On the ethics of debate

Hi, Kel, in the hurly-burly of quick replies that happens from time to time here, an answer can get buried in the deluge. A couple of times I have gone away to find a reference (yes, there is life beyond Google), and when I returned, the topic had moved on so far, the answer had lost its relevance. Was I wrong not to reply?EvC has such a range of knowledge that it seems churlish just to win a point when that knowledge is being given freely.To interrupt the flow means the continuity and catalyst is diverted.Of course, we have posters who continue to broadcast propaganda and it used to irk me, till I realised it served the purpose of streamlining our own points. Next time that point arose, you could go straight to the heart of it.So, roll with the punch and realise we are talking to more than just posters. Many lurkers (as I was ) come in from the cold, better prepared from seeing our explanatory posts--------I hope

Hello Nighttrain,
You are right. But I suspect the a good reply is usually good even when many days late.I am often surprised at the quick flurry of posts. Then I might hit refresh and see another comment before I have had time to log off. Catch as catch can.Thanks for your comments.

quote:

---

1. In an environment such as this EvC forum, is a person obligated to answer relevant questions? For example, what is your definition of evolution? (edited to change from required to obligated)

---

No. This is not a formal debate. There is no contract or promise etc.

quote:

---

2. I hold that if a participant does not answer, they are being unethical. Do you agree or disagree? No discussion of repercussions or ramifications, just yes or no.

---

No, annoying maybe, but not unethical. How can silence in this situation be unethical? Remember, we have various belief systems represented on this board and various countries. Whose ethics?

quote:

---

3. If a participant behaves in an unethical manner and yet continues to participate, are they being dishonest? Obviously, I say yes.

---

Since this is just about not answering, no. Again, annoying, but not dishonest. I associate dishonest with lying, cheating, lack of truthfulness.Now I do consider it dishonest when people come in to preach and not discuss, which is not what you are talking about, IMO.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

No. To my mind if they purposely refuse then they are being cowardly and dishonest. That's along the lines of "unethical". I mean they are still ethical, they are cowardly and dishonest.But that is my ethical position and they may have a different set of ethics.Ben gave me a great piece of advice. If they refuse to answer (let's say after asking two or three times) stop talking to them. I wish I could say I practice that advice regularly... he is right. Yes, and then you know who they really are. They suck. But only you can make yourself upset over them sucking.Yeah the rules here are supposed to help debate along, but it is apparent that if the rules were stictly applied there'd be very few people left posting here. Not that most people suck, but most people don't want to be held to the rules all the time.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is quite remarkable, both as instance and as pattern: Faith makes accusations of conscious fraud, then when pressed insists she only meant they are delusional. Then she repeats the initial accusation elsewhere, sometimes even in the same thread.Faith asserts in the subtitle of her reply: Note that this is in response to her prior assertions, which I quoted in full, that the ToE is a "hoax" and a "fabrication." How does one engage in a hoax and a fabrication without meriting charges of fraudulent evidence? I look forward to hearing the spin on this. Who is Sigh? Yes, this is tedious; that's why I am taking the time and effort to address it; of course I can link to an illustrative post.In fact, I could post to a plethora of posts where you either explicitly state or imply hoax, fraud, pretense, deception, fabrication, etc., on the past of supporters of the ToE.But let's just look at the exchange I had in mind, an exchange in which I pointed out that I take your stated beliefs at face value as being genuine and requested the same courtesy; first you fail to respond, then say it was merely a hyperbolic statement of your view of evolutionists as delusional, then immediately starting moving back toward charges of fraud--which you then repeat in subsequent threads, including the recent one cited above. Let's begin here:You did not respond. So I asked again:In response, you first fall back on your standard, "nothing personal, you're just deluded" reply, and yet cannot resist repeating the insinuation:That is the pattern I see, Faith: you indulge yourself in attacks on the personal integrity of supporters of the ToE; when called on it, you claim you only meant they were delusional and refuse to engage in further debate on the point. Then you repeat the process.

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

Although I get your point about "hoax" and "fabrication" honestly I never think of the ToE fantasy as in any way CONSCIOUSLY manufactured by anyone. Those words are merely to get across its falseness and artificiality. It IS a huge joke, a hoax. But again it's in the category of SELF-deception, not fraud. People genuinely believe it. Emperor's New Clothes perhaps.However, all this carrying on about my comment at this point is way overkill. Let's review the circumstances here. Completely off topic, Robin mentioned my "execrable" science and a book he is reading about evolution, and that inspired me to suggest, off topic of course, that he investigate the ToE in a particular manner. That suggestion ought in itself to be regarded as a contribution on the topic of the ToE. Truly, if you [I'm thinking of the hapless "layman" here] take a major media presentation of some new discovery that supposedly validates the ToE, and try to find out the particulars about it, you will find yourself in a self-validating hall of mirrors and uncover very very few actual facts. I used to spend a fair amount of time trying to track down the facts.But Bkelly went on in the off-topic mode to demand this and that response from me. Suggesting a new thread for the purpose would be fine, but there can't be any compulsion to join in it, and the thread he offered didn't seem to me to be particularly relevant or interesting so I didn't go there.Now we have this thread where I'm being accused of all manner of crimes when all I did was rather offhandedly give my well-known view of the ToE in an off-topic sequence. However, you enjoy accusing me so much, I think I'll just let you continue without me.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 11:41 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 11:52 AM

Overlooked this in my previous post. Interesting that you bold the first part but leave out the part that qualifies it. Even if the ulterior motives are hidden from themselves. Yes. Sometimes the dogged refusal to grant the slightest credence to even the most obvious statement of the opposition, so common at EvC, does suggest ulterior motives. But I don't think these are conscious even if I often suspect that all it would take sometimes is some rigorously honest soul-searching to reveal to oneself that such motives ARE involved. It is quite possible to go racing on with a fundamentally dishonest argument simply by refusing to stop and think about it carefully. This is not conscious fraud, but it is self-deception.

I don't remember this. What "particular manner"?

In the manner I describe in this post , that is, considering whether it is presented as a story you can only take on faith, and trying to track down the facts behind it.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 02:01 PM

Well, it's complicated. In order to understand evolution beyond the basics, you have to understand genetics. Genetics to me is very complicated.

Genetics IS very complicated and makes that aspect of the discussion complicated, so when you get it all figured out I hope you will let us in on it. But it's really the interpretation of fossils that I've tried to track down, and I should have stuck to that. Somebody really should research all the popular reports on the various fossil finds over the last, oh, fifty years or so, and all the contemporary reports in both the media and the scientific journals of the time. I never went farther than checking out some books from the library that simply continued the same pattern of asserting that such and such is a great find that fits in such and such a place in the evolutionary tree and is so many kazillion years old etc. HOW they know all that -- you will NOT find a word on it. Even such ploddingly factual information as where it was found and in what condition and under what circumstances and what was nearby and at what depth and so on. Instead what you get is a TALE, a fanciful reconstruction of its supposed history. It's all a labyrinth of self-validating assertions.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 02:48 PM

OK, Faith, I'm off-topic here as usual. But what I find so convincing is how the DNA analysis of living beings backs up what was said long ago about the evolutionary family tree. They said that before there ever was DNA analysis.

I don't see that it backs it up. And it is off topic so I guess a new thread will be required to pursue it.

I meant like the DNA similarity between humans and apes, for example.

The DNA similarity is no more compelling than the observable physical similarity is it? There is also great DNA similarity between mice and men. None of this demonstrates descent, but merely economy of design.