Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
 And you're reading more into what I said than is actually there. It's funny how everyone is right, everyone is more right than everyone else, and everyone's perceptions and interpretations of others' motives are really based on their own biases (I do not exempt myself). For me this part of thread is closed. It does not belong on xml-dev and I won't be drawn further into vitriolic dialogue (unless, of course, it is about the one true science/religion of this forum: XML :-) ). -----Original Message----- From: Jim Melton [mailto:jim.melton@a...] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 11:37 AM To: Doug Rudder Cc: 'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'; 'Alan Gutierrez'; xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Is Web 2.0 the new XML? At 8/12/2005 07:50 AM, Doug Rudder wrote: >This is the single most offensive post I've ever read (which is a shame >since it comes from someone I've always respected). You don't get out much, do you ;^) (No offense intended! It's just that I have seen vast numbers of vastly more offensive posts, many of them condemning me to an eternity of agony in the name of a benevolent and loving deity in which the poster believes.) >One can make (and many scientists have made) a solid, logical, and >truly scientific argument that evolutionary theory itself is more >religion than science. Yeah, this is the same tired old argument that I hear from the creationists all the time. When the current US administration hauls out its "many scientists" who dispute whatever it is that the rich and conservative dislike, everybody is supposed to cower and say "oh, there is such dissent in the scientific community about this subject that we'd better not make a decision about it". Bull! Scientific American (not exactly the most liberal publication on the planet) recently reported that some very large number of scientists (I don't recall the exact number, but I think that it was well over 500) whose first name was "Steve" signed a letter stating that their research supported the position that human activities were greatly aggravating, if not actually causing, global warming. Since, as S.A. reported, some very small percentage of the male population in the USA is named "Steve", that suggests that a very, very large number of scientists are in agreement with that statement. While that proves nothing in and of itself, it demonstrates that hauling out "many scientists" means absolutely nothing. >Your comments are extremely religious in nature; you've taken unproven >theory and portrayed it as the One Truth, I take no position on what Len may or many not have said, but very, very few scientists whom I know treat evolution (or for that matter, gravity!) as "the One Truth". That's why "the theory of evolution" and "the theory of gravity" are common terms in scientific literature. Instead, the vast majority of scientists not employed by the current US administration (and, for that matter, the vast majority of them...they're just not allowed to express their opinions--ain't freedom a wonderful thing?) say that "the theory of evolution is the best way put forward to explain the observed facts about the relationships between living things". But they are virtually all committed to continuing to gather facts, to revise their theories to accommodate new observations, etc. This is in absolute contrast to the Creationists, who say "this one book is absolute truth, and I know so because I believe it to be so", therefore all of the facts on the ground are unpersuasive. >condemning all other >positions as superstitions and its practitioners as mindless, evil, >"hideously perverse" morons instead of caring parents and intelligent >human beings. Actually, I believe that caring parents and intelligent human beings can be incredibly blind to the ignorance they possess and try to inflict on others. Is that evil? Well, some people call wolves evil, others call sharks evil. Is it mindless? I think that blind belief in something on the sole basis of "I believe it" or "you have to have faith" is, in fact, mindless. >I guess what is most disappointing is that someone who seems to >advocate broad thinking could be so narrow minded and spiteful. So much >for scientific method and objectivity. This is the "I'm right and >you're stupid so shut up" method of argument. Did Len actually say that? I may have missed it, so I cannot refute it. But that is exactly what the Creationists say to the scientists whose research supports evolution as the best known description of the relationships between living organisms: We are a lot of people, and we believe that this one book is absolute truth, and we don't want our kids to be exposed to anything that disagrees with it, so shut up (or we'll do harm to you). Grumble, Jim 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
