The Argument Clinic

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Eddie

That’s not “Eddie’s position.” His position is that scientific debate ought to be about data and the interpretation of data, about hypotheses and means of confirming or disconfirming them, and that political partisanship (which quite obviously motivates, e.g., Michael Mann, as his private emails prove), arguments from authority, ad hominem arguments, etc. should have no place, either in science itself, or in public policy debates that concern scientific matters.

This “Eddie” fellow must be some-one other than you then, since you are posting arguments from authority in the form of opinions and interviews, not data and hypotheses.

[CrisprCAS9]

@Eddie

should have no place, either in science itself, or in public policy debates that concern scientific matters.

You don’t consider the fact that your source has a demonstrable career of lying about climate science to be a relevant consideration? Odd.

[Faizal_Ali]

@CrisprCAS9

You don’t consider the fact that your source has a demonstrable career of lying about climate science to be a relevant consideration? Odd.

Being “gentlemanly” absolves a scientist from having to be honest or competent. Didn’t you know that’s how it works?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Faizal_Ali

The actual words you write here bely what you claim to be saying. You are fooling no one.

Textbook Eddie. It should be about the data and science, except he doesn’t debate that, he just “informs” and then tone-polices and makes himself appear a victim.

They do this every time and it’s because they have no real data or science to back them up. Eddie so perfectly fits the mold of a conservative think tank shill.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Roy

Your misquote of Coyne , which you have not only never corrected, but continued to use after it was shown to be a misquote.[1]

You have got to be kidding me. This was a long time ago when I first got on this forum and was trying to sort things out with you guys. I don’t know why you are bringing it up, but you actually prove my previous point I made to @John_Harshman.

Again, I threw away a number of scientific arguments from various sources based on your guys objections and feedback and you just gave an example of this.

I stopped using it a long time ago.

@Roy

You don’t read the works you cite yourself, so why should anyone believe you are willing to read the works cited by others? AFAICR you’ve never answered this.

How would you know if you don’t read the sources on quantum physics yourself?

@Roy

Your response to his article being cited was to copy part of the index and not address the contents at all. You show no sign of even reading that article, let alone trying to understand it or discuss it. This isn’t an isolated incident either.

Very soon, I will create a thread that outlines the advantages common design theory has over common descent and why it is a better explanation hands down. I will show better signs that I read his article there.

@John_Harshman

So far we don’t even know that the gene trees are discordan

oh yes we do:

Phylogenomic conflict coincides with rapid morphological innovation | PNAS

Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats - PMC (nih.gov)

@Mercer

My hypothesis: Bill has zero interest in learning if his ID hypothesis is correct.

Empirical prediction: if John and Cisteron go through all of this, there will be no coherent response from Bill.

That is certainly not the vibe I get from @colewd nor is it the case for me.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

oh yes we do:

The discussion was of discordance between two particular genes for two particular sets of taxa. You interjection is not relevant.

@Meerkat_SK5

That is certainly not the vibe I get from @colewd nor is it the case for me.

You aren’t qualified to get a vibe, and certainly not qualified to judge your own coherence.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Roy

Your misquote of Coyne , which you have not only never corrected, but continued to use after it was shown to be a misquote.[1]

You have got to be kidding me. This was a long time ago when I first got on this forum and was trying to sort things out with you guys. I don’t know why you are bringing it up, but you actually prove my previous point I made to @John_Harshman.

Again, I threw away a number of scientific arguments from various sources based on your guys objections and feedback and you just gave an example of this.

You definitely did not throw that ‘argument’ away, because you re-used it unchanged more than a year later.

@Meerkat_SK5

I stopped using it a long time ago.

You were still using it more than a year after it was debunked. You’ve never explicitly retracted it. So I don’t believe you.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Roy

See above. An example of where you were told exactly why you were wrong, which you ignored by (i) blaming some-one else, (ii) continuing to lie about your sources and (iii) using the same misquote again as if you’d never been shown it was a misquote.

We know how you responded to this criticism - you repeated your original claim as if it had never been challenged.

Nor is this an isolated instance. There are hundreds more.

But go ahead. Explain how you think you responded satisfactorily to this objection.

[No response]

Can’t say I’m surprised.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Roy

You don’t read the works you cite yourself, so why should anyone believe you are willing to read the works cited by others? AFAICR you’ve never answered this.

How would you know if you don’t read the sources on quantum physics yourself?

And you still haven’t answered it.

I know because I’ve read other sources you have cited but not read.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Roy

Your response to his article being cited was to copy part of the index and not address the contents at all. You show no sign of even reading that article, let alone trying to understand it or discuss it. This isn’t an isolated incident either.

Very soon, I will create a thread that outlines the advantages common design theory has over common descent and why it is a better explanation hands down. I will show better signs that I read his article there.

But you won’t/can’t now. Conclusion: you haven’t read it yet.

[Meerkat_SK5]

Still waiting for @John_Harshman to explain why modular design principles cannot applied to nested hierarchy of species or my model for it is incoherent. Look up post 811

Still waiting for @Michael_Okoko to explain why the evidence I presented does not show archetypes before the inception of vertebrate species. Look up post 863

Still waiting for @Mercer and @Gisteron to explain why my hypothesis is not a testable scientific model. Look up post 882.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Meerkat_SK5

Still waiting

This is the argument clinic. Why should we argue for free?

[Tim]

@RonSewell

Why should we argue for free?

We could be arguing in our spare time.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Meerkat_SK5

Still waiting for @Michael_Okoko to explain why the evidence I presented does not show archetypes before the inception of vertebrate species. Look up post 863

I was actually crafting a response, but I knew it was a futile effort and so I gave up. There are more important things to do with my time.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@RonSewell

This is the argument clinic. Why should we argue for free?

I am not sure what this even means but… My point was that I was accused by many of you all that I did not address your objections.

I was showing everyone that it is actually the other way around because my follow up responses continue to be ignored.

If this continues, then I agree with others here that it is futile to continue the dialog on this subject.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Michael_Okoko

I was actually crafting a response, but I knew it was a futile effort and so I gave up. There are more important things to do with my time.

Yes I am glad you finally realized that you were WRONG the first time around.

Now, you are free to go on your merry way.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Meerkat_SK5

I am not sure what this even means but…

Never trust someone who doesn’t know his Monty Python;

[CrisprCAS9]

Wikipedia:Stop that, it's silly

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

Still waiting for @John_Harshman to explain why modular design principles cannot applied to nested hierarchy of species or my model for it is incoherent. Look up post 811

Yeah, sorry. I looked at post 811 and it was just long-refuted gibberish. I may have previously mentioned the futility of trying to talk to you. Nothing about that has changed.

You may, if you wish, claim victory inside your head.

[Meerkat_SK5]

@John_Harshman

Yeah, sorry. I looked at post 811 and it was just long-refuted gibberish. I may have previously mentioned the futility of trying to talk to you. Nothing about that has changed.

No, that was not the main thing I wanted you to address. I wanted you to explain why modular design principles cannot be applied to nested hierarchy of species.

All I got was radio silence.

But, if you need to do this to make it look like you refuted my case in front of your non-believing pals…

I will leave you all to your sponge-imagination and be on my merry way.

[John_Harshman]

@Meerkat_SK5

I will leave you all to your sponge-imagination and be on my merry way.

Yes, please.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Meerkat_SK5

@Michael_Okoko

I was actually crafting a response, but I knew it was a futile effort and so I gave up. There are more important things to do with my time.

Yes I am glad you finally realized that you were WRONG the first time around

LOL. Keep on deluding yourself.