oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
Gordon Mullings has replied to PaulMC. Can you guess what he said?
| Quote | | I now believe that you have made a sincere attempt to read and respond to Gauger et al. However, I believe — and the case with the alleged origin of language was pivotal here in my revised thought — the circle of thought you are in has drastically coloured how you read. |
What about your circle of thought Gordon?
| Quote | | Pause and look at my response on what you clearly believed was a decisive citation from credible source on the origin of human language in 41 above. |
Here Gordo refers to the "fact" that the past is the past and we ain't got no time machine so therefore:
| Quote | The deep past is never observed, it is reconstructed. That means there is an inherent limitation on degree of warrant attaching to any scientific investigation of the past of origins.
And, the timeline projected — here, across three million years (as though someone was ticking off on a diary) — is riddled with all sorts of circularities. |
The word "riddled" links to this site: http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010.......ml#time where Gordo plays scientist.
So, not a whole lot of rebuttal to any of Paul's points.
| Quote | Did you expect that the article could be seen in a very different way, as inadvertently listing ever so many potentially disputable assumptions, or that it is giving the impression of an access to the remote past of origins that is not in our gift? Do you see why it will look ever so different to one who does not share that circle of assumptions? And, why such a person will have reason to see the whole as an ideologically driven circle of thought?
|
Were you there? Did you see it yourself? No? Then don't care, didn't happen and you can't say it did.
| Quote |
By contrast, cf here on, a simple survey of astronomical and cosmological themes with special emphasis on the HR diagram and its significance. Notice how I speak in terms of a hydrogen ball MODEL, as distinct from actual stars. Then notice how I use the HR diagrams of clusters. Notice the inferences that because they are gravitationally linked local groups of stars they are about the same distance away so relative magnitudes link to absolute ones. Similarly, they plausibly share a common origin. From this and the H-ball model, we see age estimates based on branch-off points that look like they are heading for the giants branch, the later life of a star per the model. |
Do what? What's that got to do with anything? And funny how Gordo talks about "Models" when only a few days ago they were trashing models of anything in general...
| Quote | Do you see the inferences that are laid out and the reasoning behind the “best explanation”?
Do you notice how I refrain from announcing such as though they were record or pretty certain facts? |
No, Gordo, you don't.
| Quote | | Which do you think is more likely to persuade an outsider that the process of thought involved is reasonable and conservative in conclusions? Why? |
Thanks for the lesson in how to convince people Gordon. If you are so good at it how come you've never managed to convince a single person?
| Quote | Now, turn back to how you seem to have read Gauger’s argument and her response of July 19, in 46 above, on enzyme functions.
Do you notice the gap between how you have looked at the evidence, what Gauger says in response and what I highlighted and amplified?
|
Finally, we get to specifics!
| Quote | | I think you have inadvertently stumbled on the verge of seeing the isolated islands of function challenge, but are blocked by your circle of thought. |
Oh, really Gordo, really?
This "blocked by your circle of thought" is starting to sound a whole like Scientology. This "islands of function" stuff is starting to sound like you are making it up with some bad math.
| Quote | | In short, I think you may have read Gauger et al, but from so alien a perspective that they have reason to feel that you have not fairly read them with genuine understanding. This is the impression I get from your multi-part review. (And BTW, please lose the annoying tab that comes up on the RHS of your blog pane, it interferes with scrolling at least on my machine.) |
Eh? Are we done already? Don't you have a SINGLE POINT TO MAKE GORDO?
Can't you address a single point raised and show why it's incorrect?
Your only comment is on the structure of the website?
| Quote | | Your responses may feel good to those on your side of the divide, but come across as very unfair and even denigratory to those of us on this side. For instance, observe how you introduce Luskin: |
Your complaint is how people are introduced?
NOTHING ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE GORDO?
| Quote | | This is denigratory, AND commits the fallacy of appealing to modesty in the face of the presumed authority of the deans of your school of thought. |
No, Gordo, that's how your RELIGION works! Authority in the reality based community is worked for, not conferred from on high!
| Quote | | Einstein was a nobody when he came up with relativity and was not exactly a celebrity for years thereafter. Newton was a student when he came up with his pivotal insights. Luskin is not in their class but he is insisting on thinking for himself, is obviously intelligent and has investigated the matter. Gauger is a researcher publishing in the peer reviewed literature and Axe is a more senior researcher. Show the modicum of respect that deals with matters on the merits rather than people. |
What's that? Show the modicum of respect that deals with matters on the merits rather than people you say Gordo?
Given that the moment somebody disagrees with you it's because they have a closed mind (or 1001 other problems) you are a fine fine one to talk.
| Quote | | (NB: Your invidious comparisons above did much to poison this thread, and frankly, I am trying hard to see through your eyes instead of taking you for what such tactics point to, now and 30 years ago when I had communist agitators dealing with. Kindly, turn down the voltage, and understand that science is inherently provisional so learned schools can be wrong.) |
You are starting to sound like grandpa Simpson, mumbling off into irrelevant incoherency.
| Quote | Do you see why someone outside the circle will see such as reflecting circularity rather than solid warrant?
Now, think again on your update and onward link as cited in 41. Think about how the authority you cite goes around the circle.
Then, look again at why I am raising the concerns I have raised. And no, this is not hyperactivity or attention deficit on my part. That was outright rude on your part.
Maybe the matter can be addressed on a more reasonable basis now.
KF |
Oh, we're done?
Number of specific points addressed about the substance of PaulMC's review: Zero
No doubt the next step will be that KF offers to debate PMC. Or offers him a guest post. But answer the points raised?
I guess Gordo is just following in the masters footsteps however, so who can blame him.
| Quote | | ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. |
pathetic is as pathetic does
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
