Re: [asa] Edward O. Wilson shares Dawkins' basic vie ws

At 10:51 PM 9/29/2006, George Murphy wrote that Janice wrote:
>At 12:25 PM 9/27/2006, George Murphy wrote:
>
>>Alas, poor Janice, ... the fact that her environmental claims (with
>>a novelist as her main authority) .."
>
>@ I see that you don't mind embarrassing yourself in
>public. Informed, intellectually honest, critical thinkers know -
>(based upon my past posts here and elsewhere which are a matter of
>public record) - that I don't cite a mere "novelist" as my "main
>authority" for my environmental claims/views.
>Among many of the scientists that I have cited as the authorities
>whose opinions I esteem - is this person, whose opinions you appear
>to believe you can get others to dismiss if they are dumb enough to
>believe your deliberate depiction of him as a mere "novelist":
>
>Bio: CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois,
>October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge,
>Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry
>Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in
>Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated
>Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk
>Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970.
>Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.
>
>And here are some more of the links to scientists / web sites that I
>have previously cited to back up my claims:
>
>http://climateaudit.org/
>http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
>http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html
>http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
>http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
>http://www.junkscience.com/
>..............................
>George responds: Crichton's reputation is as a novelist & his views
>on the environment would carry no weight in the public arena if not for that.

@@ Some would say that he who uses illogical non-sequiturs in
defense of his position in a public on-line discussion of an issue,
has contempt for the critical thinking skills of those who may be
reading. Given the fact that you use that tactic consistently, it
indicates that you apparently have had a lot of success in getting
the easily distracted to go sniffing off in the direction you want
them to go when you drag those red herrings across the trail.

>George continues: & of course I have never suggested that no
>scientist disagrees with what I correctly described as the
>scientific consensus that the world is faced with serious
>environmental problems, a major one of which is global warming.

@@ A scientist's reputation and his views on the environment would
carry no weight with religious progressives unless his Marcusian
Marxist credentials were
impeccable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

>George continues: You are the one who should be embarassed at your
>foolish claim that a person who is wrong about one thing must be
>wrong about everything.

@@ Since I made no such claim, and agree that it would be foolish to
believe such a thing, you have revealed yourself to be a careless
reader... or worse.

>George continues: My only reason for embarassment in this matter is
>being associated in a public medium with an ideological fanatic like
>yourself. I take that risk only because views like yours in this
>matter are so toxic that everything possible should be done to keep
>them from influencing the gullible.

@@ By your consistent use of red herrings, non sequiturs, straw man
arguments and other diversionary rhetorical tactics, you prove
without a doubt that you are definitely an expert on the subject of
what it takes to influence the gullible. :)

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 30 16:04:53 2006