Providing yourself with the context of at least the full sentence I wrote (only 8 hours ago):
… might have helped your memory.
Using the link that I gave for that purpose to actually read everything that Marshall has said on the topic, before criticising it as “not specific” would have been sensible.
A parenthetical from the Wikipedia article on ‘sea-lioning’ comes to mind:
… (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented) …
The first half of that sentence, for starters.
Quoting fragments of sentences and then claiming to have “deleted nothing” is such clear evidence of bad faith that nothing else is needed.
What he meant was that the intact comment was still visible elsewhere on the page. Of course, ironically, he demonstrated just a bit later that he can easily forget or ignore relevant context that’s quite close on this very page, so it would be wise for him to quote more extensively, if only for his own good.
Maybe the title of this page could be amended to “The most current evidence for the integrity of the Discovery Institute and its supporters.” We have been getting some valuable data regarding the latter.
Just popping in to note that my comments at #69 still stand. If the DI and its affiliated researchers want to participate in the work of science with integrity, there is ample opportunity for them to do so. Certainly they could at least issue some corrections, and without necessarily giving up much of their claims.
This is either deliberate choice or willful neglect on the part of the DI. They made their own bed, and now they sleep in it.
You should also consider paying attention to the parts of posts you typically ignore, for example this bit in the one you’re replying to above:
True, but ‘elsewhere’ for his first comment was 250 posts earlier, so visible only with the forum equivalent of high-powered binoculars.
The “elsewhere” that’s actually relevant was only a couple of posts above.
I think Roy was referring to this post of Sam’s, which quotes this post of mine 262 posts previous to it, without context.
I doubt there is anyone here as unable to use the tools of the discussion board as I am.
For example, I don’t even know how to do the @name thing such as here,
nor do I know what it means attach the @ symbol and to give it a background highlight. Faizal and Eddie, I don’t mean to notify you of this example, I just scrolled up to find the first example I could find.
What I do mean to highlight is how disingenuous comments seem such as,
How utterly disingenuous that seems to claim I’ve deleted anything or to actually have attempted to hide the context. Even I, incompetent user of the tools of this board that I admit to being, realize that the up arrow next to the ‘quoted’ text takes one to the quoted text. Hands up if you didn’t realize that.
And yet I’ll not be surprised that no one will concede even to this.
Could there be a more partisan discussion board? Pathetic. There is no wonder that in the piece I linked to above, that Joshua Swamidass was unable to contradict, Gunter Bechly. (That is no slag on Josh. How does one contradict something so obviously true)
I’d take issue however with Joshua’s “We’re scientists we really want to engage.” You’d never know it by the interaction I’ve had.
Even Gunter Bechly’s, “You would have to improve this channel in terms of moderation.”
It actually pains me (as I’d think it would Josh) to point out even one of his own moderators posts,
doesn’t address my comment (the one that reopened the topic after being dormant for nearly 2 months)
Why not address the comment that reopened the discussion? Here is is again,
In reading the linked article from,
I was heartened to see the author, Charles Marshall state,
“As scientists, we have learned how to make ideas dance with reality, and we expect them to be transformed in the process. We typically add to what we already know, often showing along the way that old ideas are incomplete or, occasionally, and wrong. And so we collectively build an understanding of the world that is accurate, reliable, and useful.”
I don’t see Marshall’s “so we collectively” as excluding some or any “ID-Creationist apologist”. as seems the straightforward meaning of the comment I was initially addressing,
If you would demur at impossible, how about your “surely understand”. That surely doesn’t seem to be that sure.
I (a non-scientist) drop in here once in a while to get a flavor of the discussion on the so-called “Peaceful Science”
Surely even you vaunted scientist can over-state your case even if heaven forbid you could not be wrong and corrected by a
or even just a member of
Does one never wonder what an agnostic like David Berlinski finds useful at the DI. Certainly it is not to be schooled in apologetics.
I’ve listened to Meyer with Michael Shermer, and Behe, Douglas Axe, and Gunter Bechly with Joshua Swamidass, and David Berlinski and Christopher Hitchens. I’d certainly say that in each case the abhorrent member of the DI performed as well or better than their opponent.
As Hitch himself once said, https://youtu.be/rY5Ste5xRAA?t=5169
I don’t know what I think about the specific issue he is talking about, but can his view on consensus be more obvious? Consensus (whatever threshold that requires) demonstrates consensus. That’s all. Certainly not truth.
Need one look further than the wagon’s circled on the origins of Covid? The partisan furvor gets so stirred that Apoorva Mandavilli, a reporter for The New York Times spouts,
“Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not today,”
and it takes the rather contrarian Glenn Greenwald to question,
“Can someone explain to me why it’s racist to wonder if a virus escaped from a Chinese lab, but it’s not racist to insist that it infected humans because of Chinese wet markets? If anything, isn’t the latter more racist?”
That there is a consensus here is not in doubt. That questioning it can’t be tolerated is clear by the lack of the slightest acknowledgment of the validity of my challenge to,
I’ll continue to be an infrequent visitor, but it is unlikely that I’ll resist the urge to occasionally drop in to observe and chuckle at the continued “consensus”.
Gladly.
The scientific evidence in favour of a zoonotic origin of COVID is, by now, pretty much conclusive. Racism does not generally predispose one to accept scientific facts.
It is, OTOH, entirely reasonable to speculate on the reasons so many people continue to trumpet this Lab Leak conspiracy theory, and suggest racism as among these.
Any time, Glenn!
In any event, I don’t think you will find many people here who will be surprised that uninformed people with poor thinking skills are often impressed by the rhetoric of the Discovery Institue. But thanks for the reminder.
Seeing as he began the statement with the words “As scientists…” he certainly didn’t mean to include Meyer. I can’t imagine anybody would include anti-scientists in the class of “scientists.”
For the love of your very own soul, open your eyes. Why do you avoid Glenn’s question?
Surely you can see that Glenn, as un-racist a person you would likely meet has a point.
I have no data to support that. The actually word “racist” has become nothing more that a term of opprobrium, used in a vacuous way. Just as Glenn’s tweet demonstrates. How do you avoid his questions? He asked two of them. consider the last only if you wish,
"If anything, isn’t the latter more racist?”
You’ve done nothing to address his questions but want to divert. Kind of characteristic of someone with poor thinking skills.
Anyway, have the last word. It is way too easy to be lead astray. We are 30+ comments from my initial comment with no one taking it seriously.
How refreshing it would be to have someone say, “you know, you did have a point. Sorry to have been so reluctant to say so.”
But I don’t hold my breath from this Pravda outlet.
Not that that was in any way Joshua’s intent for this, but the world is the way it is, his best intentions notwithstanding.
I think I have to back up @Sam on this. If someone would like me to examine the revision history for a short list of comments, I can do that. Otherwise, let’s drop this claim.
How refreshing!
A Hitchens that will speak against his own team!
And believe me, that is meant as a high compliment.
Ah, there we go.
From Hitchens-esque to Apoorva Mandavilli-esque.
Just out to the store and couldn’t help but think, in what high school (at least in the days of old) would any teacher think that you’d even addressed the question?
And yet you have the face to talk of
“The Emperor Has No Clothes” anyone?
Weird response.
His question, paraphrased, was Why is it not racist to suggest that COVID originated in Chinese wet markets?
If that is what the science demonstrates was almost certainly the case, then why would it be racist to believe it? I mean, do you think it is also racist to believe the earth orbits the sun?
OTOH, if someone insists on trumpeting an elaborate conspiracy theory that is supported by NO scientific evidence AND which relies on the premise that Chinese scientists are mendacious liars, it is reasonable to raise the question of whether this claim is motivated at least in part by racism.
That said I do not mean to suggest that most, or even many, of the conspiracy theorists are motivated by racism, and particularly not Glenn Greenwald. But the question is why might one belief be considered racist, but not the other, and I have answered that.
Now, if we had conclusive evidence for a Lab Leak, and none for a role of the wet markets, then anyone who continued to blame the latter could justifiably be accused of racism.
No idea what you mean there. But nobody, including Stephen Meyer, would be so dim as to describe Meyer as a “scientist,” so it really is obvious that Marshall didn’t mean to include him in that term. If you regard Meyer as a scientist, well, I’m sorry that you do but that’s not my fault.