Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... b irders ?

[Neil Jones]

On Wednesday 10 April 2002 11:40 pm, Mark Walker wrote:
> Neil wrote:
> > I suspect this may provoke a reaction. Yes, I am being provocative.
>
> You can bet this will get a response.  You are deserving of a lot of
> adjectives, but provocative isn't the one I would have picked.

Thanks Mark.  I knew I'd get a response!. _And_I_knew_it_would_be_you.
It must have been the bit about the Taliban. <grin>. 
You really should learn to keep cool you know Mark. Sometimes your
posts risk being full of sound and fury signifying nothing. ;-)
Its been so quiet for so long. Someone will accuse me of "taking the peace".  
<grin>

Being utterly serious just  for a moment the manner of your response actually 
illustrates my point beautifully. You have chosen to impugn my character by 
implying I am arrogant. (I would say I am not, and if you had chosen to meet 
me in person _when_I_offered a while ago ,I believe you would have a 
different opinion.)

Actually a person's personality doesn't undermine their science. Unless of 
course they have a serious flaw like they are inherently dishonest or 
mentally disturbed.

By choosing an ad hominem attack as a response. You have proved my point.
You need to show that my argument is wrong by _factual_ analysis.

> > grin on my face writing this but I can justify _every_ point. I find
> > Mark's
> > assertion utterly illogical. Perhaps this will actually get some people
> > thinking about what science really is! :-)
>
> "utterly illogical".  You constantly write as if you've got the inside on
> logic.  Wow - how perfectly wired your brain must be!  Spock Jones I shall
> call you. 

Thanks for the compliment, after all Spock was the Enterprise's 
_science_officer_ . <grin> 

 "Perhaps this will actually get some people thinking...".  Yes,
> and we'll all have YOU to thank for that.  We'd be "utterly" lost without
> you.

> Science is knowledge through systematic study.  Virtually every person on
> the planet could be categorized as a scientist at some point in their
> lives. Anyone who is studying the life cycles of insects in the field
> (which cannot be successfully accomplished unsystematically), and then
> studying their physical characteristics through careful preparation,
> mounting, and admiring is certainly engaging in science - no matter how
> illogical they or their activities may seem to the likes of you!

Why then when I applied systematic study to the list itself did you accuse me
of bad behaviour? Snoopping on everybody and analysing things. It seems you 
have never heard of GOOGLE!

>
> >  _However_ the evidence from this list shows that there is often a
> > lamentable
> > lack of logical and scientific thinking amongst certain collectors.
>
> The "evidence from this list" - please.  The keeper of the list has spoken.
> "a lamentable lack of logical and scientific thinking...".  According to
> whom?  Is that judgment a scientific one, or a personal one?  Honestly, I
> don't know how you manage to climb up into that lofty saddle each day.
>
> > Regular observers will know that certain people on this list claim to be
> > scientific but advance or support the most illogical, irrational and
> > unscientific ideas.
>
> Even if this were true (i.e. it were coming from someone other than you),

RIGHT THEN MARK.! You say my accusations are not true  PROVE IT! :-)


> it would in no way justify discounting everything else that might come from
> such people.
>
> > Seriously folks! It is all there in the archives!
> > To be fair it isn't just collectors but I am constantly worried by people
> > who
> > fall for hoaxes. It wouldn't be fair to criticise Americans for not
> > knowing
> > rude British slang but other things that are said that are equally
> > obviously
> > hoaxes and people should know. Yet they still fall for it. BE scientific
> > _check_ the data _first_.
>
> Why don't you stop worrying about everyone else and start focusing on your
> own social graces.

One important social grace is to be able to keep one's temper.

>
> Don't worry - no apology necessary.
>
> Mark Walker
> One scientist prone to bursts of illogical behavior.

No. One butterfly collector who would like to say he is scientific but who 
has fallen for anti-science. In the same way as you fell for my deliberately 
provocative post.

(This following stuff folks is why Mark fell out with me originally. Forgive 
me for having a go at him but he had a go at me and my response is an attempt 
to logically explain the true difference between us.)

You believe in an obvious, hoax; a phony scam that seeks to deprive the world 
of proper scientific thinking. The so called "creation science". It has been 
_proven_ beyond the slightest glimmer of doubt to to be utterly false.

Firstly many Christians do not believe it. So I am not attacking religion. 
Just crooked scammers just as bad as the Nigerians we had recently.

The bible _cannot_ be litterally true as you assert. It is full of things 
that are plainly incorrect. This doesn't invalidate its morality but it 
_cannot_ be litterally true.

Insects do not have four legs nor, what is worse, do birds as Leviticus
states!

I also doubt that _even_ you_ believe that someone should be put to death 
for working on the Sabbath or that we should all regard flying insects as 
detestable yet those things are in there too. As is the sanction for a man to 
sell his daughter into slavery. 

They are simply a reflection of the social structure of those
who wrote the scriptures. This doesn't mean it is all rubbish, but 
most_sensible_ people see it as guidance or allegory.

Mark. to be utterly frank. You may like to call yourself scientific but until 
you drop your belief in this phony, crooked, tribal anti-science no proper 
scientist will regard your beliefs as founded in science.

Having said all this I still think you're a nice guy, even if you do get all 
worked up an excited and keep shouting at me. 


Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl