Joined: Mar. 2009
Well, it looks like Vox is not at all interested in my answers, but is instead going to hand wave them away and not even allow me to post on his blog:
|I haven't needed any excuse to disregard his answers because he hasn't actually answered any of the four questions. Unlike his fellow Pharyngulan, Mhich, who appears to grasp the basic concept of first answering the question and only then proceeding to justify his answer, Reynold has produced nothing but incorrect, unsubstantiated, and invalid excuses for why he shouldn't have to answer the questions. Is he being evasive because he fears being pinned down or is he simply that stupid? At this point, it's a tough call. In any event, he will not be commenting here anymore unless and until he provides unequivocal, straightforward answers to the four questions, as per the publicly posted Rules of the Blog.|
I'll let you guys be the judge of that...look at what I've already posted and what I'm about to post below. Maybe if I try to explain in more detail, Vox will consider his questions "answered". If not, well, that's why I'm posting them here, with just a link at his site to the reply here: At least it's guaranteed that the reply is out there...
|1. Would you seriously consider it meaningful, or even remotely relevant, if JD were to debate me on Paul Zachary's behalf, so long as he felt he has a good understanding of Paul Zachary's words?|
As I tried to say earlier: Your question is invalid. Why? JD agrees with you, not with PZ. Why would he debate you in PZ's stead if he doesn't agree with PZ??
Otherwise, if he had a good understanding of someone's words then I'd have no problem with him debating on that other person's behalf. For instance, Ann Coulter. However, JD was stupid enough to not even bother to read her sodding book before agreeing with her. The challenge was up, so I decided to call JD on it. He said he would at some point (a lot later then the few days you gave me before you started going on about how I "never" answered your questions.) but so far, he's done nothing.
|2. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did? (His attempt to argue that Soviet technology was essentially equal to US technology on the basis of the stolen atomic bomb and the space program is verifiably false. I am also willing to accept an answer which substitutes why the technological level of the Soviet Union "fell significantly behind that of the United States" in lieu of its technological advancement being "almost completely frozen".)|
I told you previously: ideology and politics. I gave the Lysenko guy as an example with Sov world genetics.
That's why their technological development fell apart in some areas...They wound up going with what they wanted to be true (ideology) as opposed to bothering to find out what the reality truly was. If the science didn't back up what their ideology was, they suppressed it. That is NOT how science works, I had said...you have to go where the evidence leads.
I say again: If you hate "science" so much, then forgo everything from computers to modern medicine, transportation, etc. You won't though, because you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Whether you accept that answer of not, I don't know. As I said, that's why I'm only posting a link to the (second attempt) at an answer to your blog. Even if you don't publish that comment, it's still out there.