Joined: June 2007
|Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2007,02:01)|
quick question (ok, maybe not so quick):
long running argument over appeasment vs. confrontation everywhere (ok, maybe just the science blogs) these days.
what were your reactions to the various presentations?
for me it has to be a combination: confront the "movement" of ID/YEC, but each individal on the most appropriate basis. Confronting the YEC individual is only really worth it with the arrogant, thick skulled variety for whom facts/evidence have no relevance. People like AFDave (In my serious opinion) are only really de-convertable by full deprogramming: they have been brainwashed and are under the influence of mind control. For people like him maybe finding the hooks on this subject would be more appropriate, he aint budgin on evo until his eyes are opened to the methods of mind control. The difficulty is getting the person to recognise that they are a victim of this, but it can be done.
For me, definitely. There was no way, after reading the Max article that I could get away from it. I came across another article on the flood was well, amazing. It dealt with the maths and physics and I could see that it was impossible for the flood to have happened. Between the two it was evident that a) we iz apes, and b) da bibble is not rite.
did you find the fact-oriented in your face approach to be convincing?
Actally that's pretty close to how it happened. I was on an EX-JWs BB and my own "ministry" was in combatting cult mind-control (to me any sect which practiced heavy works based religion was a cult, though as an ex-JW it was my particular avenue). Someone posted links to both articles with very little comment at all. Max's intro hooked me because I had been involved in a plagiarism case at work and knew how we'd caught the perpetrator and proved it (deliberate errors). The argument was poignant to me for that reason.
or the more, well we won't cut out the religion, but here is something to make you think, kinda, angle?
Yup. I think for me it was the absence of any real commentary which made it easy to click the links. The poster was an Ex-JW with whom i'd had some good discussions and a great laugh, therfore I think I trusted him so didn't really question whether or not to click.
know what I'm talking about?
I need to have a read up on this stuff.
kind of the Brayton vs. PZ approach. or maybe the Matzke vs. PZ approach, depending on where you stand.
In the right circumstances, or when dealing with a particlar breed of fundie it is the only option on fora. Like I say, Dave could be deprogrammed IMHO, it just aint happening while he's in his comfort zone. I think the direct approach is useful at putting people like Dave off balance, which as we see can lead to some choice tard moments. The usefulness here is only to the wider argument, and of course to the cause of humour.
I'm going to guess that since you appreciate the likes of Deadman and BWE, you're probably in the "in your face style" camp?
oh, and check the post by Nick on the front page of PT that he made for one of the resident creationists.
It does carry some weight, since the reaonable deduction is that the person is considering the opposite viewpoint and recognising some validity to it. However, I've heard Dave acknowledge the appearance of age before, yet he's still to make the link.
do you think Nick was right that this kind of presentation of the 'appearance of age' argument means the person is a few months away from "deconversion"?
No offence taken, I just hope I'm a useful resource.
not to offend, but you're a valuable data point in an ongoing argument over the best strategic approach to this issue, and a relatively rare data point at that.
Go ahead, wire me up and stick a colander on my head.
would you mind if i picked your brains a bit on this issue in the future?
You're welcome ;)
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"