|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 14, 2012 8:37:26 GMT 10
This charge is revealing. On the one hand, Brandt claimed several times to have been personally attacked here, yet when asked to provide examples he failed to do so. On the other hand, he had been personally insulting and examples were cited. In some instances these insults were responded to in kind. Here he conflates his person with his work (despite repeatedly claiming he had no personal attachment to Evolutionary Psychology). Unapologetically, there have been strong criticism of EP here. This is consistent with the forum's criterion of credibility and with the long-standing policy to expose insidious pseudosciences for what they are (remember, he failed to provide any relevant evidence in defence of EP). If Brandt chooses to takes criticisms of his work personally, that is his problem. I describe myself here as an "underlabourer." This is from John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, (which is evocative of some of our RA ritual): ...it is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 14, 2012 8:52:40 GMT 10
Here my "crusade" of exposing pseudosciences is common among bona fide scientists. However it is not in this case, with respect to myself, a "crusade," which requires an invasion of another's territory (I only took it to MFoL to satisfy Brandt's original, parting challenge). He had come here of his own free will and accord. Brandt introduced the unsolicited subject of EP and, if anyone here was conducting a crusade, it was he.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Apr 14, 2012 16:12:47 GMT 10
Requiring relevant evidence must constitute an attack or a crusade in his world.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Apr 14, 2012 16:17:47 GMT 10
He has a thing about wiki articles. I notice he does not dispute the factual veracity of what is quoted.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Apr 14, 2012 16:29:06 GMT 10
He has really latched onto this notion with a passion. While it is hard to prove or defend it is not unknown for such things to happen. But it is ad hominem to argue that it matters who said what. What matters is what was said. Is it valid? Is it true?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Apr 14, 2012 16:30:58 GMT 10
I might accept the invitation. What is the link?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 14, 2012 21:00:51 GMT 10
I might accept the invitation. What is the link? LOL. Sorry Alan, Brandt's "invitation" specifically excluded you.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 14, 2012 21:19:19 GMT 10
He has a thing about wiki articles. I notice he does not dispute the factual veracity of what is quoted. This is a phony argument. Obviously I need to have at least a minimal understanding of a subject to know what to search for. I provide links and quotes for the benefit of readers. If there are any factual errors they should be no more difficult to refute than errors from any other source. Wiki links usually come top of any search list. Wikipedia is arguably more current and reliable than, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. By using Wikipedia as a source of choice, I reduce the credibility of any charge of cherry picking articles (as might be the case if I consistently relied on insider opinions).
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Apr 15, 2012 17:48:59 GMT 10
I might accept the invitation. What is the link? LOL. Sorry Alan, Brandt's "invitation" specifically excluded you. No worries. I tracked it at M.F.O.L.. gentlecraft.proboards.com/Yes, another Masonic forum. I am experimenting with something just a little different. Not greatly but slightly.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Apr 15, 2012 17:58:38 GMT 10
"Currently your account is waiting for approval from a staff member. Once an administrator has approved your account you will get access to this forum."
I will not be holding my breath.
|
|