Did Synthese bow to Intelligent Design pressure? - The Panda's ...
Another important point here is that worthless ideas must be critiqued in adequately strong language. Excessive obsequiousness toward peddlers <a href="http://www.thenikes.com"><strong>nike shox turbo</strong></a> of harmful ideas is uncivil. It is uncivil to readers as an overall population. In addition, there is no point in offering excess "civility" to one who will not recognize ANY critique as "civil" anyway. For example, what is wrong with this… "The members of the Flat Earth Society are exemplary in their pursuit of the highest caliber of intellectual originality. In general, I am filled with admiration at their dedication, their discipline, their high IQ scores, and their contempt for those who blindly swallow mainstream orthodoxy. Furthermore, they are correct that mainstream astronomy cannot answer every possible question about the universe, and that we should all hang our heads in shame for that. However, I still think that it is most probable that the earth is of a roughly spherical shape and orbits the sun, for the following reasons (list of evidence for a heliocentric solar system)". Technically, the author is correct on the facts. However, in his excess desire to be "civil" toward Flat Earth proponents, he uses language that potentially misleads the naive reader (by using an emotional tone that is likely to bias them in favor of an inflated worth for Flat <a href="http://www.thenikes.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=117_125"><strong>N ike Shox OZ Shoes</strong></a> Earthism). Hence, he is uncivil toward readers as a group. And how about the Flat Earth Society? Will they appreciate this? No, they'll still despise him as much as they despise anyone who questions Flat Earthism! And they'll take his obsequious egg-shell walking as a sign of "weakness" to boot, and probably single him out for especially harsh rhetoric of their own, with little regard for the "civility" they demanded. I've used Flat Earthism as an example here, but we all know it works the same way with ID/creationism. In fact, I have a strong problem with John S. Wilkins' claim that ID/creationists are rational. In other words, if they use heuristics which lead to false and contradictory conclusions when taken to their logical extension, you still declare this to be "bounded rationality", define that as a subset of "rationality", and declare them "rational". I didn't bring up the issue of whether or not they are "rational" - they're objectively wrong, and that's good enough for me - but for the record, I don't accept this <a href="http://www.thenikes.com"><strong>nike shox</strong></a> particular semantic construction. No-one is perfectly rational, and only people with severe medical problems deny or fail to perceive all possible rationality. There is a spectrum. Everyone could be said to adhere to some type of "bounded rationality". Therefore we should judge people on the overall quality of their particular bounded rationality. I find that of creationists to be poor, and do not perceive that they necessarily qualify for the adjective "rational".
|
Hybrid Mode
