View Single Post
Old 3rd March 2013, 11:01 AM   #24
Knave of the Dudes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by Minarvia View Post
It sounds like you are absolutely right. I agree.

However, since I tend to (a character flaw I have) try to give the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he, as I sometimes do, use a name or concept as a basis for attempting to express my PoV. For example, I would mention Darwin to draw the person I am talking to into the "idea" of what I am trying to express. I am not dropping the name to be exactly what Darwin expressed, but to use as a basic framework simply in trying to formulate my thoughts.

Now, if Randi seems very certain, than he does indeed need to read up more and be precise. If he means/meant to be a bit more general, then he should say so.
I would guess that he just had a lapse, didn't really think the whole eugenics idea through and forgot that the popular culture idea of "Darwinism" is essentially pseudoscientific and only bears superficial resemblance to the theory of natural selection - especially the modern one.

I mean the basics of natural selection, and why it's important not to mix them up with degenerated popular culture derivatives, and why applying the latter is pseudoscientific, are basically scepticism 101.

It's a mistake that the best of make for sure, but we have to expect that we be called on it, and admit to having made a mistake, if we do happen to make one. ESPECIALLY someone like Randi (or, for example, Penn) who is perceived as an... authority of scepticism in many eyes is the committer of said mistake.
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 3rd March 2013 at 11:05 AM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top