Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions



Rick, I've noticed that my postings often have a tendency to elicit responses from you that I personally find to be remarkably over the top, using language that I would consider uncivil coming from anyone, and yet motivating others to subsequently accuse *me* of "demonizing those who hold differing views." I'm hard pressed to see any justification whatsoever for what you write here, especially as you have gone to some lengths to trim things in order to focus specifically on *my* previous remarks.

Maybe someone else (Brian?) could help educate me about what it is that I said that justifies Rick's reaction. Personally, I thought I was being pretty fair-minded.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

On Nov 16, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Dr. Richard Tarara wrote:

So ALL of the (expletive deleted), godless atheists who are going to rot in
hell are liberal Democrats? Anyone who voted for a Republican (and all
Republicans) are anti science, religious nut cases? I really am on the
verge of quitting this list because of all the name calling, blanket
characterizations, snide and sarcastic responses to legitimate posts, etc.
The mean-spirited characterizations I've been reading here fit NOBODY I
know. Mostly what I'm seeing are attempts to ridicule those with different
ideas and different political (even religious) viewpoints. If it
continues--I for one, am gone.

Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, Indiana
*******************************************
Free Physics Instructional Software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
********************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mallinckrodt" <ajm@csupomona.edu>


I strongly agree with everything John Clement says here with one important
exception. Like John, I believe we do a grave disservice to science by
saying transparently ridiculous things like "there is no evidence for
Intelligent Design." Those who subscribe to ID see virtually nothing BUT
evidence for their beliefs. The only relevant point is that ID is
manifestly NOT science because it is inconceivable that anyone would ever
find evidence AGAINST it.

The only point of disagreement I have is with John's claim that it is a
"mislabeling" to call science "liberal." I could take the sarcastic, if
not also defensible, position that "reality has a liberal bias," but I
will note only that science requires above all intense skepticism,
openness to new data, and willingness to change one's viewpoint in the
face of evidence against one's cherished positions, traits that I have no
trouble whatsoever characterizing as "liberal." I don't deny the
existence of "religious scientists," but I would maintain that anyone who
brings traditional religious habits and "ways of knowing" into the lab
with them, at the very least operates under a very significant handicap.


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l