Joined: July 2006
|I reviewed the reviews and gave a neutral number of stars so that my review would stand out. Evidently it worked the way I wanted it to.|
|However, a distribution where the vast majority of suddenly appearing reviews are either one star or five stars suggests a campaign in progress.|
Where that appears to be the case, I would agree with Mohrhoff in ignoring all reviews that fall in those distributions because only a few will be normal reviews.
Trying to figure out which few are normal reviews is not a worthwhile use of one’s time.
Seems to me O'Leary, like, wants to ignore all reviews at either end of the spectrum and also the ones that fall in the middle? Or, something, like?
|That, by the way, is the reason that the campaign against The Design of Life failed. The campaigners assumed that the whole world agrees with them and with their campaign. That doesn’t happen to be true. And it shouldn’t be.|
There needs to be a serious discussion about the limits of Darwinism.
So the "campaign" against DOL failed? What campaign? And as far as a discussion about the limits of "Darwinism" goes, er, well, like, I thought Behe just published a book and we're in fact talking about a book here also? The "design of life" remember O'Leary? Or perhaps does O'Leary mean the sort of discussion that scientists have between themselves, you could say between peers? Something like that O'Leary? And in any case with O'Leary having 20 or 30 separate websites and blogs you'd think that any discussion about the limits of "Darwinism" would be happening right now, there's plenty of venues! It's not like, like, there is a lack of opportunity!
O'Leary and FTK have a lot in common I think. Just look at the "added value content" that O'Leary brings to science news:
Notice the fantastic punctuation. I mean, I'm quite bad at it myself but...
Interesting that O'Leary fails to inform us how this new "mind reading" feat fits into her conception of the mind and brain. It's a pity that O'Leary leaves us guessing! Or not, like. Or perhaps "But you won;’t know what the person thinks of it is her considered refutation?
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand