Willful Ignorance, Uninformed Opinions
by Ted Slater on 02/26/2009 at 9:28 AM
The girl's comment stunned me. She admitted that she "didn't read the article," and yet she had an opinion about it. A strong opinion against it.
Great.
And then yesterday two commenters on the Boundless Line acknowledged that neither of them had read the article about which they had opinions.
After confessing that she doesn't usually read the articles, one of them acknowledged that "it would've been good for me to have read it before I commented."
Yeah.
The other wasn't so eager to own up to her rash opinions. In fact, she accused me of not providing an adequate Cliffs Notes version of the article being discussed, going on to demand that I apologize for her ignorance of it.
Whew.
Here's the thing. In both of these cases, the clear purpose of each blog post was to discuss an article published over on Boundless Webzine. This should have been obvious. In both cases, for example, the title of my blog post was the same as the title of the Boundless article. In both cases, I included a hyperlinked thumbnail image of the article. In both cases, I included a link directly to the article being discussed.
There really was no excuse for remaining uninformed about the article that was the very focus of each blog post.
Which leaves me wondering: Why are we so often so eager to share our opinions with others that we bypass the necessary step of sufficiently informing ourselves about the very subject at hand?
1. Tami said the following at 10:18 AM on Feb 26:
Compulsion.
This is where the discipline of silence can help us. When we practice this discipline, we realize that by "fasting from speech," we do not have the need to react verbally to every single thing that comes our way. We come to better recognize the time to speak, and the time to refrain from speaking. And we learn to be better listeners -- to God, ourselves, and others.
And I do agree... if you're going to comment on an article, you probably should have read it first. Even if your initial reaction stays the same, at least you've done the blogger the courtesy of hearing *them* out before you request them to hear *you* out.
2. Boston Matt said the following at 10:23 AM on Feb 26:
Ted,
You know what is funny though, we all know when people don't read the articles. You can easily tell & I guess you are welcomed into the great hall of people who have been misrepresented, misquoted, or taken out of context.
I hear it all the time from people. "Rush Limbaugh said this", when asked if they listened to him say it: "No, I heard it from someone". Haha! We live in a an age where if it isn't a thirty second clip most of our friends (and sadly, apparently those who read this blog) are uninterested. I believe it is called building a straw man? Our desire for brevity is sad & frankly, disrespectful. Wasn't it Solomon & James who said some stuff about this? Instead of tongue maybe we should insert shoot-from-the-hip typing.
3. May-Ann said the following at 10:35 AM on Feb 26:
Maybe we just like hearing ourselves speak. Or we've reached that level of information overload and knee-jerk reactions to certain issues that we're just reacting, rather than researching and re-thinking (thinking's hard enough already, who wants to RE-think?)
Or maybe the Boundless tech team has made these little comment boxes so easy to post in that all Boundless readers have a strange urge to post something - anything! Kudos to the tech team! No, really - you guys have done a lovely job!
4. Janice said the following at 10:42 AM on Feb 26:
Pride of epidemic proportions. The commenters you're referring to are the e-version of people who just have to have something to say in a conversation because they like to hear themselves talk. Argh!! When did listening get removed from the list of good manners?! Read/listen, THEN respond!! I'm thinking we need a hard core roundtable discussion about the need for manners and civility!!
5. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:50 AM on Feb 26:
If Ms. Samaria had read the article, she would know that no accusation like this was made by the author or any informed creation science advocate.
So where does this idea come from? Unfortunately, it's just floating out there, completely unsourced, in some people's mind: In their eagerness to show how closed-minded the Other Guys are, they close their own minds to anything other than this black-white either-or thinking: Well, if you disagree with me, then you must think I'm not a real Christian! So in retaliation for that (that is, an assumption I have made about you), I just won't listen at all, because you are not worth my time.
(I can understand having an opinion about books or movies you haven't seen, but those can at least be based on reviews from informed people who have seen or read whatever it is. And in this case -- unlike The Shack debacle last summer -- it's easy to prove that the article itself debunks the flawed view of it that has been mentally manufactured.)
It seems this betrays is a phenomenon of psychological projection more than anything else: i.e., This is the way I think and operate, so it must be how you think and operate too. It is combined with an almost understandable desire to be right and to hold firm beliefs -- but frankly, there's no excuse for not even reading an article before commenting on it. This is not only plain bad form, but frankly against Scripture's principles of honest and involving your mind in a Christ-centered worldview.
6. Elizabeth H. said the following at 10:58 AM on Feb 26:
Ted,
I think there are two questions here.
1) Why do we jump to comment when we're uninformed?
-One answer is that Boundless tends to write about hot topics that most people have already been thinking about. A lot of us are eager to discuss these topics with fellow Christians.
-We equate having an opinion with being informed, and we believe that by sharing our opinion, we will be enlightening others.
-We are used to having the opportunity to publish our opinion all over the Internet, and no one bothers to tell us to slow down. I'm not condoning the behavior, just offering an explanation.
2) Why does it happen on Boundless specifically?
-Maybe you need to evaluate the commenting feature in general. For example, the blog does often seem to be a separate entity from the articles.
-Could you add a comment policy that is permanently more visible? Make it clear that some posts are linked to very informative articles which should be read first.
-With the publication delay, it does seem like a free-for-all at times. That is part of the reason that people don't "listen" to each other. But I appreciate the blog very much.
7. farmer Tom said the following at 11:12 AM on Feb 26:
Because, the vast majority of the human race believe they have a far higher level of knowledge than the evidence actually shows, and they therefore must show that "superior level of knowledge" at every opportunity that presents itself.
I speak from experience.
I'm working on it.
It's a little thing the Bible calls pride.
8. Melissa S. said the following at 11:14 AM on Feb 26:
Most people have some sort of opinion, prejudice, or vague idea picked up from somewhere on almost every subject. It takes work to form an educated opinion. Most people are too lazy to take the time to think things through or they don't know how. I don't understand why people post without actually having a good reason for their opinion or without carefully reading what is under discussion. It's incomprehensible why people choose to embarrass themselves that way. I just never got it.
9. Michaella said the following at 11:34 AM on Feb 26:
I realise that we have a tendency to not esteem our brothers higher than ourselves...I have caught it at work in my life often in this one way, which I've since tried to remedy:
When I'm in conversation with someone and I think that what they're saying makes no sense, I now assume that I'm missing something instead of assuming that I'm right and they're wrong. This forces me to ask questions (instead of assuming I understood or heard clearly everything the other person said).
More often than not, I realise that I either didn't hear, or actually misunderstood what the other person meant.
In this same vein, I believe that humility will allow us to take pause and read the article so that we can better a better (and first-hand) idea of what the writer said. Carried further, it will encourage us to ask questions when we disagree...instead of always being eager to criticize/condemn....or share uninformed opinions.
10. Michaella said the following at 11:42 AM on Feb 26:
Lol....Farmer Tom (#7) summed it up nicely. It's the perfect intro to my previous post.
That's exactly what it is Farmer Tom...pride.
I know from experience:o)
11. brx said the following at 12:09 PM on Feb 26:
Insecurity, lack of humility, pride.
I think that's the order they come in. When I've made an arrogant, assuming statement and was later convicted of it, I can usually trace it back through those three sins.
Farmer Tom [#7] wrote:
"I speak from experience.
I'm working on it."
That's awesome bro! I like it!
Grace, peace & humility
12. Heather Koerner said the following at 12:17 PM on Feb 26:
Ted,
I didn't read your blog, but just have to express my outrage at your title.
Ignorant and Uninformed? Us? How dare you!
Oh ... wait ...
13. Kevin said the following at 12:17 PM on Feb 26:
Lol, welcome to the internet Ted.
14. DannieA said the following at 12:18 PM on Feb 26:
I may have a pre-determined bias on any issue...however, I do like to read articles and see if what is presented there makes sense and I agree with it or I can just say that I read it and still disagree because of xyz...
however, in today's "fast paced life" most people either a) don't like to read or b) don't want to take the 5 minutes to read an article and just want to jump into a conversation...
It's sad really...to me it's not as important if one agrees with the p.o.v. in the article or not...but goodness gracious please read if that's the whole point of the post!!!!
15. Justin T. said the following at 12:45 PM on Feb 26:
I suggest adding a new feature to the blog's comment engine; Add a new text field above the comment box, asking the commentator to prove that he's read the article. Copy/paste a sentence buried deep within the article, or answer a simple question about it. Since you guys human-check the comments anyway, you don't have to worry about trying to automate a process like that.
(Yeah, I'm a web developer, so I know this isn't practical; but it's fun to think about :D )
Thank you for allowing us to comment; I know it's a pain, having to filter every one, but it is truly appreciated.
16. J. said the following at 12:52 PM on Feb 26:
If it's obvious that a commenter did not read an article the OP wrote about and helpfully provided a link to, why publish the comment? Most likely, it wouldn't enhance the discourse anyway.
17. BDB said the following at 1:23 PM on Feb 26:
Why? Because it's trendy!
Seriously, though, the media landscape has changed so much that people can easily isolate themselves and only interact with those who agree with them. They then end up parroting talking points they hear from their preferred sources.
Of course, there is another extreme: believing that only people who are "experts" have a right to speak on a subject. There are people who believe in this, too. This actually scares me more, because it drives people's fears underground, until one day, they explode.
I think it's much better to have a semi-chaotic forum where you get a sense of where people are on an issue. Then it's possible to refine the explanation of one's position.
18. Jacob said the following at 2:12 PM on Feb 26:
The climate of narcissism must be a contributing factor to such phenomena. We twitter away, update our facebook statuses every three minutes, and itch to get a word in on the latest controversial blog posts because we think that even the mundane and simple minute-to-minute details of our lives actually matter to everyone. As several people have pointed out, the source of this behavior is pride. We are proud of ourselves and what to show ourselves off to the world. That is why social networking is so popular. We get to be our own reality show.
19. Lost In the World said the following at 2:57 PM on Feb 26:
Yes! Yes! A thousand times, Yes!
Also may I beg, as a dedicated Lurker, for an update to this post warning people against doing the following:
"I haven't read the comments posted here, but would like to say...(The exact same things stated in comments numbered 3, 7, 14, 18, 21-26 [inclusively], 31, 33, 37, and 39 [exclusively])." Some of these threads get real boring, real fast because people are merely posting the exact same things over and over and over again.
Also if, I could be allowed to weigh in on the question of more stringent commenting standards:
@ #6 above "Maybe you need to evaluate the commenting feature in general...With the publication delay, it does seem like a free-for-all at times. That is part of the reason that people don't "listen" to each other."
Vs.
@ #17 "I think it's much better to have a semi-chaotic forum where you get a sense of where people are on an issue. Then it's possible to refine the explanation of one's position."
BDB has the right of it, I should think. Comments are messy, but that's life. Your commenting system is fine as is, if you ask me. (Which you didn't, but if you had, that's what I'd say)
20. Brian K said the following at 3:09 PM on Feb 26:
Solomon answered this one:
Wise men store up knowledge,
But with the mouth of the foolish, ruin is at hand.
…
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But a wise man is he who listens to counsel.
…
A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil,
But a fool is arrogant and careless.
…
The wise of heart will receive commands,
But a babbling fool will be ruined.
And, to second (/third/fourth/wherever) the Farmer (in a way), I am sometimes the fool speaking.
If anyone didn’t read it, Tim Challies’ a-la-carte had a blip on the possible harm stemming from facebook/twitter/myspace obsessed youth.
21. Mike Toreno said the following at 3:25 PM on Feb 26:
I thought the analysis the women referred to in the first link was a good one, she listed a set of indicia indicating that a writing is unreliable, and dismissed the article based on its possession of the indicia. It isn't that she didn't examine the article, it was that she concluded, based on her examination and her that the article wasn't likely to be worth fooling with. Maybe you could get her to read the article if you explained why its authors confined themselves so what she saw as such a narrow resource list.
22. Jeff said the following at 3:55 PM on Feb 26:
Actually, I think Samaria/daydream11 was making a good point about the value of a variety of sources. I know I probably wouldn't have checked the resource list if I hadn't seen her comment and I'm guessing many others wouldn't have either. Her comment was about the resource list and her own understanding of how God created the world, not about the article itself. From my understanding, she saw a potentially interesting article, scanned the resource list, decided that the Journal of Creation wasn't as reputable as she had hoped, and decided to encourage the author to strengthen the argument by providing examples from a wider variety of sources.
23. Sean Patrick said the following at 4:27 PM on Feb 26:
I hope all of the reasons being tossed around here-- pride, compulsion, insecurity, etc. -- are not being directed at the two individuals whom Ted called out specifically.
The Boundless blog doesn't seem like a place where contributors should be made an example of in this way, especially without taking the beam out of our own eye first. I trust that we're all talking about the culture at large instead, and are quick to admit our own faults as well.
I'm uncomfortable with how this post makes those two commenters look. Maybe I'm wrong, and we're all fair game for such criticism when we post. Just something to chew on.
24. Amelia said the following at 5:09 PM on Feb 26:
I agree with Lost in the World (#19) re commenters not reading previous comments. I don't like it. Not even when accompanied by an excuse such as I don't have enough time to read all the comments here, but I just have to say that I think... and then it ends up being the same thing canvassed in several previous posts. Why not use what time you do have to read some of the comments, so you can come back later with a better view of where the discussion has already been? I personally never post without reading previous comments, as I'd be too embarrased if I was found ignorant! Though there's definitely an element of pride in that, too.
25. Scott Arnold said the following at 5:18 PM on Feb 26:
TLDR. Fellow forum goers like me know what that means ;)
I'm just musing here from my own experience, but I've felt at times that I have a strong opinion and want someone to acknowledge me. I think it can come out in the relationship blog post comments (because it is a naturally a very emotionally heavy topic with a lot of murikness) I make. I actually edit my comments a lot before I make them, because often times my first drafts just drip with that mentality of trying to get some sort of emotional or respectful validation from someone.
Basically, it boils down to selfishness, and a refusal to really respect and honor the other person's opinion. It's very sinful, as it puts me as an idol. I am only speaking about myself, but I can bet that others would feel the same way. Once the appropriate opportunity comes up, especially one that is polarizing (say, an article about homosexuality), boom! Here comes the opportunity to yell out an opinion, especially if it's one that the opinion is against the grain on. Who cares about acknowledging the other side? It's my opinion and I want people to hear me.
I think that's why. People are sinful, and it shows up everywhere. Ted, this is an unfortunate aspect of the internet subculture. Voices all want to yell out their opinion and be heard. Thanks for putting up with it, at least, because a lot of comments have some solid scriptural insight or wisdom in them.
26. Tami said the following at 5:47 PM on Feb 26:
Sean: I hazard that some people, like myself, were simply answering Ted's question, "Why are we so often so eager to share our opinions with others that we bypass the necessary step of sufficiently informing ourselves about the very subject at hand?" To be honest, I wasn't even thinking of those specific commenters. I have no clue about their specific motivations.
Even just "Why are we often so eager to share our opinions?" -- end of question -- is an important question for us to ask ourselves, and use for self examination.
And yes, for the record -- I think we should all check ourselves before we post/respond to an email/speak to one another.... James 1:19
27. Samaria said the following at 5:49 PM on Feb 26:
Thank you, Jeff 22 and Mike 21. That was my entire point in my first post, and yes, Ted, it seemed to me that Dr. Sarfati was making it sound as if Christians can only be creationists (even if he didn't come right out and say such a thing). I've already owned up to my struggles and apologized for my disrespect, and I've already been chastised by quite a few people, so I don't really like being called out here in such a way. I understand the point you are trying to make - and I agree with it - but I don't think it's right to call people out on the main entry.
As far as I can tell, most people don't give their opinion unless they're positive that they can argue it. I witness this in my first period and government classes all of the time: those who are confident in their stance are vocal; those who aren't laugh as the rest of us duke it out. Yes, we can be arrogant in that knowledge (which is what the real problem is, I think) and/or we overestimate our own knowledge (which, if it's without arrogance and an honest mistake, can be easily forgiven).
All in all, people, both non-Christians and Christians alike, should be willing to listen and learn.
Respectfully,
Samaria
28. Janelle said the following at 6:26 PM on Feb 26:
I have to agree with Elizabeth (#6) that the blog often seems separate from the articles. The majority of posts on The Line are only somewhat related to Boundless articles, so it doesn't make reading-before-commenting seem compulsory, though obviously that is sometimes true.
And also, many times good articles don't immediately generate a blog post either. I would appreciate a link underneath each article pointing directly to a related post so we can comment right after reading-- that might help generate more related comments.
But I don't think it's fair to single out commenters (as #23 has already said). Their only fault was one I've been guilty of before-- of finding the topic so interesting that they wanted to join in and get what they could out of the discussion right away. This is not such a heinous act worthy of the censure you've given, Ted. But your point is well taken: we should be more slow to comment without full understanding.
But I also hope The Line realizes too that for some people, this blog is actually more the essence of Boundless than the actual articles.
29. Leah said the following at 6:49 PM on Feb 26:
Wow.
I think it's perfectly fine for someone to post a comment on a blog if they haven't read the original article, only if they're expressing an opinion on the topic, and not on the actual article.
Lost In the World and Amelia - sometimes there are over 100 comments. People can be forgiven for not reading all of them.
30. Texas Craig said the following at 10:48 PM on Feb 26:
Samaria:
You continue to impress me with your grace under fire. Nice response.
As for Ted's original question:
"Why are we so often so eager to share our opinions with others that we bypass the necessary step of sufficiently informing ourselves about the very subject at hand?"
The basic answer was nailed by Farmer Tom: pride (and we all struggle with it, to greater or lesser degrees). But, I also think that Ted's question is unfair, because it assumes that the posts listed were made by people who were not sufficiently informed. I would disagree -- at least as far as Samaria's post. I thought her post was very honest and added value to the discussion, with some insightful comments.
To me, it is reasonable, when one person says "go read this article if you want to learn about [fill in the blank]," for another person to point out a facial concern about the source materials for the article. It is not much different than if I said "hey go read this article about capitalism in America if you want to learn about the subject" and someone else writes in and points out that all of the source materials for the article came from the website of a prominent communist group. I would consider that a valid concern, especially if they acknowledge up front that they have not read the article, so they are not commenting on the substance of the article.
To me, it is such a paradox to see you, Ted, be frequently harshly critical toward some people on here, but then extol (in another article on here) the virtues of understanding in regard to homosexuality. Of course, maybe I am mistaken and you were not extolling the virtues of compassion and understanding with others in your post on homosexuality! :-)
31. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:10 AM on Feb 27:
Jeff (#22), note that there are often word limits for guest writers, which is perfectly reasonable. This means that I reference other more detailed articles — which in turn have primary sources. If you checked out most of my articles and books, you would see that they refer to primary sources from secular journals.
32. Brian P said the following at 7:15 AM on Feb 27:
Samaria (and 21, 22)
A few logical inconsistencies in your reasoning:
1) Did you check your teachers' opinions against a variety of resources? In your original comment that caused all of this controversy, you wrote "my government and English teachers...[taught me to pull from various sources when she wrote papers]". So did you challenge your teachers who did not quote a variety of sources? Did you accept these teachings as truth without verifying them independently? Why is the spoken word different from the written word in terms of the amount of legitimacy we attribute?
2) You may be misunderstanding the intent and purpose of the instructions you were given.
a)Your teachers may have taught you those research principles so you could gain the best understanding about topics about which you would typically know little before your research. Dr. Sarfati has written about this topic for years, and has heard many (if not all) alternative explanations and beliefs. He doesn't need to cite various sources to confirm he has completed his research.
b) Did your teachers specifically say that articles with a homogeneous set of resources should be disregarded, or was this something you merely inferred from their statements? What about the sources you cite? For them to be legitimate, is every diverse source required to display diverse sources itself in order to be legitimate? That is unreasonable at best.
3) The defense you give for not reading the article sounds reasonable at first, but it seems to give you a pass when it comes to logically evaluating the arguments in an article. If you know Dr. Sarfati is basing the majority of his position on scripture, then he doesn't need a plethora of sources. He simply needs cogent, well-crafted, solid arguments. The premises of these arguments should all be well-reasoned or base in scripture. You simply ignoring the article releases you from the responsibility of thoroughly evaluating the article and struggling with the issues discussed.
4) The most important thing you are missing is that Dr. Sarfati's article is not a complete research piece (a fair statement I believe), but instead a single resource advocacy piece from which you can begin your own research. It is intended to defend a particular position (and does so quite well, I would hope you would give it a read)
Any of these explanations make more sense to me than your original, dismissive comment.
33. Jim H said the following at 9:22 AM on Feb 27:
When I was younger, I grossly overestimated my own knowledge because I did not know what I did not know and therefore overestimated what I did know.
As I have gotten older and become much more knowledgeable about many different things, my humility has also increased, because I have a better grasp of the magnitude of my own ignorance. I believe there was a line in the Peanuts comic strip that captured this thought (or perhaps it was from somewhere else) along the lines of: "the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
This humility means I don't dismiss things out of hand and I am not a snob about sources. In fact, I seek out the opposing views and have read some of Dawkin's writings, as well as Stephen Gould, and I read most of "Origin of the Species" while in high school. What I usually find is that understanding thoroughly the opposing view (even if their sources may be dubious), sharpens me and forces me to question my own assumptions.
The main point of this post was to explain how humility can increase with increasing knowledge, but I will mention in passing that the more I have learned, the more I am convinced that Evolution is utterly incapable of explaining how that first cell was assembled from the primordial soup of chemicals.
34. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:37 AM on Feb 27:
First post!
Oh wait, bummer.
That's another reason why.
35. Samaria said the following at 3:01 PM on Feb 27:
Brian P (32)
1) I didn't cause any controversy, or at least not any that wasn't needed. If I had been a creationist commenting on how a theistic evolutionist's resource list was one-sided, then the response I would have received would have been exactly the opposite than the one I received from Ted. No, I did not check my teachers' comments about resources, because I knew from experience that what they said was not only true, but a good piece of advice. People tend to trust those who pull their information from a variety of sources, regardless of the subject being discussed. Professionals in any field quickly slam something that draws from resources from only one side of an issue. I found their advice to be common sense, no offense.
For example: I was assigned a government research project a few months ago on illegal immigration reform. While I was doing my research, I visited websites, many of which did not hold the same view. I cited these sources in my paper. I noticed that when I got my paper back from my government teacher (who didn't always agree with me, and said so!), the feedback I received from him was a lot more positive and deep than the feedback he gave to some of my other classmates, even if they chose the same stance and even if their paper was written just as well, simply because their resources were one-sided.
Basically, when one's resources aren't diverse, it implies that the writer isn't willing to see a point from another's perspective, which (at least to me) makes it seem as if arguing would be futile, because the other person isn't even willing to truly listen to and understand the other side.
My intent in my first comment was not to dismiss, but to point out an issue I had with Dr. Sarfati's work.
2) a) That is true, but for those of us who are just being introduced to Dr. Sarfati and have no idea of his background, it doesn't look good when we find that his sources aren't diverse. To be honest, I see this kind of work all across the board with creationists in general, so the issue I have is not strictly with him. Not in the least.
b) My teachers said that sources like that can't be trusted, that they had to be taken with a grain of salt. There was nothing from my teachers about disregarding them, but my line of thinking was, "Well, if I can't trust them, why should I give them the time of day?" I like my reading to be as trustworthy as possible, so I don't like to give up my time and effort to something that is (or, at least, seems) less trustworthy than it ought to be.
3) As a theistic evolutionist, I (personally) cannot regard Scripture as the final authority on matters of modern science. I do read the theological arguments, because that is the part of evolution that excites me, but I didn't find it necessary to comment on the article at hand. By the time I had posted, the theological debate on the blog was in full swing, and Dr. Sarfati's arguments were made clear there. Why bother with an article when I could just read the blog?
4) Fair enough.
Respectfully,
Samaria
36. Lost In the World said the following at 3:49 PM on Feb 27:
To Leah @ 29:
Let me start by saying, it is a pleasure and an honor to have my little comment noticed by you specifically. 90% of the reason I don't comment here often is that between you, Mike Theemling (My Thought Brother) and Farmer Tom (Sometimes short on tact, usually long on common sense) anything I'd like to say has been eloquently stated far beyond my meager ability to elucidate. So thank you.
And yet...as to this matter you are wrong madam.
As stated by Amelia @ 24 we all of us have a limited amount of time. He's volunteering at his church, she's got kids in the car, they've got plans to visit with friends. All of us have a *Finite* amount of time.
When one adds their own pointlessly repetitive post, they disrespect the finite time of everyone else. If you don't have the time to read all 100 previous comments (And I’m not saying you have to), you don't have enough time to comment. And that’s OK. With a shockingly small list of exceptions, nothing you (or I, or anyone else for that matter) have to say is so earth shatteringly important that it must be said without acknowledging the other side of the conversation. And that's what a comments section is about, communicating first with the OP, then with all the others who have left comments. It is not a place for catharsis, validation, or pointless debate style point scoring, but an exchange of ideas. The wild out of nowhere comment is not about communicating but about getting one’s point out regardless of what others think or say. It is a tad arrogant, and ultimately self defeating (after all, if everyone did that, no one would ever read anyone else’s comments).
All of which is to say, I hope you’ll rethink your position.
Cheers.
37. BDB said the following at 4:54 PM on Feb 27:
My PhD-student friends in graduate school joked that they weren't actually allowed to have an opinion, only to cite the opinions of others. This was really because the faculty was so intent on making sure we all researched a particular subject thoroughly to understand all the points of view before taking a position of advocacy. We were particularly expected to be able to answer questions about opposing schools of thought within a particular subject.
Typically, by the time one understands a subject at this level of detail, it requires a level of intense focus that irritates everyone else. If the only people who were allowed to take advocacy positions were the experts, then we'd probably never get anything done because people would be busy researching.
I'm reminded of a formative incident in the career of one of my management professors, Peter F. Drucker. He relates how it was a really hot day in November, and he was sent to find the janitor and get him to turn off the heat and turn on the air conditioning. Eventually, he found the guy in the dark, dirty boiler room.
He asked, "Why is the heat on? Can't you read a thermometer?"
He responded, "If I could read a thermometer, do you think I'd be working here?"
Indeed, what he had was a calendar. He marked off each day. Someone wrote on the calendar which day in the fall to turn the heat on, and which day in the spring to turn the air conditioning on. The janitor simply marked off the X on the calendar each day.
Advocacy is a lot more fun than research because advocates can leave out the pieces that don't fit their position. It's a lot easier for us to simply repeat the talking points we here from various advocates, rather than digging into the complexity of the issue.
An advantage of the semi-chaotic comment format here on the Boundless Line is that the gaps in an advocates position are brought forward. That produces what debaters call 'clash.' If you want to make a good dececision, or persuade people to change, you need that clash to get the moose out on the table.
It's a pity someone didn't simply teach that janitor how to read a thermometer. Then he'd be able to see for himself what the right thing to do was.
38. Leah said the following at 9:15 PM on Feb 28:
Lost in the World (36) - for starters, let me say I love how you described farmer Tom as "Sometimes short on tact, usually long on common sense"!
I think my opinion is effectively summarised if I responded to this one particular comment you made- All of us have a *Finite* amount of time.
When one adds their own pointlessly repetitive post, they disrespect the finite time of everyone else.
I'd say- no, I don't think they're disrespecting the finite time of everyone else. If I post something (even if it hasn't been stated before), I'm completely aware people might not have the time to read it- that's cool. If I'm comment #89 or #145, I wouldn't expect everybody to read it. To say "if you don't have time to read all the comments, you don't have time to comment" is a bit strong I think... sometimes reading all the comments could take a good ten minutes, maybe more, and if you only want to make a one or two sentence comment, that's just going to take ten seconds. Especially if's it's a common point of view, I think it's a good thing to have several people reinforce it. Is it bad to leave a comment saying "I agree with Commenter #X, we should do xyz"? Isn't that just repeating somebody else? But it's encouraging for them to see someone else reinforce and agree with something they've said. These comments are not an essay or thesis where each point is addressed individually and then you progress to the next point. They are a conversation, and if you look at a normal verbal conversation, points are often revisited and reinforced by several people. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
39. Tami said the following at 9:47 PM on Feb 28:
BDB -- dude, you were taught by Drucker? If I'd have known that I would have asked you for help with a paper I had to submit last week! JK
40. Jo said the following at 9:18 AM on Mar 1:
BDB 37:
"My PhD-student friends in graduate school joked that they weren't actually allowed to have an opinion, only to cite the opinions of others."
Haha, I hate that. Woe betide us if we ever use the word 'I' in an essay...
41. BDB said the following at 4:55 PM on Mar 1:
Jo (#40) wrote:
>>Haha, I hate that. Woe betide us if we ever use the word 'I' in an essay...<<
Or even worse, write, "I feel." Such as, "I feel the Palestinians and Israelis should just learn to live together."
42. Jonathan Sarfati said the following at 9:21 AM on Mar 2:
In a short summary piece, is it reasonable to demand that a Ph.D. chemist use up his word limit by citing lots of primary sources for claims made in his field of expertise? E.g. I could waste lots of space by citing:
1. Cotton, F.A. and Wilkinson, G., 1980. Advanced Inorganic Chemistry: a Comprehensive Text, 4th Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, NY, p. 47. Return to text.
2. Thiemann, W., ed., 1973. International Symposium on Generation and Amplification of Asymmetry in Chemical Systems, Jülich, Germany, pp 32–33, 1973.
3. Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N., 1987. Organic Chemistry, 5th ed. Allyn & Bacon Inc. p.150.
4. Cohen, J., 1995. Getting all turned around over the origins of life on earth. Science 267:1265–1266.
5. For example, Bada, J.L., Luyendyk, B.P. and Maynard, J.B., 1970. Marine sediments: Dating by racemization of amino acids. Science 170:730–732.
... or simply mention my own theoretical and practical expreience in this field, and cite my more detailed paper on the problem of homochirality for chemical evolution, which contains these refs and many more. Same with the problem of condensation polymerization, again points well known to chemists, and discussed in more detail in my cited paper with full primary sources.
BTW, our new website is http://creation.com
43. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:04 PM on Mar 2:
Note also, refusing to read my article means missing out on the last two sections, "The Bible vs. Evolution" and "Sin and Death". These show that the Bible, including Jesus Himself, rejected evolution and affirm Genesis creation and the Flood.
Those who gush emotionally over how wonderful it is that God used evolution are also ignorant of how unimpressed atheists are with this idea.
Darwin could not see why a God of love would create a germ as a pathogen and kill his 10yo daughter Annie. Yet this is what evolution and long ages entail. But the Bible teaches that death and suffering came from Adam's sin.
"Darwin's Bulldog" T.H. Huxley was even more direct:
‘I confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk delicately among “types” and allegories. A certain passion for clearness forces me to ask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus did not believe the stories in question, or that he did? When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that “the Flood came and destroyed them all,” did he believe that the Deluge really took, place, or not?’
‘If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” … what value has Paul's dialectic.’
In more modern times, leading biologist Jacques Monod argued:
"Namely, selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms … .
"The more cruel because it is a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution."
Or finally the leading Apostle of Antitheism today, Clinton R. Dawkins:
"Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual. Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!"
Yet theistic evolutionists and other long-ages insist that we compromise Scripture to win over misotheists ...
44. Texas Craig said the following at 10:18 PM on Mar 2:
Well said, Dr. Sarfati (#43)! You and I may frequently disagree, but I wholeheartedly agree with your post #43 and the underlying arguments from your article, and find them well-stated.