>
>My point is, that criticism without an alternative is nothing but stone
>throwing. It is saying "I don't like your view, but I can't think of anything
>else."
>
I just wanted to make a few generic comments, not directed specifically
at Glenn or Paul or anyone else (primarily because I haven't been
following this thread too closely :).
While I think (hope) I understand and appreciate Glenn's frustration,
I feel very strongly that everyone has a fundamental, constitutional,
inalienable, God given, not to be messed with ;-) right to be a
skeptic and to offer criticism even if she has no alternative.
However, the skeptic who has no alternative should openly admit
that they have no alternative.
In practice, it seems to me that most skeptics *do* have an
alternative, and their criticisms are given either to avoid
having to defend their own view or under the mistaken notion
that evidence against an alternative view is evidence for
their view. This practice is, IMHO, totally unacceptable.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |