaps the second-best example of politicized science being overshadowed only by the disbelief in evolution by creationists" looks like a repetition of a common ad hominem attack on AGW skeptics. I remain unconvinced by your analysis that it is merely an appropriate response given Crichton's provocation.
("It's as if you say 'AGWs are like Creationists', then AGWs reply 'no we are not' and you claim victory by saying 'see, AGWs think their opponents are creationists'." Indeed? It looks to me like someone wrote an article saying AGWs are like creationists, and the top-ranked response was "the irony is overwhelming, because the truth is that AGWs are the modern eugenicists." Though neither analogy is quite fair to martythemaniak, since both make it sound like he was merely posting an ad hominem attack. At least he had the good grace to back up his general rhetorical slam with a paragraph of actual technical information.)
Have a selectively outraged day.