| 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] |
You suggest that Bob's "Thanks for so nicely making Rick's point!" is a provocation. Ok, so why misrepresent RICK'S position? It wasn't Rick who posted the provocation?
While I appreciate the recap, John, I hardly think that what has been
written in this particular thread is in any way a debate on the merits of
Global warming as you imply below, though the comments made here may be
related to one made at another time. Rick made the point HERE that there
appears to be an automatic reaction (hence "kneejerk") to anything that
smacks of disagreement with certain popular positions. I tend to agree with
him on that point. He goes on to suggest that in many cases this reaction
takes the form of attacks on the source rather than a consideration of the
merits of the argument. Indeed, that the argument itself is often not even
mentioned or considered, as every attempt is made to impeach the source
instead. While one certainly should consider the source, I agree with him
that at least giving a person's position SOME consideration is reasonable.
Note that I make no claim regarding anything that may have been in the past.
I can't help noting YOUR evenhanded response below "So it's interesting that
this debate is so quickly joined and even dominated (3-1 before this
writing) by those who feel themselves members of a persecuted minority, that
those voices should be so bad mannered, and that they should become so
indignant when the shortcomings of their own behavior and arguments is
pointed out".
I don't happen to have a horse in this particular race (Global warming, or
the mailing you're referencing), and I don't consider that pointing out the
fundamental unfairness of misstating a person's position is in any way "bad
mannered", nor do I consider that anything I posted constitutes a
"shortcoming of my own behavior or arguments". I don't care WHO you are,
you don't get a free pass to misrepresent someone's position as blatantly as
Alfredo did, but apparently you're willing to overlook such things as long
as the perpetrator is "polite". I find it odd that my comments were
apparently impolite and ill-mannered simply because I pointed out HIS
"shortcomings of behavior and argument". Sorry about that; apparently if
you are perceived to belong to the "right group", your missteps are ignored,
but anything anyone says in opposition is automatically ("kneejerk" again)
bad-mannered, ill-behaved, and lacking in argument. That's an interesting
philosopical tightrope you're walking, John.
In any event, John, the reason I reacted to the "brief caricature" is
because THAT is what I found objectionable. I ALWAYS find it objectionable
when such a tactic is employed, REGARDLESS of the position a person may
take. You suggest that Bob's "Thanks for so nicely making Rick's point!" is
a provocation. Ok, so why misrepresent RICK'S position? It wasn't Rick who
posted the provocation? Why insult ME in your post when all I did was to
point out the unfairness of Alfredo's "caricature". Oh, and I hasten to
point out that a caricature is an exaggeration of reality, not a rewriting
or misrepresentation of it. I think you're being overly kind by calling it
a caricature.
Oh, and I guess it's a good thing that "despite (your) compulsion to comment
on what (you) see as uncivil and unjust
attacks on Alfredo" you managed to avoid taking sides and instead commented
dispassionately. <g>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mallinckrodt" <ajm@csupomona.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Global Warming [was: Is evolution something to
believein?]
I suspect that this list is likely to be overwhelmingly populated by
advocates of the scientific consensus position on global warming. So
it's interesting that this debate is so quickly joined and even
dominated (3-1 before this writing) by those who feel themselves
members of a persecuted minority, that those voices should be so bad
mannered, and that they should become so indignant when the
shortcomings of their own behavior and arguments is pointed out.
Let's review:
1. Rick began this side thread (from a discussion of evolution) by
writing in part:
When scientists question human induced global warming, the first
(knee-jerk) response from the 'mainstream' community is to attack
the credentials and/or the motivations of the critics.
Note the gratuitous insertion of the adjective "knee jerk." Rick
goes on to point to the mass mailing from the Oregon Institute of
Science and suggests that the uproar over that mailing was little or
nothing more than an attack on the authors' credentials. He finishes
by expressing dismay, albeit winkingly so -- i.e. " ;-( " -- at the
character assassinations he finds in previous threads.
2. Alfredo responds to the mischaracterization in Rick's post by
politely reminding us that the reaction to the OIS mailing(s) was at
least significantly if not entirely about the remarkably dishonest
nature of their methods. And, unlike Rick, he provides links for
those who may have missed the episode and are interested in learning
more.
3. Bob responds to Alfredo's reasoned reply with the unhelpful and at
least disingenuous comment, reproduced here in its entirety:
Thanks for so nicely making Rick's point!
4. Alfredo responds to Bob's provocation (for that is sure what it
was) with a brief caricature of Rick's position that might be less
forgivable under very different circumstances and goes on to provide
a lengthy and rational response to the impudent implications of Bob's
comment.
5. Ron reacts to the brief caricature, completely ignores the
disingenuous provocation that stimulated it, and shrugs off the vast
bulk of Alfredo's comments writing:
With due respect, the response above is a gross misrepresentation
of what "Rick's point" was. I suppose the idea here is to
exaggerate/misrepresent his position in order to trivialize his
argument or to marginalize his opposing viewpoint? Wait, wasn't
THAT his point?!
6. In a similarly restrained response designed to get at the
substance of the arguments and avoid the "character assassination
that he so abhors, Rick writes:
This is a totally false and totally bull-**** interpretation of
what I said. I think it is time to put Alfredo on my kill list. I
won't trouble the list with any more of this crap.
Despite my compulsion to comment on what I see as uncivil and unjust
attacks on Alfredo, I am confident that most readers of this list can
review the conversation so far and come to their own conclusions.
John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona