BWE
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (Ftk @ Mar. 22 2012,12:15) | | Oh, and BWE, I have no idea why you worry about people who disagree with your stance on PZ....he's an ass...he is problematic to Darwin's message due to his militant, illogical stance on...well, on pretty much everything. Have a backbone, man. |
Ftk, it's fine if you don't understand. I don't feel like I brown nosed. I feel like I set him up by indicating that I wanted to argue a point. I never did. He set himself up for a kind of a major time investment because, and this is the part that matters, because I asked him to. The unwritten I guess but still perfectly well understood ethic among the regulars on this site anyway, certainly including louis, is intellectual integrity.
I entered a transaction which really did obligate me, maybe not you or someone else, but it did obligate me, to a set of expectations which I hope for from others here sometimes and I simply took his effort and didn't even show it the respect of an attempt to fulfill my end of the deal. An end which, though it may not be apparent to you, is apparent to me.
Louis is an asshole mean ass sonofabitch sometimes, blind to his weaknesses, arrogant to a fault even, but he paid me the respect I asked for and laid out his case. And despite hid stubborness and any other negative quality which you may want tp assign him, they pale to insignificance before the 2 qualities which he has never ever wavered from in my interactions with him, unflinching honesty and intellectual integrity. He might make you exhaust every single silly detail imaginable in a discussion, but when he recognizes error, it is recognized and the discussion moves on. He does not sacrifice truth to his ego. He doesn't lie (here, in the sort of discussion I started) because lies are not part of the discovery of truth.
Louis is a chemist. That is a fairly rigorous type of science, dealing with painfully delicate measurement and materials handling issues. Truth is a precious commodity in his realm of investigation. You are unlikely meet 10 people in your life who are as willing to discard their own faulty beliefs the moment they fail in internal consistency or to correspond to observation, acknowledge error with little fanfare, and amend their understanding to reflect new information as louis has been here.
And I feel pretty safe saying that really because evolution isn't a plot. It's simply the best fitting model available to us which explains what we observe and predicts what will be in the next blank. Religion I fear is dealing its own death blow by blatantly denying the actual truth of the existence of data which is available any person with an internet connection and a car that will take them to the closest natural history museum to protect the meaningless truths of religion, the ones which were old science and have been amended to include more and better information at the cost of tbhe truths which do mean something. The ones which haven't been replaced with better truths. To save noah you will sacrifice jesus.
It does color my interactions with you somewhat to be honest. But I still offer you honest explanations and answers without too much judgment. I never had to let go of that kind of truth so I don't pretend to know how hard it is. However, the argument is over. The physical universe is what we model with science. Any statement or question you can make about the physical universe is a scientific question.
The creationist ID argument really is "breathtaking inanity" to someone who understands the value of self-honesty as it applies to truth. That is not a dig by the way. When measurement was difficult and precision was poor, the rules were that faith does a pretty good job of keeping us alive. Don't just let go of this precious gift in favor any tom dick or harry that happens by. Any truth is valuable, precious even. And they needed to at least not obviously fail to make into the holy word, the collection of almost every single truth known to man at the time.
No, I don't fault you for choosing to hold onto a truth rather than let someone trick you into taking a worse one.
But once a better truth emerges, the value of the old one is erased. If you refuse to believe in the hyperinflation of the Wiemar republic, could not accept that your money had become worthless, the option to stay at home and look at it, pretending it still has value may avert the shock of coping for some time, a lifetime even if you have enough stored supplies, but you didn't save the value. You saved the symbol.
Something about False Idols comes to mind but it's not quite there. Regardless. my own regret concerning the possible rejection by association of our truths about ourselves preserved largely in the same texts beside the failed truths, occasionally tugs at me. But I have read those texts very carefully and done my best to remind people I know that there might be a baby in the bathwater of the same bibles that the evangelicals slander with every time they pass a reference to Ken Ham or Jack Chick without taking a stand and rejecting hate as hate. Ignorance as ignorance and propaganda as propaganda.
But, if you decide to take a moral stand against their dishonesty and hateful behavior, maybe you can avoid the mistake of my poor example. Simply refuse to legitimize it. Don't forget your other obligations in your zealousness regardless of the depth of your emotional rejection, because you might not notice if you go too far. And too, there is no real gain in fighting the other side. The better truth always wins. Instead demand integrity from your own side. Reject hate speech and bigotry wherever you encounter it.
Because opposing sides don't police each other fairly. If you really value truth, you do your part over there, I'll do my part over here, and we can compare notes over a couple of bong hits and bottle of bourbon every saturday at 9:00am before the equal protection for all people strategy session at 9:30am.
I'm speaking for louis here since he's not here to speak for himself, both Louis and I visited enough to be regulars here (even though I've been a lot less active since 2008) because encountered a common ethic that honesty and truth are basically valued above all else in this particular digital microcosm. While it offers no sanctuary from criticism or protection from pet beliefs that don't do well outside, it also offers a community who each are willing to call someone out on any perceived error and are intolerant of any breaches in honesty or intellectual integrity no matter where the source. From my perspective, I broke that compact in this case.
Anyway, even without thinking about it I paid the respect I felt needed to be paid to my obligation to answer with a thoughtful and considered response even though you may not feel I owe it to you. I certainly don't hold you to the standards which I do indeed hold louis to. Again, I respect your inclination to hold your cards. That is your choice.
But we use different systems and I do not cash the currency your truths are minted in. Sorry. I respect that you like them but I value transparency and require agreement between prediction and experience from my truths, I do not trust someone else to verify my truths. I am quite competent to assess the ones I encounter on my own almost every time.
What I did to PZ, I am comfortable with and feel no need to apologize for. What I did to louis I am not comfortable with and I owe him an apology. And that's why I apologized. It isn't brown nosing to me. Or I guess i don't care how you see it. It was me who felt the need to try to at least acknowledge my mistake and offer my apology.
Hope that explains it. If he comes back, I won't owe him agreement but an honest and considered explanation for my opinion.
--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far
The Daily Wingnut
|
