Quoting ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Platt said > > "That's why numbers gives the appearance of neutrality or > "objectivity" But scientists who use measurements expressed in numbers > to establish "truth" are no more "objective" than anybody else. They > "value" their methods and conclusions. So when you see a number such > as the degrees of warming in the past two centuries, be skeptical." > > You evil comtemptible hypocrite you.
Here come the ad hominems -- evil by Pirsig's values. > So you really did know those NHS headline stats were questionable rhetoric. > You even dared accuse those who questioned their validity of avoiding > "truth", yet here you tell us numbers are a poor substitute for > "truth" to be treated skeptically. Your word "truth" both times. Those who questioned their validity provided no evidence whatsoever. All statistics should be treated with skepticism, but that doesn't mean all statistics are wrong. > Apologise, withdraw from this board, or take your punishment (Horse ?) You should apologize for trying once again to invoke censorship. > Anyway, before you go Platt, can I just thank you for illustrating yet > again the Catch-22 of "skeptical correctness" (after Jorn Barger). And > proving the basic fact of memetics, that the lowest quality arguments, > using the most simplistic logic, tend to prosper and survive longest > in a freely communicating environment. The sad but true problem to > which we need a solution. Platt is living proof. Put him out of his > misery Horse, for all our sakes. Another evil smear. Don't you lefties ever change? ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
