Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

You won’t like it but Novella defends the use of the term here:

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.whennits php/in-defense-of-pseudoscience/

I guess we all recognise some pursuits as pseudoscientific. We just get upset it’s something we’re invested in:

Seems to me that by those criteria, neo-darwinism qualifies as pseudoscience.

You won’t like it but Novella defends the use of the term here:

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.whennits php/in-defense-of-pseudoscience/

I guess we all recognise some pursuits as pseudoscientific. We just get upset it’s something we’re invested in:

Poking the bear Malf.

Since Karmy has me on his IGNORE list preventing me from replying to him I'll have to do it in a round about way.
He doesn't like what Sagan, Tyson, Krause,  Dawkins, Hawking, Cox, Fisher, Darwin and Asimov: he really wouldn't like Asimov along with a bunch of others I suspect. I like them all and by virtue of that has inadvertently lumped me in with folks I hold in high esteem. Thanks Karmy. Karmy's problem is he does not like anyone casting doubt on his beliefs. I feel sorry for  Karmy. He seems like a man whom doesn't possess the strength of his convictions.

I'd also like to add that personal attacks is one reason among others I imagine why the resident skeptics do not participate as regularly. And I'd like to point out not once have any of the skeptics resorted to personal attack. As a matter of fact I recall Arouet continually extending the olivebranch only to be summarily slapped numerous times with it and all for simply questioning the heartfelt beliefs of some members. Linda is just as polite. I guess the moral is being polite or impertinent does not matter when doubting someone's beliefs you'll still get slammed.

Poking the bear Malf.

Since Karmy has me on his IGNORE list preventing me from replying to him I'll have to do it in a round about way.
He doesn't like what Sagan, Tyson, Krause,  Dawkins, Hawking, Cox, Fisher, Darwin and Asimov: he really wouldn't like Asimov along with a bunch of others I suspect. I like them all and by virtue of that has inadvertently lumped me in with folks I hold in high esteem. Thanks Karmy. Karmy's problem is he does not like anyone casting doubt on his beliefs. I feel sorry for  Karmy. He seems like a man whom doesn't possess the strength of his convictions.

I'd also like to add that personal attacks is one reason among others I imagine why the resident skeptics do not participate as regularly. And I'd like to point out not once have any of the skeptics resorted to personal attack. As a matter of fact I recall Arouet continually extending the olivebranch only to be summarily slapped numerous times with it and all for simply questioning the heartfelt beliefs of some members. Linda is just as polite. I guess the moral is being polite or impertinent does not matter when doubting someone's beliefs you'll still get slammed.

Sorry, but it seems rather peculiar to complain about supposed personal attacks on sceptics, in the same breath as making ad hominem attacks on Kamarling, and emphasising that you're going to post them in such a way that he will see them, even though he wishes to ignore your posts.

It does tend to reinforce the impression that some sceptics here are more interested in trying to be provocative than in discussing psi.

Poking the bear Malf.

Since Karmy has me on his IGNORE list preventing me from replying to him I'll have to do it in a round about way.
He doesn't like what Sagan, Tyson, Krause,  Dawkins, Hawking, Cox, Fisher, Darwin and Asimov: he really wouldn't like Asimov along with a bunch of others I suspect. I like them all and by virtue of that has inadvertently lumped me in with folks I hold in high esteem. Thanks Karmy. Karmy's problem is he does not like anyone casting doubt on his beliefs. I feel sorry for  Karmy. He seems like a man whom doesn't possess the strength of his convictions.

I'd also like to add that personal attacks is one reason among others I imagine why the resident skeptics do not participate as regularly. And I'd like to point out not once have any of the skeptics resorted to personal attack. As a matter of fact I recall Arouet continually extending the olivebranch only to be summarily slapped numerous times with it and all for simply questioning the heartfelt beliefs of some members. Linda is just as polite. I guess the moral is being polite or impertinent does not matter when doubting someone's beliefs you'll still get slammed.

(Dave) doesn't like what Sagan, Tyson, Krause, Dawkins, Hawking, Cox, (have to say ?) 

I don't think any of the proponents do by and large, so what ? As to his beliefs, what about your beliefs ? And why haven't you gone back to that other thread you started a few days ago and addressed my reply to you ?

Sorry, but it seems rather peculiar to complain about supposed personal attacks on sceptics, in the same breath as making ad hominem attacks on Kamarling, and emphasising that you're going to post them in such a way that he will see them, even though he wishes to ignore your posts.

It does tend to reinforce the impression that some sceptics here are more interested in trying to be provocative than in discussing psi.

I've not denigrated his character, intelligence, knowledge. Karmarling does not ignore my posts.

What's there to discuss? If we questioned your conclusions, beliefs, assumptions etcetera we get slammed in some way. What you really mean is why we skeptics don't discuss psi in the affirmative.

I've not denigrated his character, intelligence, knowledge. 

What's there to discuss? If we questioned your conclusions, beliefs, assumptions etcetera we get slammed in some way. What you really mean is why we skeptics don't discuss psi in the affirmative.

Well, you were clearly commenting adversely on Kamarling's character rather than discussing the topic of the thread. If it wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was certainly an ad hominem criticism.

And I really don't expect sceptics to discuss psi in the affirmative. I would love to see more reasoned sceptical argument on this site. I think most people would. But it doesn't happen very much. In a way I can understand that if people are convinced there's nothing real there, then the incentive to get to grips with the evidence is minimal. I'd suggest that, rather than fear of personal attacks, is probably the reason for the current sceptical reticence on this site.

Poking the bear Malf.

Since Karmy has me on his IGNORE list preventing me from replying to him I'll have to do it in a round about way.
He doesn't like what Sagan, Tyson, Krause,  Dawkins, Hawking, Cox, Fisher, Darwin and Asimov: he really wouldn't like Asimov along with a bunch of others I suspect. I like them all and by virtue of that has inadvertently lumped me in with folks I hold in high esteem. Thanks Karmy. Karmy's problem is he does not like anyone casting doubt on his beliefs. I feel sorry for  Karmy. He seems like a man whom doesn't possess the strength of his convictions.

I'd also like to add that personal attacks is one reason among others I imagine why the resident skeptics do not participate as regularly. And I'd like to point out not once have any of the skeptics resorted to personal attack. As a matter of fact I recall Arouet continually extending the olivebranch only to be summarily slapped numerous times with it and all for simply questioning the heartfelt beliefs of some members. Linda is just as polite. I guess the moral is being polite or impertinent does not matter when doubting someone's beliefs you'll still get slammed.

I have to say, this coming from you is rich.

You consistently dismiss proponents' views on the ground that they're simply a result of emotion, desire to believe, etc. You often don't engage with the actual material presented. I will hear absolutely nothing about Linda. People here, myself included, have engaged with her for very extended periods of time. Linda comes off as very... disingenuous. I think what you have called her "politeness" is oftentimes very thinly veiled arrogance, and is commonly presented in the form of backhanded compliments and feigned agreement. 

You also seem to be equating disagreement about topics with ad homs, which obviously is not the case. I can't personally recall someone "attacking" malf, Paul, or Arouet as you've described. Disagreeing, even vehemently, is not the same thing as calling someone stupid or saying that they just are an idiot. It amazes me that you'd say he "doesn't like anyone casting doubts on his beliefs". The same could certainly be said about many people... and absolutely yourself as well. But it isn't about what we like or dislike - it's about presenting reasoned thought and evidence (two distinct things) and all that. I think you often do neither, and as a result people call you out for it. That's not the same thing as an ad hom. 

I also think there are diverse enough viewpoints here that it would sincerely surprise me if the reason skeptics aren't posting more is the ad homs you claim, as opposed to, say, busy schedules, or (gasp!) some of the skeptics not liking their ideas being challenged so consistently. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily - it's often less difficult to hang around a forum with people who are at least a bit more sympathetic to your views (not saying an echo chamber is a good thing). Certainly most here want reasonable discussion between skeptics and proponents. It's what draws most people here and it's why everyone was up in arms when Alex shut down the CD forum on Skeptiko. To say something like "if [skeptics] question your conclusions, beliefs, assumptions etcetera we get slammed in some way" is to just make a false, unsupported statement. There is plenty of good evidence-based and argument-based discussion here that goes beyond "you said the brain creates consciousness, so you're an idiot." In the very least those sort of responses are in the heavy minority, and even ones that may stray a little too close to such a dismissive response will generally have something of substance supporting the disagreement. What does oftentimes get criticized are the methods by which some skeptics (most often you and Linda) choose to approach the discussion. It is not the fact that you're disagreeing. It is how you go about arguing and supporting (or not supporting) it.

In any event, as Chris rightly pointed out, the bit where you say "I feel sorry for Karmy. He seems like a man whom doesn't possess the strength of his convictions" is undoubtedly disingenuous, sarcastic, and critical. How you'd not recognize the irony by saying that in the same post you're criticizing Kam in for ad homs is beyond me.

(Dave) doesn't like what Sagan, Tyson, Krause, Dawkins, Hawking, Cox, (have to say ?) 

I don't think any of the proponents do by and large, so what ? As to his beliefs, what about your beliefs ? And why haven't you gone back to that other thread you started a few days ago and addressed my reply to you ?

I think there has been some restraint on the part of proponents here. There's ample ammunition for personal attacks against Dawkins and Krauss (not Krause, by the way, Steve) you only have to look to their fellow skeptics for that. But I don't believe that disagreeing with someone or that suggesting their views are ideological amounts to a personal attack. All the people mentioned are, or have been, at the forefront of the atheist movement which is about ideology, not science nor skepticism. They chose that platform and in doing so invite opinions about their beliefs. Why should I or anyone refrain from criticism?

But this double standard is common among so-called skeptics. They seem to reserve the right to be polemical, to sneer and scoff yet are ultra sensitive about criticism. Not that vitriol is the only weapon of choice for the self-styled "skeptics": dishonesty, misrepresentation of evidence and spoiling tactics can do more harm to a discussion forum in the long run while seemingly polite on the surface. Such is an abuse of liberal moderation policies.

I think there has been some restraint on the part of proponents here. There's ample ammunition for personal attacks against Dawkins and Krauss (not Krause, by the way, Steve) you only have to look to their fellow skeptics for that. But I don't believe that disagreeing with someone or that suggesting their views are ideological amounts to a personal attack. All the people mentioned are, or have been, at the forefront of the atheist movement which is about ideology, not science nor skepticism. They chose that platform and in doing so invite opinions about their beliefs. Why should I or anyone refrain from criticism?

But this double standard is common among so-called skeptics. They seem to reserve the right to be polemical, to sneer and scoff yet are ultra sensitive about criticism. Not that vitriol is the only weapon of choice for the self-styled "skeptics": dishonesty, misrepresentation of evidence and spoiling tactics can do more harm to a discussion forum in the long run while seemingly polite on the surface. Such is an abuse of liberal moderation policies.

I think we've reached the point now, where from a position of intellectual honesty, it's ridiculous to pretend there's "nothing going on." 

People like Steve 001 however, are never going to change, that's for sure. I don't know why he is here to be honest but I wouldn't advocate his exclusion (even if that was likely which it isn't here of course).

Seems to me that by those criteria, neo-darwinism qualifies as pseudoscience.

Sure. I guess it would depend on what you mean by neo-darwinism. The evidence for common descent is as solid as evidence can get, and further research is always ongoing, trying to nail down the minutiae. Where do you think it crosses the line?

I know most on this site don’t subscribe to ‘god did it creationism’. Reading through the list one can see how that would tip over into pseudoscience.