From xkcd, with a hat tip to Adrian Petrescu.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Jeffrey Shallit
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about ....
-
Jeffrey Shallit
American mathematician, professor of computer science at a major Canadian university, & skeptic.
All comments are moderated to remove spam and duplication. Please be patient; your comment will usually appear within 12 hours.
Recursivity
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(133)
-
▼
January
(20)
- Portrait of a Jihadist
- Sign in the Harvard Museum
- The Meyer-Atkins "Debate"
- A Neat Problem on Card Arrangements
- Dembski: Prayer Can Change the Past
- More Mind-Boggling Stupidity from O'Leary
- Creationists Lie To Kids
- More on Signature in the Cell
- The Essential Larry McMurtry
- Stephen Meyer's Bogus Information Theory
- When is a Request Inappropriate?
- Bumper Sticker Fail
- Richard Wiseman at Boston Skeptics
- New Pi Computation
- Weirdest Request to Work With Me
- Discovery Institute Busted
- Somerville and Schuklenk on Dignity
- Who's the President of Physics?
- The Mascot
- Free Will Being Challenged
-
▼
January
(20)
7 comments:
But see, people with no knowledge of physics aren't biased like those who have studied it for years. Which means that they're the best critics of all.
Or so goes the reasoning (re biology) in the ID community.
Glen Davidson
And of course, someone who implies that the ID community are people with "no knowledge of physics" is not biased, right Glen?
Eh, I meant biology.
If you want to say they have little knowledge of biology, fine, but you didn't say that. You implied "none."
Perhaps he is slightly biased, however this is because it is often perceived that those in such communities don't take the time to actually see the other research and simply dismiss it out of hand, and act on "faith" rather than actually finding errors in their arguments based on study of the methods used in the field.
The comic presents a good point in that those with no expertise may be helpful from time to time but often aren't as they simply do not do their research properly.
For the sake of completeness, here's the comic's mouseover text:
I mean, what's more likely – that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work.
Mr. Gross -- "is often perceived that those in such communities don't take the time to actually see the other research and simply dismiss it out of hand"
With the laymen, I agree. With the leaders, I can't agree.
"With the laymen, I agree. With the leaders, I can't agree."
You're right. The leaders are being actively dishonest, rather than just ignorant.
Post a Comment