File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2004/bhaskar.0409, message 54


Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: shiv kumar <iconoclast2050-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: isn't this trolling?



 

FOR TOBIN, PHIL, HANS AND JAMIE

 

I knew there were ninnies on this list and, now it is fairly evident Tobin Nellhaus, Hans and Phil Walden personify the trait. 

 

To repeat, it is clear to the eye that Tim Murphy did not proffer a single argument but simply labelled E.O. Wilson. Instead of realizing this, Tobin, Hans and Phil have deemed it better to take sides  (for reasons best NOT know to them) than seize the matter. By this token, one can say that Tobin Nellhaus and Hans are insane. Should we take it that both are insane (assuming he is not) simply because he has been branded. This is precisely what Tim does – he simply labels. EVERY SINGLE MAIL THAT TIM MURPHY HAS WRITTEN IN THE LAST FIVE MONTHS IS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING ARGUMENT – whether it was labelling Tony Blair as LIAR, or Hutton Committee Report as being ‘biased’, or George Bush as being a sort of madcap. And, Phil says this is a ‘bit of ad hominem’. Phil, this is an understatement; it is ad hominem and NOTHING ELSE!!! 

 

And the trio believe that they are enaging in arguments! Humans understand so little of about themselves.

 

 Like a dimwit, Hans writes: ‘I do know the password and could uns*bscr*be Shiv, therefore Shiv, please consider yourself warned.’

This comes from a lister on Critical Realism! Cannot tolerate opposition! Has no counter-arguments. GO AHEAD DO IT. This is the pits of argumentative interaction!!!

 

Tobin Nellhaus too had failed, and failed completely to provide comprehensive rebuttals to the points raised about biological reductivism (his e-mails dated 9 and 17 November 2003 refer). 

Tobin may consider others as ‘crackers’, but so were Newton, Darwin, etc. considered in their times. Time shall prove whether Tobin is the real ‘cracker’ or not. Besides, he failed to provide any empirical evidence to rebut biological reductivism. So much for his conceit!!!

 

And, Jamie writes:

1. “Shiv given that you never directly respond to any formal argument-critique people seem to have ceased to bother to provide them. Directing people to”. 

 Who are these “people”? Jamie, you speak for yourself and not others; let others speak for themselves. If you have read my previous mails, all arguments were backed by what biological determinists are saying on the issue. One must first read and then criticize. 

 2. Jamie writes: “you seem guilty of that of which you accuse others and beneath that dogmatism surely resides a sense of superiority, and a highly negative one since it entails no drive to enlighten merely to browbeat.”

 

Jamie would like us to believe that enlightenment is a one-way affair. Contrarily, enlightenment is a two-way affair. Galileo/Newton/Darwin/Einstein plus people against witch-hunting tried to enlighten many people during their lifetime – how many people were enlightened? These scientists/reformers were ridiculed by many during their lifetime. Similarly, when I proffer arguments about biological reductivism, it is for the other side to come out of its shell, shed their prejudicial thinking (if they can). Then only they can be enlightened. In my previous mails, I have mentioned web-sites, writers like Matt Ridley, etc. but no one has been able to conclusively rebut these arguments, including Tobin Nellhaus. 

 

Some listers talk of rationalism, etc. but this notion is unable to provide a sound theory why a person suffering from ‘Alzheimer’s disease cannot reason. To explain this, one has to invariably take recourse to the functioning of biological mechanisms. Thus, if neurons, etc. (inaccessible to humans) can explain how a ‘diseased’ person behaves, why not a ‘healthy’ person? Why not determinism? What is your say in deciding your gender, your parents, your country of birth, etc. These are all given. And, these issues decide much of our life. So much for free will!!! People from Bangladesh are already the pariahs of the planet, for no fault of their own. This is free will!!! There is a game of nature going on since aeons. The biological mechanisms antecede us and have their own properties which we simply act out.

 

MY MESSAGE IS CLEAR – IF ‘BIOLOGICAL REDUCTIVISM’ IS INADEQUATE, DISPROVE IT WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. OTHERWISE, LEAVE IT OPEN AND LET SCIENCE TAKES IT COURSE.

 

Shiv

 

 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005