Re: Refuting Aristotle et al (was Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record)

From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Date: Wed Dec 16 2009 - 22:57:47 EST

Hi Moorad,

“I personally would rather live in the real world rather than a virtual one.
I understand referees being anonymous and that arguments ought to stand on
their own irrespective of authorship. However, using your real name puts a
restraint in what you say and how you say it. I can understand circumstances
where a pseudonym may be necessary---young, untenured faculty members,
unfriendly working place, etc. However, in general I am against the use of
pseudonyms. Perhaps those who use pseudonyms can tell us why they do so.”

I have not needed my real name to put restraint in what I say and how I say
it, as should be obvious from my contributions to this list. I’ve been
showing such restraint for years. Maybe it is just me, but such restraint
should not be artificially/externally imposed by having to use your real
name. It would and should stem from a Christian faith that helps one strive
for intellectual honesty when it comes to these controversial issues. Am I
wrong?

Of course, I understand that people feel differently (and sometimes
strongly) about this. But I had no idea it was such a simmering issue among
so many here. Since I am not going to try to get y’all to see it my way or
force myself on you, this will be my last contribution and I wish you great
success on your upcoming blog.

If anyone wants to stay in contact, or ever has a question, the best email
address to reach me at is:

thedesignmatrix@yahoo.com

Farewell,

Mike

P.S.: If anyone desires an intellectually honest, challenging and unique
discussion on issues related to design and biology, feel free to check in on
my blog:

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/

Oh yeah,

and RABBITS RULE!

I personally would rather live in the real world rather than a virtual one.
I understand referees being anonymous and that arguments ought to stand on
their own irrespective of authorship. However, using your real name puts a
restraint in what you say and how you say it. I can understand circumstances
where a pseudonym may be necessary---young, untenured faculty members,
unfriendly working place, etc. However, in general I am against the use of
pseudonyms. Perhaps those who use pseudonyms can tell us why they do so.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
Nucacids [nucacids@wowway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:08 PM
To: Don Nield; Schwarzwald
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Refuting Aristotle et al (was Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil
record)

Hi Don,

You wrote, “I agree that the use of pseudonyms in itself, as employed openly
by yourself and Mike Gene, is not important. But a surreptitious usage is of
concern because often an exchange of information, as well as an argument, is
involved in a post, and one needs to be able to assess the reliability of
that information and put it in context.”

This makes no sense to me. In the ten-or-so years I have been arguing on
the internet, I have engaged hundreds of people. Hundreds. Literally. And
in that case, I would estimate 80-90% used pseudonyms (and many of them,
mainstream scientists). Not once can I recall an instance where I thought
it important to know the identity of my opponent in order “to assess the
reliability of that information and put it in context.” So I am not sure
how that works. Can you elaborate?

In contrast, my approach was explained in my book:

“My decision to stick with my pseudonym is about more than maintaining a
sense of continuity with my Internet presence, but also because it pays
tribute to a personal belief that I hold dear. As I have repeatedly argued
on the Internet, I am not going to make any appeal to qualifications or
training. If I have no qualifications or relevant training, this may cause
some to dismiss or overlook a good argument for this reason alone. If I do
have qualifications and relevant training, this may cause some to embrace a
bad argument for this reason alone. I would rather let the arguments stand
on their own to be evaluated without prejudice. The Internet functions in
such a way that it allows us to strip most of the extraneous material from
an argument (a person’s reputation, degrees, popularity, etc.) and focus
instead on the core of the argument and the data used to support it. It is
my hope that this approach carries out of the Internet and into this book.
Of course,

since I make no appeal to qualifications or relevant training, you, the
reader should not treat me as an authority. You must decide for yourself if
the evidence and arguments make sense and if need be, track down the
references that may support them.”

-Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
To: "Schwarzwald" <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Refuting Aristotle et al (was Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil
record)

> Schwarzwald:
> I agree that the use of pseudonyms in itself, as employed openly by
> yourself and Mike Gene, is not important. But a surreptitious usage is
> of concern because often an exchange of information, as well as an
> argument, is involved in a post, and one needs to be able to assess the
> reliability of that information and put it in context.
> Don
>
>
> Schwarzwald wrote:
>> Who cares what frustrates people behind the scenes? Since when is that
>> warrant?
>>
>> I once was told by someone on this list, for chewing out someone whose
>> intellect, motives, and general demeanor I considered to be
>> universally unimpressive (let's put it kindly), that on this list I
>> was to stick to the arguments, and not go after the person. If that's
>> the case, then all talk of who someone "really is" should hardly be
>> appropriate as a list topic.
>>
>> I suppose that rule has been considerably relaxed. If it is, I would
>> love to know - because if we're going to make things personal, that's
>> a game I can play as well as anyone else on this list.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Dehler, Bernie
>> <bernie.dehler@intel.com <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
>>
>> It wouldn’t have come to this if Greg would answer. He’s an
>> adult… let him answer for himself. Behind the scenes, this has
>> been frustrating for many people for a long time.
>>
>>
>>
>> …Bernie
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
>> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:20 PM
>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: Refuting Aristotle et al (was Re: [asa] Dawkins on
>> the fossil record)
>>
>>
>>
>> Wait a second.
>>
>>
>> It's entirely okay to "out" someone writing under a pseudonym on
>> this list?
>>
>> Not that I would mind if someone did that for me. I'm quite the
>> nobody. :) But I'm finding this whole twist strange. In the middle
>> of an admittedly testy conversation, someone decides it's
>> perfectly okay to change the subject and start going on about what
>> the person's "real name" is? Can we start outing Republicans and
>> Democrats (or even *gasp* libertarians) next?
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
>> <mailto:d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>> wrote:
>>
>> Dennis,
>> Please be careful to distinguish carefully between Gregory
>> Sandstrom and Gregory Arago. Unless you can establish a link
>> between them then you should apologize to Gregory Arago for the
>> confusion that you have caused.
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Venema wrote:
>>
>> Hi Don,
>>
>> If you google “Gregory Sandstrom” this is the third hit:
>>
>> http://www.discovery.org/p/291
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>> On 16/12/09 12:00 PM, "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
>> <mailto:d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>> wrote:
>>
>> Dennis:
>> Please explain why you think that that Gregory is affiliated
>> with the
>> Discovery Institute.
>> Don
>>
>> Dennis Venema wrote:
>> > Wow Greg, he looks just like you. Seems like you and he share
>> the
>> same
>> > interests too, judging from his publication record.
>> >
>> > So, ready to drop the charade now?
>> >
>> > Was it the fact that you’re affiliated with the Discovery
>> Institute
>> > that was the motivator for the pretense?
>> >
>> > Dennis
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.106/2563 - Release Date: 12/13/09
19:47:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.=

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.106/2563 - Release Date: 12/13/09
19:47:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 16 22:58:25 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 16 2009 - 22:58:25 EST