• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

FT246

You've dismissed one of the finest writers on the occluded (IMO) because his world view doesn't match your's. I hardly think you can take me to task for personalising the issue.
 
colpepper1 said:
You've dismissed one of the finest writers on the occluded (IMO) because his world view doesn't match your's. I hardly think you can take me to task for personalising the issue.
Click to expand...

I criticised his article for containing factual errors concerning science in general and the theory of evolution in particular. Not a word of personal criticism. No dismissal.

You, on the other hand, have resorted to pointing out spelling errors and making personal digs because of some perceived insult to one of your heroes. I'm just glad you're not petty.
 
Perhaps you'd like to address Harpur's points individually then rather than grapeshot his reputation. This may not be the appropriate thread however. If you want to begin another that challenges his observations meaningfully, i.e. not 'bring me the head of a daemon', I'll be happy to contribute.
 
colpepper1 said:
All Harpur's article did was put a spotlight on the way science makes leaps of faith that resemble those of non-science. You can argue with his conclusions but his main point holds up pretty well. The rush to cast him as anti-scientific is premature and extremely partial.
Click to expand...

No he didn't! He simply took the hackneyed "science is just another faith" approach, completely ignored how scientists have actually studied evolution and what the believe in favour of his own (wrong) version. I think the technical term is a "straw man" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You do at least have to have some glimmering of scientific method before you can criticise it.

And the obsession with daemons from both Harpurs is beginning to grate. They are an equivalent of the "god of the gaps" - whatever you can't easily explain is a daemon, a substitute for thought or investigation.
 
Everyone is of course, entitled to their opinion. As I said previously it's absurd that every article in FT has to pass some scientific litmus test, especially when Harpur was offering an alternative view that doesn't rest on scientific proofs.

They are offered presumably, to people with whom they resonate or challenge but like any challenge they require engagement. Harpur had little to say on Creationist evolutionary readings, Pagan ones or those approved by the Vatican, none of whom send regular broadsides in reply.
It feels as though FT has attracted an audience who are affronted by it's speculative approach and greet each issue as an opportunity to rage at whatever un-scientific content the issue has - such readers have always been there but one wonders why they bother.
 
*Ahem* I thought the ABC article was a lot more interesting than usual this issue, added a supernatural aspect to the subject.
 
Still waiting for my copy to arrive. That's the only problem with living in Australia, waiting for FT to arrive in the (former) colony!
 
Re: Tinyurl

uncle_slacky said:
Tinyurl does provide a preview option, if desired:

http://tinyurl.com/preview.php
Click to expand...
That's not much use in a print magazine...

The point is that I'm not going to bother firing up my computer while reading FT just to find out what website is being referenced.

A tinyurl link is useless as a reference. Look at it this way: if references to books were just the ISBN you'd have to keep going off to look up the number just to find out what the book is. You wouldn't bother, and so the value of the reference is practically zero.

I do see that huge long links are a problem, but if the source being referenced is much longer than something like sitename.tld/directory/page then well, IMO that already says something about the credibility of the site as a source in the first place.
 
colpepper1 said:
Perhaps you'd like to address Harpur's points individually then rather than grapeshot his reputation.

This may not be the appropriate thread however. If you want to begin another that challenges his observations meaningfully, i.e. not 'bring me the head of a daemon', I'll be happy to contribute.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd like to stop just making things up as you go along. I'm trying to think of a good reason for wanting to engage someone in debate who so wilfully misrepresents what I've said.

I'm not here to help you indulge in your personal prejudices. Luckily, Mr Harpur's article serves that purpose wonderfully in my stead.
 
Dr_Baltar said:
colpepper1 said:
Dr_Baltar said:
in my stead.
Click to expand...
:lol:
Click to expand...

Intelligent discourse is alive and well. Shall we just start calling each other names and get it over with? :D
Click to expand...
I apologise unreservedly. You're grumpiness at the article amused me, I don't know why.
 
colpepper1 said:
You're grumpiness at the article amused me, I don't know why.
Click to expand...

You needn't worry, it takes more than the nonsense contained in Harpur's diatribe to make me grumpy. Life's way too short.
 
My £0.02 on the "evolution" article: Harpur's ignorance about the state of the fossil record is not evidence that there are holes in evolutionary theory.
 
My £0.02 on the Harpur article: there may be holes in evolutionary theory, but even bigger MEGA SWISS CHEESE ONES in the creationist/ID alternative. In fact, Harpur's essay was so mind-numbingly stupid I couldn't even be bothered to finish it. Fundamental problem (if we're talking specifics): Harpur seems completely ignorant of the fact that structurally intact fossilisation is/was/and will continue to be an extremely rare occurrence(as is the actual process of fossilisation itself), and that the only reason we have as many complex animal fossils as we do is down entirely to the enormous number of creatures that have gone before us. Along with the sheer diversity and chaoticism (but not randomness) of the evolutionary track, it is inevitable that gaps in the record will exist. Yet it seems to mystify him that there should be no, say, frog/human intermediate (or, to be scrupulously fair, one yet found!) The trouble with such gap worship is that it is inherently immune to disproof; even in the unlikely event that frog-man was found, the gap-worshippers could strike back with the double whammy that there are now two gaps to consider!

As for the other article, by the lady whose name now escapes me: A little more thought out and coherent perhaps, but a failure all the same in that she considers evolution to be a random process. As a certain evolutionary biologist has pointed out, the survival factor of any mutation is wholly down to environmental pressure, not chance. If it were otherwise, then why are there no polar bears in the Sahara?
 
Not to mention his smug opening salvo (which, without the article in front of me, I can only paraphrase) regarding the reams of fully capitalised correspondence he'd be receiving from swivel-eyed, drooling Darwinists. Apparently anyone that disagrees with him is incapable of doing so in a calm and lucid manner.

I was also baffled by his description of the "Western scientific myth" being something about humans being the ultimate perfection of natural selection (the evil scientists, of course, regarding themselves as the peak of this perfection) whose destiny it is to build the New Jerusalem. I'm not even sure where to start on what's wrong with that.

The whole article was just embarrassing.
 
Re: Tinyurl

markfiend said:
I do see that huge long links are a problem, but if the source being referenced is much longer than something like sitename.tld/directory/page then well, IMO that already says something about the credibility of the site as a source in the first place.
Click to expand...

Often, references to specific items on very large sites (like .gov) are often absurdly long. On second thoughts, for .gov that would indicate something about such a site's credibility...
 
Re: Tinyurl

uncle_slacky said:
markfiend said:
I do see that huge long links are a problem, but if the source being referenced is much longer than something like sitename.tld/directory/page then well, IMO that already says something about the credibility of the site as a source in the first place.
Click to expand...

Often, references to specific items on very large sites (like .gov) are often absurdly long. On second thoughts, for .gov that would indicate something about such a site's credibility...
Click to expand...
Our current thinking is that we will continue to use tinyurl, along with a note of the original domain name or, where it would be more helpful, the name of the publication concerned or a brief description of the site. Other suggestions would be welcome.

- beleaguered sub
 
My copy arrived, today! :)

The Harpur article looks so interesting, it deserves a Thread to itself. :twisted:
 
Re: Tinyurl

owenwhiteoak said:
Our current thinking is that we will continue to use tinyurl, along with a note of the original domain name or, where it would be more helpful, the name of the publication concerned or a brief description of the site. Other suggestions would be welcome.

- beleaguered sub
Click to expand...
I feel that would be an excellent compromise.
 
Without wanting to create too much work for the "beleagured subs" would it be an idea to place a thread on here each month with the list of links used in that month's issue? Then those that are really interested could just click on the link. In the magazine, the footnotes could then just state the website name, without need for full lists, or the rather non helpful tinyurl addresses?
 
I can't contribute to the debate going on here, since my copy has yet to arrive (any other Australian subscribers with that problem?). Having said that my copy will probably turn up Monday! :roll:
 
Mine hasn't turned up yet. Usually gets here when the website picture/precis changes over, so not worried yet.
 
Any thoughts about the picture of the "mysterious ghost arm" in the letters pages? Looks like a big doorhandle to me...
 
I really hope there's not going to be 8 months of old woman to-and-fro correspondence on the Harpur article taking up half the letters pages like there was with the Dawkins one.

:cry:
 
Mine has just arrived!

I accidentally put this message in the issue 245 thread, as I was too excited by the arrival of FT to pay attention to what I was doing! :oops:
 
ttaarraass said:
I really hope there's not going to be 8 months of old woman to-and-fro correspondence on the Harpur article taking up half the letters pages like there was with the Dawkins one.

:cry:
Click to expand...

I'm anticipating what seasoned FT readers term "The Faked Moon Landings Response".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top