I’ve already been here wondered why the evolutionist professors rely so much the student’s (evograd About Me – EvoGrad ) blog post, when they present their criticism to Jeanson’s model.
A few important additions to it. In my opinion in science should not rely on faceless persons. Evograd writes behind the nickname. He/she is thus a faceless person, and no one can really know what his education, for example, is.
Why am I pointing out this? Because, in the worst case, evolutionist professors blindly trust a person who has no idea about the topic he is writing about. But if a person have with a good imagination he/she can convince his listener, especially if his message pleases the listener’s ear scabies.
For example how do you know who evograd really is? She/he may even be a grandmother writing about a nursing home, who in her old days, got the idea of being an evolutionary student. Because of this in science should not rely on faceless persons.
My point is to point out that science must be based on trust and that is why we cannot give great weight and confidence to faceless people in science. Their arguments can, of course, be listened to and tested, but that is a different matter than relying on them. This is one reason why I have been so amazed at the behavior of the a few professors here.
And please do not intentionally misunderstand my writing. I’m not mocking evograd, I’m just questioning whether in science should rely on the faceless person behind the nicknames?
These evolution professors (I doubt that’s their correct title) are citing @evograd because his post answers it quite well. They are not relying on it. They are using their own knowledge to evaluate how well @evograd has answered Jeanson.
Again, they are not relying on faceless persons. The quality of @evograd 's education is not at issue. They are evaluating the content of what @evograd wrote. They are not blindly trusting @evograd. If @evograd had written nonsense, they would not be citing his post.
Honestly, you owe them an apology for your false accusations.
It doesn’t matter. If @evograd gave an excellent response, then it is an excellent response no matter who @evograd is.
You miss my point. It is not a question of how good the text of evograd looks, but whether in science should rely on a faceless person, so that professors even refer to it. If professors agree with a faceless writer, shouldn’t professors make a public statement (their own text) on the subject in order to maintain the dignity and trust of science?
Science isn’t based on a person’s face. The quality of the work is judged on its own merit. If professional scientists have examined the work and found it sound that’s all that matters to science.
Creationists are the only ones I’ve seen who love the fallacy of argument from authority. BTW your less than subtle attempts at doxxing evograd are rather transparent.
Science is as open and honest as possible. It doesn’t rely on faceless people. It relies on the quality of scientific work published. Your loaded question isn’t very honest.
I can’t speak for evograd’s motives for not publishing his or her name, but I can speak for mine, which may be similar.
I used to publish material under my own name. But then the creepy contacts started, particularly a deeply disturbing answering machine message from some fundamentalist. The fact is that when one is dealing with a entirely malevolent and profoundly immoral movement like creationism, it’s no surprise that its followers are often themselves malevolent and immoral. My wife asked me to please, for the sake of our safety, stop writing under my own name.
Since beginning to use this pseudonym I have been threatened again and again – but invariably by people who have no idea who I am. One poster at Amazon threatened to come over and lynch me. So, you know, my wife was right.
Now, I do not have evograd’s academic background and cannot write on scientific subjects with anything like that depth. But I can, in many cases, accurately summarize the views of biologists on topics which are of use in debunking creationism. I have often had scientists point to my explanations, in the course of such discussions, and let the creationists know that what I have said is right (or, of course, sometimes letting them know that it’s mostly right, with an edit or two). What does it matter whether my name is known? I say nothing that I say here, or elsewhere, on my own credibility or credentials. The same goes for evograd, whose responses to Jeanson’s awful, awful book are of the highest quality.
Actually, you are the one missing the point. You appear to not understand how science works.
Yes, we see creationists and apologists appealing to credentials and authorities. But science does not work that way at all.
By citing @evograd they made a very clear statement that they support what he said. For the most part, scientists are not particularly concerned about dignity. And they place their trust in evidence, not in authorities.
Your presentation is contradictory. If science relies on a faceless person, then it is not as open and reliable as possible, because then trust is partly based on blind faith. Objectivity is the ideal of science that should be pursued all the time! The prestige of science also suffers if the objectivity of individuals is also not ideal.
But nobody is “relying” on evograd here. Nobody is merely “trusting” evograd here. The scientists are saying that evograd is right, on the merits of the issues. Concurrence and reliance are two entirely different things. Nobody is just taking him (or her) at his word, and relying on his credibility.
Yes, it is trusting him when professors refer to him and not making their own writing on the subject. In this way, the faceless writer is given a show of confidence and some may begin to follow him and how you know what kind of statements he will make in the future. Because you don’t know who he/she really is. So it’s about trust and the fact that professors don’t make their own writing to emphasize it. Confidence in a faceless nickname.
You Toni blindly trust a person who has no idea about the topic they are writing about!
@evograd is correct in his assessment of Jeanson’s work. He’s really just reiterating a lot of basic stuff that any competent graduate student in his field should know, but Jeanson doesn’t. Jeanson simply isn’t at the level of someone who’s ideas merit a team of the world’s best and brightest minds dropping everything to comb over his every word.
@evograd has done an enormous public service in publishing his criticism but it’s not the sort of thing that has a lot of value within science because Jeanson’s claims are so divorced from reality it’s like taking the time to refute a flat earth manifesto.
No, it’s not. When a professor reads something I write and says, “yes, that’s correct,” he’s not “trusting” me. He’s affirming that I have made a statement within his field of expertise which is accurate. He’s confirming it, not relying on it.
Nobody is saying “because evograd accurately described the faults in Jeanson’s awful, awful book, everything evograd says, from now until his death, is true.” Nobody would say that. You’re really stretching here.
No. It is merely showing confidence and trust in the analysis evograd provided. Not just trusting the person himself. Trusting the scientific work provided.
That you keep making the same false claim isn’t doing much for your credibility here, ya know?