# Side Comments on Progress after the Royal Society Conference

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Comments\
**Created:** [January 18, 2026, 8:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641 "2026-01-18T20:01:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 8:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641/9 "2026-01-18T20:17:17Z")

</div>

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > Just (as I have mentioned) they dismiss other statements that they see come from nonreasoning causes, just as you all do here, when you claim my statements are due to some non-reason, such as being sheer speculation, or due to some unthinking commitment to intelligent design, etc.
> 
> Well, you provide a perfect example of that!

Are you admitting that people here are applying the principle of rejecting reasoning if they perceive it’s cause by nonreasoning causes?

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > And indeed I know what an ad hominem fallacy is, people use this all the time on me, for example, saying I don’t understand words, or that I just obfuscate, contradict myself, and wander around at random!
> 
> None of those are _ad hominem_. Why not just admit that you don’t know what it means?

Well, indeed they are, see my response on this to John Harshman.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > My view is that natural selection could possibly produce a brain that has valid reasoning, just like a tornado could assemble my laptop!
> 
> That’s just regurgitation of an invalid analogy:
> 
> 1. Your laptop is not alive. It does not replicate.
> 2. Natural selection is not random.

But all aspects do not have to agree, to have a valid analogy. The objects must be different, actually, to even be an analogy. And the claim was that evolution, and tornados, are mindless, unguided processes.

> [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/167):
>
> > [@Progress after the Royal Society conference?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17569/155):
> >
> > I think I used that example.
> 
> It’s an example of your inability to engage in basic reasoning.

Another example of rejecting my reasoning, because it is viewed as coming from an unreasoning cause! Not to mention an ad hominem…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-progress-after-the-royal-society-conference/17641)._