🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <p-ashby-1310982153310001@mac120.nimr.mrc.ac.uk>, p-ashby@nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk (Peter Ashby) writes:
|> In article <6vtlt8$1ir$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku@globalserve.net
|> (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
|> 
|> > It seems to me like Peter Ashby's general ability to deal with issues in
|> > science is suspect. In another discussion he demonstrated clearly once
|> > again that he could not grasp the complex issues at stake in this debate.
|> 
|> Yuri, (wearily) instead of calling other people's competence into question
|> in order to cover up your own why don't you address some issues properly
|> for a change? If you stopped trying to twist everything you would see that
|> the so called cmplexities are really quite simple. BTW I sense victory
|> here, you usually only bring out complexity when you are losing an
|> argument

Purely on a point of Kuchinksy-ology: ``complex'' means that the
evidence is squarely against Yuri's position. One has to evaluate this
``complex'' evidence carefully, on a case-by-case basis, sifting for
the Truth, based on the bigger picture.

In other words, reject the data, facts and arguments which you don't
like, and keep only those which support your case.

An obvious corollary answers the later poster who asked what
Mr. Kuchinsky means `relevant' as in by `all relevant evidence':
`relevant' is that which supports (or can be misunderstood as
supporting) Mr. Kuchinksy.


|> In terms of my competence in science Yuri, keep an eye out for
|> my name in Nature in the next few months.

Congratulations!!

Apologies too for whoever spammed this bionet.general, sci.bio.misc,
and sci.misc.  Followups back to sci.archaeology.