Help me understand Punctuated Equilibrium

[C~G]

See, you have absolutely no qualms about calling my argument BS when you think it is wrong, the sentiment of which I applaud you for. Now do I take it as a personal attack? No. Could I if I were to adopt the same standards you seem to set? Certainly.

Furthermore, sure, they could be right about other things, but that doesn't mean you can't say anything bad about things that are wrong. This is not a theocracy.

You think scientific discourse should happen in same way as Internet forum's discussion?

And now you're trying to make this some kind of scientific inquiry about whether Dawkins is an ass or not?

You should get real. This is the time to do it.

I do apologize understanding wrongly what you said. Let's move on from that.

And I have yet to found direct reference that Dawkins was mocking Gould in any other way but his work (even though there are hints such existed), even though if Gould's work is his life along with baseball and Dawkins calls his work on fossils "sorry mess"...

 

[theskald]

Thank you. That's all I wanted, either evidence or promise of evidence. If you find anything, please do come back and tell us all about it.

Before I provide an example of what I'm talking about, let me clarify that this is for what I said. I do not consider this evidence, I consider this an example of what bothers me about him as a public figure. Here is a video of him responding to what sounded like an earnest question asked by an extremely religious man.

Here is what I said in my comments to that video, I hope it clarifies why this bothers me:

Maybe he's sick of getting questions like this or something, but I think he would have communicated his point better by confronting the man about the definition of "spirit" and "walking with god" and what proof he has of having "met the risen lord Jesus Christ." The man seemed like he was willing to listen.

It is a little vexing, though, that someone in the position he has put himself in would spit on the opportunity to foster some understanding with a deeply religious man who asked, in earnest, what Dawkins would say to him, but I suppose he got his answer. I'd say the whole exchange was fruitless when it didn't have to be.

Not that the man isn't deluded, just saying he seemed to have his ears open. Dawkins has perhaps spent too much time in the bible belt and [around] fanatical Muslims in England.

Further I do not feel I am under any compulsion to provide evidence for my personal feelings about the man, the only evidence is that if you put the two of us in the same room and had us chat we would agree on a lot but I doubt we'd get along. If I ever meet him, I'd be happy to be disproven. This video involves Niel DeGrasse Tyson (who's one of the many that got me interested in science) voicing his view, which I pretty much agree with.

Well, I haven't complained about being "dissed". I didn't think I was dissed. In fact, I wouldn't really mind if I were. But I disagree about burying the hatchet. When you find the evidence I really want you to come back with that hatchet. We will bury the hatchet when the evidence is in and one side concedes (and that side which would have to concede may well be me).

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it just seems odd to me that you defend the man so vehemently in his stead, unless you're arguing on principle.

Look, the man can say what he wants and act how he wants, and I can dislike him for it. He doesn't have to care, and I don't have to investigate his every word, his every rhetorical nuance and affected gesticulation, to defend my personal feelings on his character and behavior. I'd hate to pull an EcoFarm, but I really have nothing more to say on the matter.

 

[nihilistic]

You think scientific discourse should happen in same way as Internet forum's discussion?

And now you're trying to make this some kind of scientific inquiry about whether Dawkins is an ass or not?

You should get real. This is the time to do it.

Just any viable evidence. It doesn't have to stand up to rigorous scientific inquiry but it does have to be documented. If the level of evidence given about the claims you guys have made can be deemed sufficient for any intelligent conversation, I might as well have claim that Gould is an ass and you'll have no refutation.

I do apologize understanding wrongly what you said. Let's move on from that.

And I have yet to found direct reference that Dawkins was mocking Gould in any other way but his work (even though there are hints such existed), even though if Gould's work is his life along with baseball and Dawkins calls his work on fossils "sorry mess"...

There we go. Bring evidence of it and we can go on.

 

[C~G]

Just any viable evidence. It doesn't have to stand up to rigorous scientific inquiry but it does have to be documented. If the level of evidence given about the claims you guys have made can be deemed sufficient for any intelligent conversation, I might as well have claim that Gould is an ass and you'll have no refutation.

There we go. Bring evidence of it and we can go on.

It should be noted that for you the evidence of someone being an ass might mean something else than for me.

For me, I think the remarks both of them mde about each others position could well as be used as evidence of both of them being asses.

Apparently for you "being an ass" is some kind of serious statement while for me especially in this thread it was more light-hearted one since I have absolutely nothing against Dawkins neither any of his fellows but the way he presents his points can make him...resembling something like an ass for me.

You have strange way taking this thing.

 

[nihilistic]

Before I provide an example of what I'm talking about, let me clarify that this is for what I said. I do not consider this evidence, I consider this an example of what bothers me about him as a public figure. Here is a video of him responding to what sounded like an earnest question asked by an extremely religious man.

Here is what I said in my comments to that video, I hope it clarifies why this bothers me:

Maybe he's sick of getting questions like this or something, but I think he would have communicated his point better by confronting the man about the definition of "spirit" and "walking with god" and what proof he has of having "met the risen lord Jesus Christ." The man seemed like he was willing to listen.

It is a little vexing, though, that someone in the position he has put himself in would spit on the opportunity to foster some understanding with a deeply religious man who asked, in earnest, what Dawkins would say to him, but I suppose he got his answer. I'd say the whole exchange was fruitless when it didn't have to be.

Not that the man isn't deluded, just saying he seemed to have his ears open. Dawkins has perhaps spent too much time in the bible belt and [around] fanatical Muslims in England.

I've actually seen that one, so I had to ask, why don't you include the whole proceedings of that exchange and instead offer only a snippet. It's all there on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGDTtsh0KTM

That was a question-answer session after a lecture in which he has already said almost everything needed to debunk that view. If that guy cannot be convinced he cannot be convinced. Your claim that that ultra-religious loon is "trying to communicate" is quite laughable. There are plenty of chopped up video on youtube of some dingbat asking Dawkins a question followed by Dawkins seemingly being stumped for multiple minutes. Not impressed.

Further I do not feel I am under any compulsion to provide evidence for my personal feelings about the man, the only evidence is that if you put the two of us in the same room and had us chat we would agree on a lot but I doubt we'd get along. If I ever meet him, I'd be happy to be disproven. This video involves Niel DeGrasse Tyson (who's one of the many that got me interested in science) voicing his view, which I pretty much agree with.

That's where I disagree. They are promoters of science, not religion. Tyson said his notion of promoting science is "here are the facts, and here is a sensitivity to your state of mind, and it the facts plus the sensitivity, when convolved together, creates impact". That fine, except that Tyson should have added to the end that ultimately in good science the sensitivity should be subtracted out. Tyson should have added that ultimately the students should be convinced of the conclusions of science only to the extent that the evidence allows. So ultimately I would argue that Tyson is the demagogue, that he is (perhaps with good intentions) trying to convince others of correct conclusions, but unfortunately for the wrong reasons.

I'll give you an example of what I mean: 16/64 = 1/4. How do you do that? Cancel out the 6s. The answer turns out to be correct but the method is still wrong.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it just seems odd to me that you defend the man so vehemently in his stead, unless you're arguing on principle.

Why the unless? I am defending on principle. And I do intend to defend him too when actual criticism is raised, as you did just now in the post I responded to.

Look, the man can say what he wants and act how he wants, and I can dislike him for it. He doesn't have to care, and I don't have to investigate his every word, his every rhetorical nuance and affected gesticulation, to defend my personal feelings on his character and behavior. I'd hate to pull an EcoFarm, but I really have nothing more to say on the matter.

I never said you couldn't dislike him for it. I'm only disputing your previously un-clarified claim of him being, in general, an ass. And here, I'll even make a positive claim about something for once: I concede that from a certain perspective he may have seemed like an ass, especially when taken out of context. But I think he is way too concessionary.

 

[Fifty]

Its hard to feel bad for religionists who Dawkins' says are hallucinating when you consider what they say to him.

 

[theskald]

I've actually seen that one, so I had to ask, why don't you include the whole proceedings of that exchange and instead offer only a snippet.

Fair enough, I just felt that was an example of his coldness, he's spoken to people like this before and I assume* we're not going to agree no matter what I show you.

*yes, assume, based on previous discourse with you.

Not impressed.

Oh well? It may have been out of context but the entire question and answer are there. If he's going to take questions, why would he not be willing to give thorough answers? Besides, even in context, "you're hallucinating, that's that, go away"** doesn't sound like a response by someone who's willing to respond. And I think it wasn't the best argument he could have made, but that's another matter. I could give you youtube links in perpetuity and still not satisfy your need for "evidence," my opinion of the good doctor is one that has been affected by years of exposure to him and can't be summed up in one video. I don't like him, I just don't, we're not compatible personalities, and I still don't understand why that bothers you so much. I dislike Donald Trump, too, in fact I dislike him a lot more than Dawkins, are you going to make me provide "evidence" for that, too?

**That's how it came off, to me and many others. It's fine if that's not what he meant, it's the way he said it.

That's where I disagree. They are promoters of science, not religion. Tyson said his notion of promoting science is "here are the facts, and here is a sensitivity to your state of mind, and it the facts plus the sensitivity, when convolved together, creates impact". That fine, except that Tyson should have added to the end that ultimately in good science the sensitivity should be subtracted out.

I disagree very strongly with this. Dawkins is not in the position of a teacher in many cases, and those he speaks to are not students. Dawkins has put himself in a position in which he is seen as a public figure for science (and atheism) and I FEEL, like Tyson, that he is squandering this position. I think Carl Sagan had the right idea. If Dawkins wants to speak to "students," he can go ahead and teach college classes, focusing on what he knows.

Why the unless? I am defending on principle. And I do intend to defend him too when actual criticism is raised, as you did just now in the post I responded to.

No reason to read into the "unless," it's there to modify the previous clause in which I said it seemed you were defending him personally. By "on principle" I mean that assumption about your motives doesn't apply if you're arguing instead that one must provide evidence for one's emotional response to the personality of another, which is a sentiment I have repeatedly said I'm not ready to concede.

I never said you couldn't dislike him for it. I'm only disputing your previously un-clarified claim of him being, in general, an ass.

I have clarified it, but I guess I'll clarify some more. I only said he was an ass as an off-the-cuff comment to El Machinae, I don't see how you can conclude I every asserted he is "in general, an ass." In fact, I assert that anyone saying "that guy's an ass" is saying it not as a general statement, but as a statement of their lack of chemistry with the person in question, just like "this is the best song ever." Many may use hyperbole when saying such things, but they are really only speaking of their own relation to the person. As such I find your demand for "evidence" to be, in your word, "laughable."

Its hard to feel bad for religionists who Dawkins' says are hallucinating when you consider what they say to him.

That's kinda a good point, but I don't think anyone made a comment suggesting that we should feel sorry for anyone, and what some say really doesn't apply to the rest. To color all religious people with the venomous words of a few when there are plenty more peaceable ones out there seems unfair and unhelpful to me. Of course, I'm not suggesting feeling sorry for the man in the video, I'm suggesting that he asked an honest question and deserved a decent answer, not an insult. It doesn't matter that he is deluded and apparently hasn't thought critically about it at all, he wasn't there to fight Dawkins. Now for those creationists who are itching for a fight, I'm plenty entertained watching them flounder.

I don't know, maybe I'm too touchy-feely.

 

[nihilistic]

Oh well? It may have been out of context but the entire question and answer are there. If he's going to take questions, why would he not be willing to give thorough answers? Besides, even in context, "you're hallucinating, that's that, go away"** doesn't sound like a response by someone who's willing to respond.

He was taking questions, and many people have actual questions to ask, unlike that loon. He doesn't have the time to do a repeat of his entire lecture and waste everyone's patience just because some malicious loon wants to waste it. There is positively nothing to be gained by actually talking to that guy. That questioner was basically acting like what classical_hero does all throughout this thread making claims about stuff that has already been debunked without addressing the debunking at all, and asking questions already answered while ignoring all answers.

I don't like him, I just don't, we're not compatible personalities, and I still don't understand why that bothers you so much.

I'm not claiming that it bothers me. I'm just saying that you are full of it.

I disagree very strongly with this. Dawkins is not in the position of a teacher in many cases, and those he speaks to are not students. Dawkins has put himself in a position in which he is seen as a public figure for science (and atheism) and I FEEL, like Tyson, that he is squandering this position. I think Carl Sagan had the right idea. If Dawkins wants to speak to "students," he can go ahead and teach college classes, focusing on what he knows.

Firstly, I would claim that even in a classroom, it is more important for a teacher to make sure his/her students know what science is before teaching about the results of science. It is very important to tell them, repeatedly if necessary, that science is to be believed not because of sentimentality, but because of evidence. It is important because of the completely awful recent trend of the "liberal arts" presentation of science as "just another view". It's appalling, and you can see it all over this forum even. You could see people claiming that "biologists are just as dogmatic in extolling evolution as creationists are extolling intelligent design". The reason that this sad situation occurs is because of the political correctness of "not calling anyone wrong" and of "assuming all opinions to have equal validity regardless of evidence". Science teachers should not pretend they are preachers just to relate to their students.

Secondly, since his position is "Chair in the Public Understanding of Science", that kernel of difference makes it even more important. He is in fact more bound to teaching what is science than teaching the specific effects of science. His job isn't to tell people whatever they want to hear so they would believe in science. When you do that you get people who believe in homeopathic medicine because it is "scientific". Dawkins is doing exactly what his professorship tasked him to do: convincing people that science is the best way to go because of the evidence.

As for people who are not convinced by evidence, I'd argue that convincing them of the results of science is pointless, even when successful. Not far into the future they'd forget most of the specific claims anyway, and by that time they'd be ripe for the picking by the various pseudosciences. On the other hand, if you could somehow teach them to value evidence, that would be more productive than all the other knowledge a teacher can bestow a student.

 

[theskald]

I'm not claiming that it bothers me. I'm just saying that you are full of it.

I demand evidence.

Firstly, I would claim that even in a classroom, it is more important for a teacher to make sure his/her students know what science is before teaching about the results of science.

Agreed.

It is very important to tell them, repeatedly if necessary, that science is to be believed not because of sentimentality, but because of evidence.

Agreed.

It is important because of the completely awful recent trend of the "liberal arts" presentation of science as "just another view". It's appalling, [...]

Agreed.

[...]and you can see it all over this forum even. You could see people claiming that "biologists are just as dogmatic in extolling evolution as creationists are extolling intelligent design". The reason that this sad situation occurs is because of the political correctness of "not calling anyone wrong" and of "assuming all opinions to have equal validity regardless of evidence".

Agreed, and I'm starting to get the feeling that you're not debating with me, but with ideologies you disdain.

Science teachers should not pretend they are preachers just to relate to their students.

Agreed. This, however, does not mean every time Dawkins talks to someone about science it becomes a teacher-student relationship.

Secondly, since his position is "Chair in the Public Understanding of Science", that kernel of difference makes it even more important. He is in fact more bound to teaching what is science than teaching the specific effects of science.

I want Carl Sagan back. He wanted to spread the love of science. Dawkins just likes to be right.

His job isn't to tell people whatever they want to hear so they would believe in science.

Who said he was to "tell people what they want to hear?" Teachers do more than tell you the truth, and good teachers don't go around insulting the intelligence of those they are trying to educate.

When you do that you get people who believe in homeopathic medicine because it is "scientific".

You have people believing that because they want to. Try telling someone like that they're "stupid, deluded idgits" and tell me how compelling they find that.

Dawkins is doing exactly what his professorship tasked him to do: convincing people that science is the best way to go because of the evidence.

The only person I can think of being convinced by Dawkins specifically is Douglas Adams. I'm sure there are many others but I don't see what that has to do with his personality.

As for people who are not convinced by evidence, I'd argue that convincing them of the results of science is pointless, even when successful. Not far into the future they'd forget most of the specific claims anyway, and by that time they'd be ripe for the picking by the various pseudosciences. On the other hand, if you could somehow teach them to value evidence, that would be more productive than all the other knowledge a teacher can bestow a student.

How does this relate to Dawkins being an abrasive personality?

 

[plarq]

Mutations are accumilated, to a degree, and the big divergence happen. Quite like continuous phase transition in physics. Consider a gas above critical temperature, there's no liquid-gas surface. When you cool down the gas below critical temperature, the liquid appears out of nowhere.

 

[theskald]

Mutations are accumilated, to a degree, and the big divergence happen. Quite like continuous phase transition in physics. Consider a gas above critical temperature, there's no liquid-gas surface. When you cool down the gas below critical temperature, the liquid appears out of nowhere.

Thanks, though we've cleared the PE question up. I tried to change the title of the thread to "Richard Dawkins is a big fat meanie," but it didn't work. Sorry to waste your time, but now the thread is about calling me to task for not particularly liking Richard Dawkins.

 

[nihilistic]

Agreed, and I'm starting to get the feeling that you're not debating with me, but with ideologies you disdain.

But wasn't that the point of your Tyson video?

Who said he was to "tell people what they want to hear?" Teachers do more than tell you the truth, and good teachers don't go around insulting the intelligence of those they are trying to educate.

You have people believing that because they want to. Try telling someone like that they're "stupid, deluded idgits" and tell me how compelling they find that.

But some people (like the one in your first video) are goners. Dawkins could at most educate those whose minds remain educable, and really shouldn't waste time with loons like the guy in your video. No evidence is going to change his mind, so there is no point. And even then Dawkins did give an honest (in my view, unneeded) attempt in trying to convince that guy. Dawkins implored him to think in what sense does any of his anecdotes prove to him the divinity of jesus christ instead of, say, vishnu or thor? That dude is simply not receptive to reason.

Also, nowhere in that video did Dawkins claim that the person he is speaking to is stupid, even though his stupidity is quite obvious. I might even be happier if Dawkins did digress more on how stupid that guy's views are. It's be more entertaining.

 

[theskald]

But wasn't that the point of your Tyson video?

that "biologists are just as dogmatic in extolling evolution as creationists are extolling intelligent design" and "assuming all opinions to have equal validity regardless of evidence"? No, not even remotely.

But some people (like the one in your first video) are goners.

Granted. Still not seeing how this relates to my not liking the man.

And even then Dawkins did give an honest (in my view, unneeded) attempt in trying to convince that guy. Dawkins implored him to think in what sense does any of his anecdotes prove to him the divinity of jesus christ instead of, say, vishnu or thor? That dude is simply not receptive to reason.

I disagree, he spent more time insulting him, but that aside there were much better arguments to make and when asked for further elaboration by the man he did not provide further argument.

Also, nowhere in that video did Dawkins claim that the person he is speaking to is stupid, even though his stupidity is quite obvious. I might even be happier if Dawkins did digress more on how stupid that guy's views are. It's be more entertaining.

Okay, try telling someone they are "hallucinating" and see if that "convinc[es] [them] that science is the best way to go."

I once again demand evidence that I am "full of it."

 

[nihilistic]

that "biologists are just as dogmatic in extolling evolution as creationists are extolling intelligent design" and "assuming all opinions to have equal validity regardless of evidence"? No, not even remotely.

Oh, then by "sensitivity", Tyson was not referring wishful thinking?

Granted. Still not seeing how this relates to my not liking the man.

I'm not trying to convince you to like him.

I disagree, he spent more time insulting him, but that aside there were much better arguments to make and when asked for further elaboration by the man he did not provide further argument.

Yes, there are better arguments. And those arguments have already been made in that setting outside the scope of the cut of the video footage. He is a goner, and it is much more useful to demonstrate to others how someone with such a high degree of apparently sincerity can still be so trivially wrong about the most basic buliding blocks of his claims.

Okay, try telling someone they are "hallucinating" and see if that "convinc[es] [them] that science is the best way to go."

Which is why I don't think at that time Dawkins' audience is that loon. It is the rest of the room that he is trying to convince.

I once again demand evidence that I am "full of it."

I'll retract that if you want. Or change it to "your criticism of Dawkins is full of it".

 

[theskald]

Oh, then by "sensitivity", Tyson was not referring wishful thinking?

My understanding it that Tyson was trying to say exactly what I'm saying, that Dawkins would be more effective if he approached such situations as an educator and not as a critic.

I'm not trying to convince you to like him.

But you seem to be suggesting that I have to convince you to hate him, as though if I can't, I have no reason not to like him.

Yes, there are better arguments. And those arguments have already been made in that setting outside the scope of the cut of the video footage. He is a goner, and it is much more useful to demonstrate to others how someone with such a high degree of apparently sincerity can still be so trivially wrong about the most basic buliding blocks of his claims.

This you've said before, and my response would be a repeat of a previous response, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Which is why I don't think at that time Dawkins' audience is that loon. It is the rest of the room that he is trying to convince.

The rest of the audience laughed at the man, I think they're pretty sympathetic.

I'll retract that if you want. Or change it to "your criticism of Dawkins is full of it".

No need, I was simply trying to highlight the absurdity or requiring evidence for a personal feeling of dislike. If you think I am full of it, I honestly don't think you need to provide evidence that I am. You can provide your reasons for thinking that, and you have, much as I have provided my reasons for my position. I guess what I'm getting at is that I just don't get where you're coming from and I find the whole argument a little silly, regardless of how much I enjoy debate.

It's one thing to demand I provide evidence that the Earth is round, it's another thing to demand evidence that the Earth is pretty.

 

[nihilistic]

My understanding it that Tyson was trying to say exactly what I'm saying, that Dawkins would be more effective if he approached such situations as an educator and not as a critic.

Wouldn't it be nice if that was the world we live in? Except we live in a different world. Even if I take this claim at face value as the true representation of Tyson's statements, it can still be challenged. Your argument is a sound one in a world of completely unprejudiced students (or la public), but that is not the case here. Dawkins (and biology in general) has plenty of unscrupulous opponents who has absolutely no regard for truth or honesty. And these opponents frequently try to blend into to the audience making disingenuous questions with all kinds of fake claims. He can talk like an educator at other times (unless your claim is that he is a critic at all times?), but he doesn't have to pretend every question was asked honestly when the evidence so overwhelmingly contradicts that hypothesis.

 

[Mise]

Yes, you are supposed to "take it on good faith that will find [your] evidence convincing".

As you have proven, I cannot do that. Which is why your demand for evidence is grossly absurd.

I mean really, if you don't see the intellectual dishonesty in asking someone to "prove" that Richard Dawkins is an ass, then how can I take it in good faith that you are a reasonable individual?

That is, if you really believe in your evidence and reasoning.

False dichotomy... Not even a subtle one either.

If you had indeed provided evidence and reasoning of enough validity and I still do not acquiesce,

...then you and I have different ideas on what constitutes an ass. If we cannot agree on the definition of an ass, then asking for evidence of RD being an ass is absurd.

then the reply to me shouldn't be a disingenuous appeal to "what ulterior motives can I be convinced of to agree on your premise".

I don't believe I made that argument anywhere, but if I did, please quote me and explain where.

If I were that dense, then you should state, unequivocally, that I am dense.

If I thought you weren't intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying, I wouldn't reply to you. But thanks for telling me what I should do - just 9 more to go!

I'm not aware of any definition of "wrong", when used to describe the validity of a statement, that can be construed as meaning anything other than "factually incorrect".

I wasn't using it to describe the validity* of the statement, obviously... Are you aware of any other uses of the word "wrong"?

*-I assume by validity, you are speaking specifically of factual validity. If you are not, then you must not be aware of a great many definitions of the word "wrong". Again, it would be a good idea if you researched them yourself, rather than me spoonfeeding it to you.

In that example it would be rude and insensitive to call such a person "stupid", but the person saying it still wouldn't be incorrect.

You haven't answered my question. Do you think it's wrong to call a dyslexic of low intelligence "stupid"?

Do you think that being rude or insensitive is wrong?

 

[frekk]

Fair enough, I just felt that was an example of his coldness

Reason is cold, though. By definition, it doesn't take feelings and emotions into account.

If he's going to take questions, why would he not be willing to give thorough answers? Besides, even in context, "you're hallucinating, that's that, go away"** doesn't sound like a response by someone who's willing to respond.

But he did respond, so you can't really say he wasn't willing to respond. He gave a nice, simple answer with brevity. If he had given a longer answer, he'd be accused of being too complex, unable to communicate in a lay fashion, etc.

And I think it wasn't the best argument he could have made, but that's another matter.

He gave a direct, honest (if blunt) and sincere statement about his thoughts on an issue. We could really do with alot more of that! It's hardly something to be criticized.

Dawkins is no Pat Condell - if you want someone being absolutely merciless to people's religious sentiments, go look at that guy and see what it looks like. I'm not really sure what people expect from Dawkins - do they want him to lie in order to make people feel better about their beliefs?

 

[Mise]

I'm not really sure what people expect from Dawkins - do they want him to lie in order to make people feel better about their beliefs?

Dawkins can do whatever he wants, and I don't expect him to behave as I would. He can be an ass if he wants, that's his choice.

 

[nihilistic]

As you have proven, I cannot do that. Which is why your demand for evidence is grossly absurd.

No, it means your claim is absurd.

I mean really, if you don't see the intellectual dishonesty in asking someone to "prove" that Richard Dawkins is an ass, then how can I take it in good faith that you are a reasonable individual?

Now you are conflating two disparate claims.

False dichotomy... Not even a subtle one either.

Explain?

...then you and I have different ideas on what constitutes an ass. If we cannot agree on the definition of an ass, then asking for evidence of RD being an ass is absurd.

Perhaps. That could be an explanation.

I don't believe I made that argument anywhere, but if I did, please quote me and explain where.

Yes you did. The constant barrage of "what would make you believe" a plea to have us accept the same textual wording, but representing different ideas. You were trying to get to a point where we may technically "agree" on some segment of text, but in essence agreed on nothing in terms of ideas. If I cared about textual agreement I would have joined a book club.

I wasn't using it to describe the validity* of the statement, obviously... Are you aware of any other uses of the word "wrong"?

*-I assume by validity, you are speaking specifically of factual validity. If you are not, then you must not be aware of a great many definitions of the word "wrong". Again, it would be a good idea if you researched them yourself, rather than me spoonfeeding it to you.

Then you should perhaps clarify what do you mean by "wrong" and in what context, so we can actually talk about the underlying ideas and not be forced to an "agreement of text".

You haven't answered my question. Do you think it's wrong to call a dyslexic of low intelligence "stupid"?

Do you think that being rude or insensitive is wrong?

No and no.