Amazing. You really don’t know that psychiatrists are physicians? That is astoundingly ignorant, Eddie.
That’s absurd. You used the term “Psychiatry Ph.D.s,” so that excuse doesn’t work.
3 Likes
I know perfectly well that psychiatrists are physicians. And Joshua Swamidass has a medical degree too, but also a Ph.D. And Francis Collins, and Michael Denton. Having a doctorate in psychiatry does not preclude having a doctorate in one of the natural sciences. Are you so “astoundingly ignorant” as not to know that?
Generally, any MD working at a teaching hospital, as I do, will have an academic affiliation with a university. It does not imply that one has a PhD.
More free education for you.
2 Likes
How would you know?
If that’s true, why did Meyer claim that peptidyl transferase is a protein, when the relevant, high-profile “technical” articles were published with great fanfare so many years before?
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5481/905
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5481/878.summary
Why has no “ID theorist” come up with even a lame ID post hoc explanation, much less an ID hypothesis, for the ribosome being a ribozyme?
Why don’t you take a shot at it, Eddie?
1 Like
Here’s a 2016 video of Denton, put out by the DI evidently with Denton’s approval, in which he explains why, according to his understanding, Darwinian evolution does not predict and cannot explain a hierarchical organization of nature.
Care to tell us again about how well he understands evolution?
2 Likes
Your writing does not convey any such knowledge. Your egotistical tapdancing is amusing, though.
There’s no such thing as a “Psychiatry Ph.D.,” Eddie. You’re busted.
More ignorance. There is neither an expectation nor any requirement that medical-school faculty, at major or minor universities, have PhDs.
2 Likes
Eddie’s self-serving promotion of training over accomplishment is often amusing and strongly suggests deep-seated insecurities about his own lack of accomplishments.
Do I get to be a psychiatrist now? 
2 Likes
It would seem to me that the “latest developments” would be empirical. Does he cite evolutionary empiricists in his 2016 work?
Do you not realize how silly you look when pretending that in modern biology, most scientists are both theorists and empiricists?
Fine. So you have an M.D., plus specialist qualifications in Psychiatry, rather than a Ph.D. in psychiatry. But even in medical school one surely should learn not to evaluate sources one hasn’t read. And even in the B.Sc. preceding medical school, students should be taught not to criticize work they haven’t read. So you’re equally to blame, whether you have a Ph.D. or not, for denouncing and rejecting arguments you aren’t familiar with. You’re unscholarly, and unscientific, in your approach.
There is no such thing. You still seem unaware of this, despite your claiming to be aware of the facts regarding this subject. How embarrassing this must be for you.
Which I am not doing. As I have already explained.
In medical school, they also teach us not to spew out nonsense that is directly contradicted by the information that has been presented to us. I guess they don’t teach that in whatever school you attended.
3 Likes
And did you supplement your watching of this video with a reading of Denton’s 2016 book, in which he points out that current evolutionary theory, especially evo-devo, has gone a long way toward correcting the errors of the old “Darwinian” approach? And where he explains the difference between structuralist and functionalist approaches to evolution? I suspect not.
So you admit he is arguing against the “old ‘Darwinian’ approach” of evolution, and not the actual theory as it now exists. As I was already aware, but thanks for admitting this.
1 Like
Yes, you are. You have only the sketchiest knowledge of Denton’s thought, yet you come to quick judgments about the value of his ideas. I have closely studied all six of his books, and several of his articles. I know his thought. And it’s apparent to me that you don’t know it. You are speaking without knowledge. And you have admitted that you rarely read ID works. Yet you spend endless time on the internet saying what nonsense ID works contain. You are engaging in unscholarly rebuttals, whether you admit it or not. Prove to me that you know the texts, if you want me to respect your arguments. Otherwise, I will continue to treat your portrait of ID as uninformed.
“Functionalist” approach. ie “Old Darwinian approach”. Thanks again.
Here, Eddie, give me that shovel. You’re liable to end up in China at the rate you’re digging.
1 Like
Why would he argue against “evolution” when he himself is an evolutionist? That’s what you keep failing to grasp – that he is an evolutionist, not a creationist. And the reason you keep missing the mark is that you haven’t carefully read the authors you are criticizing.
Please list for me the books you have read by Holocaust deniers, Eddie. TIA.
1 Like
I haven’t read any books by Holocaust deniers, all the way through. That’s why I don’t characterize the thoughts of particular Holocaust deniers, or impute arguments to particular Holocaust deniers. (Have you ever seen me do so?) But you characterize ID writings and writers without having first studied them. That’s unscholarly. I wish we lived in a world where no one could be a university professor and also be unscholarly.
Ah. So, then, you are in no position to acknowledge the truth of the Holocaust, and must take Holocaust deniers at their word that they have a good understanding of the historical evidence, and that their view is legitimately supported by that evidence. Correct?
1 Like
You’re confusing two different tasks. Determining “what is true about reality” and “what an author says” are two different things. Determining “what is true about reality” may or may not require some scholarship, depending on the subject, but determining “what an author says” always requires scholarship. And by the rules of the scholarly game, one is not supposed to impute views to an author one hasn’t read; one is supposed to document the views of the author from his text. You say all kinds of things about what ID people do and do not claim, do and do not provide evidence for, etc., but you never cite the texts which would support your interpretations. That’s unscholarly.
If I said that Holocaust denier James Keegstra affirmed X about Auschwitz, and had not read the passages where he talked about Auschwitz, I would be guilty of being unscholarly. But I’ve not characterized his writings at all.
If you are asking me whether I find Holocaust denial plausible, the answer is that I don’t. But if I did decide that it was a question worth investigating, I would read the writings of Holocaust deniers carefully, and characterize what they said accurately, providing quotations and page numbers, before I passed judgment on their arguments.
No one is required to read up on every theory they find antecedently implausible. There isn’t enough time in life to cover all the implausible theories. But if one voluntarily chooses to be a critic of a particular theory, one has the scholarly obligation to read the works of the people who advocate that theory, and not rely on secondhand or thirdhand accounts of the theory presented by people who are hostile to it.
It doesn’t offend me at all that you find ID implausible, wrong, etc. What offends me is your procedure. It’s not a procedure that should be adopted by anyone who holds a university teaching position. You should provide a model of careful, accurate scholarship. But your contributions here don’t do that; they are mostly anti-ID raving based on superficial impressions and hearsay. I hope that when you stand up in class and criticize the work of other psychiatric theorists with whom you disagree, you don’t proceed in that way. And I hope you encourage your students to carefully read the psychiatric theorists with whom you disagree, before they reject their conclusions.
Yes.
I have read Denton, and I am describing his views accurately, so your objections are irrelevant.
As with Holocaust deniers who do not wish to be called Holocaust deniers, I am not obliged to respect Denton’s wishes not to be called a creationist when that is what he is.
1 Like