dmaker Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 "Yup. Tacky." -DWA Explain yourself please. Unless of course you wish to just hit and run. WSA asserts that it is tacky to highlight the lack of wildlife biologists among alleged witnesses and then question the credentials when reports are provided that claim to come from biologists. But that was never my stated requirement. So please explain your insult to me. I simply pointed out that the credentials of a witness are no more proven in the report than anything else, therefore I don't personally pay much attention to a witnesses background one way or another.
WSA Posted May 15, 2014 Author Posted May 15, 2014 ^^^^^I wasn't addressing your position Dmaker, or lack of one. Others were claiming such, as I recall it.
dmaker Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 (edited) ^^ I understand that WSA, which is why I was a bit surprised that DWA was so quick to call me tacky, when your original tacky jab was not aimed at me in the first place. Perhaps he was simply not paying that much attention and will no doubt be along soon to apologize for the misunderstanding. Edited May 15, 2014 by dmaker
Guest Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 Daily doleful dogmatic dubious draconican doctrine of denial, and disinclination to deem demonstrably dispersed data diligent done give me the blues,
WSA Posted May 15, 2014 Author Posted May 15, 2014 And dmaker....I understand. You view all sighting reports as illegitimate nonsense, so even if E.O. Wilson himself called in a report you would give it no more credibility than that, am I right?
BC witness Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 You made my day, people booger. I love wordplay, and that was great, I almost spewed my coffe all over the screen. ;-) Dang, dang, and triple dang!
dmaker Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 And dmaker....I understand. You view all sighting reports as illegitimate nonsense, so even if E.O. Wilson himself called in a report you would give it no more credibility than that, am I right? Correct. Besides, isn't his thing ants?
WSA Posted May 15, 2014 Author Posted May 15, 2014 Wilson? Oh yeah, formicidae are his thing, but I don't know of anyone who has the general biological cred that he does. He is Mr. Biodiversity in my book.
dmaker Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 (edited) Even the most credible of sources could be hoaxed. Lacking photographic, video or biological evidence that is unmistakable, I am not going to take an anecdote from anyone as anything more than a cool story. Edited May 15, 2014 by dmaker
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 Man this critical thinking is amazing. The gift that keeps on giving. Next time my car sounds funny, or my teeth ache, or my vegetables aren't growing I'll ask the postman rather than the mechanic, the dentist or the guy at the garden centre! Awesome! Really, this line of thinking is faux-logic. Pure obstinacy for the sake of it. Empiricism taken to its absurd end just because. Silly and utterly unscientific.
WSA Posted May 15, 2014 Author Posted May 15, 2014 So I'm clear though dmaker, if you had E.O. Wilson himself standing in front of you, saying he saw a BF, this would not be worthy of any belief from you, why....?
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 Because by his admission EO Wilson would immediately be relegated to that special category of people who are just wrong about everything. He would clearly need educating. Or reprogramming. Or derision.
dmaker Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 So I'm clear though dmaker, if you had E.O. Wilson himself standing in front of you, saying he saw a BF, this would not be worthy of any belief from you, why....? Because it is just another anecdote. His belief in his sighting is not evidence of anything more than he believes that he saw what he claims to have seen. If he a photo or other evidence to support the claim then that would be different.
Recommended Posts