This is the Message Centre for Barton

Regarding Young Josh

Post 1

Geoff Taylor - Life's Liver

Hi Barton

T'was I who started the thread on Josh's space. Why did I do so? Because I thought his behaviour was out of line and said so. It was not about his faith or his article, but about his behavour regarding his article. I thought, and still think, that expressing my annoyance in this way was valid. If you can find fault with my postings on his Home Page then please let me know.

For the record, (again), I would welcome a good examination of the Creation/Evolution debate. The idea that Josh is being picked on because of his faith isn't really born out by the facts. And to be honest it's mildy offensive in itself.

Geoff


Regarding Young Josh

Post 2

Geoff Taylor - Life's Liver

Barton

Sorry... I've just re-read my posting. I didn't mean to imply that you had offended me personally.

The idea has been mentioned that this is a clash between faith in Creation and faith in Evolution. It is this that offends me; not your posting earlier today.

Sorry again

Geoff


Regarding Young Josh

Post 3

Geoff Taylor - Life's Liver

Barton

Sorry... I've just re-read my posting. I didn't mean to imply that you had offended me personally.

The idea has been mentioned that this is a clash between faith in Creation and faith in Evolution. It is this that offends me; not your posting earlier today.

Sorry again

Geoff


Regarding Young Josh

Post 4

Geoff Taylor - Life's Liver

Barton

Sorry... I've just re-read my posting. I didn't mean to imply that you had offended me personally.

The idea has been mentioned that this is a clash between faith in Creation and faith in Evolution. It is this that offends me; not your posting earlier today.

Sorry again

Geoff


Regarding Young Josh

Post 5

Geoff Taylor - Life's Liver

Oops...server problems. Sorry


Regarding Young Josh

Post 6

Barton

When one comes down to it, it is a funamental act of faith on our parts to accept any portion of the scientific method as being more than a kind of religious belief that the universe operates by a system that may be understood through observing its parts. Attached to that is an essentially naive belief that things will be substantially the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.

Please, don't get me wrong, I support the scientific method. It seems to provide insight into the way things work and more importantly in provides a method of predicting how they will work different circumstances.

Strangely enough, prophets and magi have been important in all the world's religions, so far as I am aware.

Of course, they drew their abilities from a direct relationship with their god(s) and any man may educate himself into a scientific prophet or librarian, for that matter.

Evolution has been attacked for obvious reasons by fundamentalist believers who have what they take to be the word of God preserved down the ages explaining how everything came into being in six days.

Evolution is a theory, as has been mentioned on both sides of the aisle, that attempts to explain how life came to be and diversify. It is based on an incomplete fossil record, and speculations that began with the Darwin's observation of species differentiation on the Galapagos Islands and elsewhere. It's a glorious theory that ties together facts and does so in an elegantly simple sort of way.

As I have seen argued in the discussion on Josh's article, science's strongest point is that when a theory is proved wrong it is replaced or repaired. What is not changed is the belief that all the answers can be had by continuing to search.

To some 'scientists' there is a belief that the question of God is immaterial. To others there is a belief that the search will provide all the answers that man can understand. I remain in the wishy washy agnostic center of the question, not having felt a need to push in either direction.

I agree with you that creationism can and should be discussed.

I agree with you that having placed an article in Peer Review one does have an obligation to satisfy one's peers. But that is an opinion not a devine Truth.

I once helped to start one of the most severe flame wars this site has seen (see the infamous Intelligence thread) when I charged a researcher with being rude and flippant. I did not choose to pursue him to his home space however. The issue, for me, was one of respect for Peer Review, ones peers, and most importantly, for the quality of the edited guide. That researcher ran away, came back, ran away, came back, and is getting ready to run away again. (The intelligence project was taken over by Xyroth and is still not finished, though he could use the help of anyone who wishes to contribute.)

I just mention this so that you will know that I do not think myself above any of what happened with this article. My objection is and was that it came down to an invasion of Josh's page by people who seemed to think that it was their responsibility to burn torches in front of the castle gate.

If you hate the fellow, ignore him. If you must deal with him, deal with him in a professionally, objective sort of way. If he ignores you, what have you lost save a sense of participation in his accomplishment? If his article is not acceptable, it will not be accepted. If he will not improve it to the point that it can be accepted, it will still not be accepted. If it is accepted, then you were wrong about what the standards are for acceptance. If it appears on the front page with essentially the same content that it has now then, your assumptions about what is publishable are wrong.

Should this be the case? If you say 'yes', then fine. If you say 'no', they perhaps you should join the Small But Vocal Minority or boycott Peer Review as I have done for my own reasons.

I'm sorry that you feel that attacking Josh's article wasn't adequate. I'm sorry that you feel you need to attack Josh as well.

If you feel that I'm not justified in my criticisms, then that is, of course, your opinion and you are welcome to it. I would not for the world deny you the right to have your own opinion, just as I would not deny that right to Josh.

Barton


Regarding Young Josh

Post 7

Geoff Taylor - Gullible Chump

Barton
I think that we have a difference in our preception of this...
To me there is a clear separation between the contents/suitability of Josh's article and his behaviour surrounding it.

My criticism of his behaviour bears no relation to my views on his faith. If you re-read my postings on his home page you will see no reference to the contents of his article. It's irrelevant to the issue of his behaviour.

"If I hate him, ignore him" What gives you the idea that I hate him? "Hate" is a very strong word, as is "attack". I have not "attacked" Josh; I have criticised his actions. Nor do I "hate" him. I really dislike his behaviour and I don't share his faith. But that's a completely different from hating him. I have plenty of friends who are evangelical Christians, and I don't hate them either.

As you say in your posting, I am entitled to my opinion, you to yours and Josh to his. Presumably then you don't see the problem with expressing my opinion.... smiley - smiley

Geoff


Regarding Young Josh

Post 8

Barton

I suppose, the problem I see with your posting is that your judgement that he was rude, is hard to separate from the treatment he received in Peer Review.

To charge Josh with being rude is confrontational. You even go so far as to accuse him of lying, though not directly with that word. The only responses possible to such an approach are to reject your charge or to bow humbly in your direction as a source of superior ethics. Neither accomplishes anything, although the second might assuage your sense of outrage.

Of course, whatever ever effort you might have made in 'educating' Josh by imposing some form of respect, was immediately defeated by Hoovooloo jumping in and savaging him further. That would be for you to settle with Hoovooloo whom you evidently hold in reasonably high regard.

Clearly, I would be just as wrong as I believe you were, to attempt to impose my standards on you. But, if you can charge him with being rude based solely on your standards of propriety, then where am I wrong in doing the same to you.

He claims to be 16, you do not. You think he did wrong by exploiting a loophole in the peer review process but there is no rule that he broke. Just as there were no rules broken in any of the attacks on his article in any of its four versions.

I have a certain advantage in not having been involved in the frustration of attempting to try to convince Josh to do things in a more balanced way. I can see that both sides here were rude. I can see that both sides could feel justified in that rudeness. I can see that neither side is free from 'sin.'

You may feel free to disagree, still that is why I chose to become involved.

Barton


Regarding Young Josh

Post 9

Geoff Taylor - Life's Liver

Barton

I do feel free to disagree. smiley - smiley

You clearly do not approve of my actions, and have said so. Fine. I'm happy with my conscience and actions, so that's equally fine.

At least we've discussed this and hopefully know each other's mind on the issue.

See you around, sir.

Geoff
smiley - cheers


Regarding Young Josh

Post 10

Barton

Geoff,

I am of much the same opinion. We disagree and we are doing so in a polite fashion. This is one of the better things about being thinking beings.

I, too, am happy we could discuss it. I look forward to future discussions.

Barton


Key: Complain about this post

More Conversations for Barton

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more