+1. This is wisdom.
Warfare rhetoric
I’m not saying that Len Solomon uses warfare rhetoric. I’m saying you use it when you assert a conspiracy theory among scientists. Allow me to remind you of your conspiracy rhetoric:
I am not doubting your sincerity when you make this statement; I am questioning your accuracy.
Misplaced confidence
I see you relentlessly telling PdotdQ that he does not understand reference frames in his own field of study, astrophysics. And here’s your expertise in that field of study in your own words:
You have also earned many rebukes for your poorly informed assertions:
Attack on the Integrity and Intelligence of Mainstream Scientists
Here’s some of the “good” science I’ve seen you advocate here on PS:
- Cahill’s aether conjecture
- Sanford’s erroneous citation of a paper estimating RNA virus origins.
- Judson and Ritter’s 1964 estimate of the age of the geological column, which has since been overtaken by plate tectonics and the identification of processes that add mass to watersheds.
In other words, what you think is good science and what the overwhelming majority of scientists think is good science are completely different.
If your understanding is indeed off the mark, then my critique hits the bull’s eye. The only way my critique could be a misrepresentation is if your constant citations to outdated and refuted papers is indeed good science.
Double Standard in Presenting Evidentiary Bases
Another point: you are determined to point out every place where consensus science has not yet figured everything out. At the same time, when you are honest here on the forum, you admit that the view you are advocating to your class is vastly weaker than that of consensus science:
Shouldn’t this be the headline in your class, rather than a footnote buried off in a forum that none of your students will read? You go at consensus science hammer and tongs in your course materials, and yet the view you promote as an alternative is on an overwhelmingly weaker footing that you fail to mention.
I read your slide presentations you prepared for you class, Sal. Nowhere in that class material do you even hint at the debility of what you advocate to your students.
I also saw nothing like this in the material you prepared for your class, IIRC:
In those slide presentations, you are not giving the class the full truth, because you do not mention these critical perspectives on the YEC and ID positions
Again, this is based on my recollection of what I read a couple of months ago. If I overlooked something in your course materials, please feel free to point it out.
My $.02,
Chris