As in: Science 2.0 on Darwin great E. O. Wilson dismissing arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins as a ‘journalist’, where I noted,
This clearly feels like a moment of Darwinism in decline. They don’t seem to mind trashing each other in public now.
Here is what I told a friend the issue is:
—
The point isn’t that scientists say rude things about each other’s opinions (though Dawkins is called a scientist only for political advantage now). But if, despite being seen as “world’s smartest scientist,” it turns out that Dawkins is only a hack like me – doesn’t that raise the question whether the same could be said of Wilson? Of Coyne? Of Barash? Of the whole lot? THAT’S what I am talking about.
It’s somewhat like the Crown Prince of Schmonarchy calling the Princess Royal of Skmonarchy a “brainless strumpet” in public. Okay, … if she’s that, what’s HE?
Smarter people defend their *social/political position* by refraining from personal abuse even of people in similar positions whom they privately hate and despise. It’s group survival. Or not, as the case may be.
I grant you, the Darwinists may, in an age of increasingly authoritarian government and stacked courts, shove their views down the public’s throat in indoctrination systems, and legally punish dissenters. But that is not nearly as advantageous a position as actually enjoying respect, whether the respect is earned or not.
Throwing enjoyed respect away is, I suggest, a bad sign.
—
Thoughts?
Busy this morning. Will write more on the background to the controversy later. – O’Leary for News
Follow UD News at Twitter!
OT: New function for rods in daylight – November 19, 2014
(Medical Xpress)—Vision – so crucial to human health and well-being – depends on job-sharing by just a few cell types, the rod cells and cone cells, in our retina. Botond Roska and his group have identified a novel function for rod photoreceptor cells in the retina in daylight. Driven by cones and mediated by horizontal cells, rods help to increase contrast information at times when they are not directly sensing light. The retina thus repurposes its cells in different light conditions to increase the amount of visual information about the environment.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....light.html
Nothing to surprising here. It is widely understood that biologists rank at the bottom of the science hierarchy: mathematician>physicist>chemist>biologist>evolutionary biologist. And this shows over and over again as your article presents. There was an posting here a while back where an english prof destroyed an evolutionists arguments, so I placed the english prof between the biologists and the evolutionists. That may be more accurate but that opens the door for any ‘social science’ which I don’t really want to do. But it may be an interesting exercise to range every type of professor. I wonder where evolutionists would land.
There seems to be a certain type of intellectual that defends truth by disarming their opponents through withering barrages of logic couched in sarcasm. Their opponents, embodying ignorance, don’t deserve polite respectful argument.
The problem arises when issues become too complex and truth is established through personal feelings and group membership. That’s when they eat their own. “The zingers fly fast and furiously here, son.” When you live by the quip you die by the quip.
Peter
Nothing to surprising here. It is widely understood that biologists rank at the bottom of the science hierarchy: mathematician>physicist>chemist>biologist>evolutionary biologist. And this shows over and over again as your article presents. There was an posting here a while back where an english prof destroyed an evolutionists arguments, so I placed the english prof between the biologists and the evolutionists. That may be more accurate but that opens the door for any ‘social science’ which I don’t really want to do. But it may be an interesting exercise to range every type of professor. I wonder where evolutionists would land.
We already know where Creationists land.
Adapa @4
I’m flattered if you went to all that effort to make a picture with my name in it. That’s an impressive indication of how strongly my argument affected you.
Peter @5
I think that may have been a frame from the show Family Guy. One of the main characters in that show is named Peter.
StephenA
Peter @5
I think that may have been a frame from the show Family Guy. One of the main characters in that show is named Peter
Correct but it fit so well I couldn’t resist. 🙂