I don't think we disagree about the severity (as you pointed out
below); we disagree about the nature of it (so far as I can tell).
> GB>See above. You don't seem to understand the substance of the debate. If
> >you did, you would know that your Gould quotes don't address the issue.
>
> Greg, at least *I* have posted excerpts from "the debate", whereas
> you have just made unsubstantiated comments about your understanding
> of my understanding of it! How about resolving this issue by *you*
> citing some excerpts from "the debate" by the protagonists to support
> your assertions?
We seem to be reading the same materials, which have been referenced. I'm
at a loss to explain your view of them.
> GB>This is exactly the reason that the fight is fairly vicious, as these
> >things go--both think that their approach ought to be the mainstream.
>
> Earlier you claimed that "these are signs of a vibrant and advancing
> theory", but now you say it is a "fight" that is "vicious"! At least
> we both agree on the last part!
Actually, I wondered whether you saw fights in the creationist camp (i.e.
OEC vs. YEC) as these "signs". I think the High Table fights are signs
that egos are getting involved in the scientific debate, which debate may
be a good sign, but the ego business will probably only obscure any
progress (if not outright hinder) that is made, so it is hard to declare
on it one way or the other.
> GB>Again, since you side with Dawkins in the fight, perhaps it is more
> >clear why Gould shouldn't be taken at face value, since (according to
> Dawkins and you) he is fighting a losing battle.
>
> I had just said "I don't `side' with either Dawkins or Gould. I
> think they are *both* wrong!" That I think that Dawkins and Maynard
> Smith are the "the true Darwinists" does not mean that I "side" with
> them. I think Gould is right about the fossil evidence, too.
Well, that's what I meant by 'side'--as in 'take the side of'. (Which
you manifestly do.) Please try to remember about multiple senses of
words and the fact that everyone doesn't carry the same "default"
meaning you do. This goes for 'conspiracy' too.
> It wasn't "hastily" at all-I still stand by what I said. But you are
> shifting ground. Your original claim was that "the public cares even
> less about evolutionary theory than it does about QUANTUM physics"
> (my emphasis). First it was the "Copenhagen Interpretation", then it
> was "quantum physics", now its just plain old "physics"!
I think I said one thing one time and another when I actually made
a prediction about the press. It is just an idea though. Actually,
it would probably be more relevant to look for interest in this particular
debate (the High Table debate, as its often called), vs. the Copenhagen
debate. Alas, I'd guess that references to both combined in the popular
press are probably very low.
-Greg