Sure. But in order for me to talk about your minutia, you would have had to have created it. I stated I couldn’t speak to the other assertions you made but I felt this one should have to be defended by you. No need to do so, later I had read your post on communication style, so I don’t expect an answer that you haven’t already given. Now that we are on the same page, we can move on.

My apologies for not clarifying the “trolling” comment. I didn’t mean to say that you’re a troll in the internet definition of the word.

Actually, I was using the word trolling in a classical sense, as in baiting several lines and waiting for something to bite as you go along. Rather than focus on what claims made by Psarris have been shown untrue or woefully incomplete, you’re focused on minutia about my ideas of his level of education in the subject where he attempts to play expert without having the requisite knowledge to do so.

Oh no, the “T” word! I see, you give an opinion, it’s fine. I give the opposite opinion and it’s trolling.

I’ll remind you that this whole discussion is centered around the argument of Plait against Psarris, not based on the substance of his assertions but on the perceived intentions of Psarris using a specific word.

“I’m not a philosopher. I don’t and have no intention of endlessly going back and forth about how facts and issues are being expressed instead of what the facts and issues actually are.”

I see that now. I Wish I had read your new post on how you choose to “communicate” and why before I even bothered mentioning the tone of discussions of anyone.

I’ll be happy to leave aside philosophy in discussions and just talk about “facts”.

While you invested hundreds of words in talking about tone and who’s nice and who’s not, your actual discussion of real world data, of actual evidence and of the quality of sources is not there. In other words, you have a discussion about style based on style without any real substance. The only fact you mentioned came from a quote I provided in the post.

I’m not a philosopher. I don’t and have no intention of endlessly going back and forth about how facts and issues are being expressed instead of what the facts and issues actually are.

Where exactly did you show that he, “never watched even a single pop sci documentary on solar system formation”?

“I have no obligation to be nice to a very grating pseudo-scientist who insists on spreading misinformation for profit.”

You don’t have an obligation to be nice to anyone but the use of belittlement in a debate of ideas is a weak position.

“His tone can be summed up as “you’re all stupid, scientists are all shills for Darwin, now me, I’m smart so you should all listen to me.” And then he expects to be treated with kid gloves. Sorry, not in me to offer that kind of concession.”

Hmmm, I don’t see that as being the case at all. The norm from my experience is that the “shills for Darwin” are the ones that have the monopoly on calling the other side stupid. I guess it depends on whether or not you think those you are intending to affect change with think being “mean”, for whatever reason, is valid evidence for persuasion.

By the way, sorry for the previous post, It was a stretch of relevance to our conversation at this point.

I don’t have much else to say on this topic but would enjoy conversations with you and others on perhaps other topics outside of the catfight between these two authors.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/28/the-evolution-of-creationist-astronomy/

All I can say is wow. Where to start…

“Oh you wacky creationists!” Ok, the very first sentence of the article starts off with a logical fallacy by attempting to poison the well.

“You make it all too easy. A warning: while easy, it does take some time to debunk a creationist’s blatherings. So I indulge your allowance of this somewhat lengthy dissection.”

It is very easy when you don’t bother to actually do it. He even admits so here:

“Now, I did decline to debunk his video on its claims”

“as I’m rather a busy guy these days”

Irrelevant. Don’t blog about his claims then.

“and all his arguments boil down to “science doesn’t know this yet”, which is a losing fight and always will be.”

This is just a declaration of opinion and means nothing.

“Instead, I challenged him on the use of the world “evolution”, because it’s painfully obvious he is using it as a buzzword meant to sway people emotionally, and not rationally.”

Kind of how he uses the word, “creationist”.

“Evolution is of course a word used like a blunt instrument by creationists to gather the flock… and then, usually, shear them. And when they use it, it’s also very clearly an allusion to biological evolution.”

Again, just opinion and he gives zero evidence that the person he is pointing at has done this.

“He does indicate that I don’t attack his specific points, but as I said clearly I didn’t intend to as there’s no need. ”

LOL, how convenient.
“First, as I said, it’s clear that is not why he uses the term in the video.”

Ok, when are you going to actually prove that? That’s right, “there’s no need” to do that either. Just declare it so and that’s all that is required.

“Third, (in general) creationists deny biological evolution can happen.”

That’s purposefully a skewed generalization, creationists don’t deny that changes occur with the lower hierarchy of biological classification’s, only in the upper.

” it’s still clear that the reason he uses that word is to generate an emotional response in his listeners. It’s as hollow and empty a use as any other political term hung by one group on an opposing group. Anti-choice, pro-abortion; neither is entirely accurate, and both clearly were coined just to elicit a visceral response, not a rational one.”

For the sake of argument, Kettle, meet Pot.

“Another point. He makes a big deal claiming that I call him a liar in my previous post. In fact I do not, and I never use that word. I imply he has born false witness, but actually that literally means not telling the truth. That’s different than a lie; people can simply be wrong, and think they are right.

That may seem like I’m splitting hairs, but I would argue that bearing false witness would include using a term you know is not really appropriate even if you think that the core of your argument is correct. It’s a method of speaking that is less than truthful without actually being a lie.”

“Bearing false witness” is a legal term used in the Old Testament and refers to a person knowingly making a false statement in a “court” that has bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused and is intended to prevent justice. i.e. it’s LYING. Plait’s obfuscation isn’t effective.

“In fact, I do not use an ad hominem attack: I don’t attack him personally at all, I attack his (mis)use of a word.”

Righhht.

“He is also setting up a false argument here; you can use an ad hominem when your opponent is dead wrong, too. Just because one person uses an ad hominem — which, remember, I did not — does not mean the other person’s arguments are right.”

True but until you even attempt to refute his arguments, it leaves you just sitting there name calling.

“So his methodology is clear: misdirections and distraction. As for his claims themselves… if someone wants to”

LOL, isn’t that what YOU choose to do Plait, use a methodology of misdirection and distraction versus debating the substance of his arguments? That’s rhetorical of course, since it is clear. Also, I thought there was “no need” to refute his arguments?

I provided the arguments. I cited my sources. I have no obligation to be nice to a very grating pseudo-scientist who insists on spreading misinformation for profit. His tone can be summed up as “you’re all stupid, scientists are all shills for Darwin, now me, I’m smart so you should all listen to me.” And then he expects to be treated with kid gloves. Sorry, not in me to offer that kind of concession.

You can certainly have that opinion.

“He’s put up a few books with the word evolution in the title regarding the development of planets, stars and galaxies”

A few books? I think it reasonably showed it to be common and not the exception.

“Right. Psarris asserts a lot of things but manages to dodge providing an explanation of how exactly this would mean that the current model of planetary formation is wrong”

That I don’t know, so I can’t agree or disagree at this point.

“or nonsensical absolutist statements that could be made only by someone who’s never watched even a single pop sci documentary on solar system formation.”

Attacking the person versus the substance of their argument, may make us feel good but it doesn’t change the substance of a debate, only the tone. The substance of your arguments should be able to stand on their own.

But this is exactly to what his argument boils down. He’s put up a few books with the word evolution in the title regarding the development of planets, stars and galaxies, then, like most creationists, sang praises to himself and how his arguments are so incredible in their insightfulness that no scientist can possibly counter them. In other words, what one would call verbal onanism.

The substance of this issue is that if Jupiter has a sufficiently “small” core, it poses a problem to the evolutionary model of planets, as Psarris asserts.

Right. Psarris asserts a lot of things but manages to dodge providing an explanation of how exactly this would mean that the current model of planetary formation is wrong and the only alternative is a 6,000 year old universe. He does the same thing in a rant about Mercury, where his best arguments are basically the wrong answers on a test in a middle school science class, or nonsensical absolutist statements that could be made only by someone who’s never watched even a single pop sci documentary on solar system formation.

That’s not what I read in his rebuttal nor from the related comments of others on that post. They specifically addressed the critics on that.

“and if you want direct evidence for the mass of Jupiter’s core from scientists, you should be demanding it from Psarris as well.”

I didn’t watch these videos. I call only speak to what I read, which I admit is rather limited to the link I gave. Perhaps there is more to it but from what I read there and the comments of his detractors, I think the scope of the context was reasonably demostrated. Based on that, I didn’t get the impression that Psarris was making a claim about the actual size of the core of Jupiter, rather he was pointing out the flaws of the claims of scientists that have. The substance of this issue is that if Jupiter has a sufficiently “small” core, it poses a problem to the evolutionary model of planets, as Psarris asserts.