Re: Enough is enough

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>]

At 17:02 -0500 2/13/03, David Bowman wrote:
>  BTW, I do not advocate banning DR from the list.  Rather, I encourage
> everyone else on the list to delete his posts unread and, especially,
> to never answer or engage them in any way so as to prolong our
> collective misery.  I prefer the Amish solution of shunning, to the
> practice of excommunication endulged in by other communities.
I, too, share David's reluctance to exile someone from the list. But
there comes a time when the troll-like behavior of a correspondent
can subvert the purpose of the list, and at that point something must
be done.

"Shunning" has an appeal, but also some problems. First, it has to be
universal. If anyone picks up on the things the "troll" is saying,
then the level of discourse tends to grow exponentially. At some
point others are tempted to add their weight to the discussion and so
it goes. Secondly, as with the Amish custom, it it easy to take the
shunning as resulting from a lack of orthodoxy. David Rutherford came
to the list from an extremely unorthodox stance, which, in and of
itself is not bad. What was bad was that he refused to be educated,
changing the questions he asked, and ignoring the answers given, and
finally becoming abusive.

In scientific circles, we are supposed to revere lack of orthodoxy.
After all, it is one of the primary ways that science advances. And
the dilemma we always face is how to distinguish between the next
Galileo and the next Blondlot (of N-ray fame). So simply ignoring him
would only reinforce his, and perhaps others', view that in fact
scientists are closed minded bigots who refuse to argue their case
with anyone who disagrees with them, and are engaged in a conspiracy
to preserve the orthodox viewpoint at all costs.

Many in the creationist camp already hold this view about science.

Hence, I think we need to indulge such people until such time as they
show their true colors, and DR eventually did. When he started
becoming abusive to list members, he stepped beyond the bounds of
rational debate, and his departure, either voluntary or forced, is
the reasonable thing to have happen.

I think we hold the moral high ground here. DR was not banished
because he refused to acknowledge "the truth" but because he was not
willing to engage in civilized debate or to do what scientists are
expected to do--submit their ideas to the test of nature. In fact, at
the end, he seemed to me to be  crafting his assertions so that no
conceivable experiment could refute them--a sure sign of pathological
science.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
                       --Douglas Adams
******************************************************