🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 1, 3:15 pm, nonsense <nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 12:55 pm, nonsense <nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote:
>
> >>Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> >>>On Feb 1, 9:08 am, nonsense <nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Jan 31, 2:14 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>deep snip
>
> >>>>>>Richard Dawkins, author of "Root of all evil" made the claim that
> >>>>>>militant faith is again on the march despite the progress of
> >>>>>>science. Perhaps that wouldn't be the case if science was raised
> >>>>>>above the sea of indoctrinated realities, to take its rightful
> >>>>>>place in the world as the champion of truth.
>
> >>>>>It only appears as "militant faith" to someone who is unwilling and
> >>>>>unable to understand the many explanations, links, and books
> >>>>>referenced to him.
>
> >>>>Mr. Gisse:
>
> >>>>You need to stop posting for a while. You're so immersed
> >>>>in what you think you're trying to achieve that you've
> >>>>forgotten to read what your correspondent is writing,
> >>>>or even worse, ignoring it altogether. Hint: seeing
> >>>>everything through a haze of red is a *bad thing*.
>
> >>>>Let's talk about Dawkins for just a moment.
>
> >>>>Here's the opening paragraph to the Wikipedia article
> >>>>about him:
>
> >>>>"Clinton Richard Dawkins (born March 26, 1941) is a
> >>>>British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular
> >>>>science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for
> >>>>the Public Understanding of Science at the University
> >>>>of Oxford.[1]"
>
> >>>>I hope there's no need to beat up on you any more
> >>>>for this sort of thing.
>
> >>>I'm reasonably sure that Dawkins was talking about creationists, who
> >>>tend to make the same arguments about evolution that folks on here use
> >>>against modern physics. The "militant faith" likely refers to those
> >>>same people - but since there is absolutely no context, I can't be
> >>>sure.
>
> >>>I don't even see why you felt you had to reply.
>
> >>Figgers. You're still seeing red.
>
> >>No matter what Keon's science is or isn't, read the
> >>paragraph he wrote. You might not see yourself in it,
> >>but I sure do, and I'm not arguing the science at all,
> >>but the precise aspects he's hit on.
>
> > I did read the paragraph he wrote, and found it amusing given his long-
> > standing resistance to conventional explanations through multiple
> > paths.
>
> If you are afraid to reply to each paragraph
> on its own merits you can justify that. In fact
> you can justify just about anything.

Since you are so in-tune with Max Keon, why don't you explain to me
the merits of that paragraph?

My interpretation is that he sees conventional physics as having the
kind of "militant faith" that which Dawkins was alluding. However,
what he fails to realize is that he simply does not have the
background required much less the desire required to understand the
explanations given to him.

Back to the science - he repeatedly tried to make use of an analogy
between gravitational red shift from a point mass and the expected
redshift since the big bang. I kept pointing out that there is no
analogy because the situations are wildly different. Am I being
militant because I think hes a moron for ignoring the explanation?

>
> > Is someone a pioneer because they refuse to understand, or just an
> > idiot?
>
> > If you don't want to argue science, that's fine. Just don't expect me
> > to play ball with you on it.
>
> That's a copout and you know it. But that's OK,
> I really didn't expect better. You're still
> seeing red. Just remember that "being right"
> is not a valid justification for all sorts of
> misbehavior.

No, I'm not "seeing red". I have no idea where get this, but it won't
become more valid by repeated assertions that I am.

Being right and being nice don't have to overlap.

>
> Carry on as you must.
>
> >>Go out of doors. Spend the weekend interfacing with
> >>friendly human beings. One view of the universe is all
> >>numbers. You need to spend time looking at things
> >>directly for a bit. The sun really doesn't rise or set
> >>around how right you are and how wrong he is on any
> >>particular issue.
>
> >>And when you've done some R&R come back and explain
> >>to me how time has behaved identically everywhere
> >>since the first few moments after the initiation
> >>of the big bang.
>
> >>But please go take the cure first.
>
> >>Thanks.