Hold on there counselor, since I said "they are human", did I not acknowledge that some held to their orthodoxy?
Funny, I thought you never commented on them at all? In fact, yes, that's what you said:
Harstraw! I never commented on any of the scientists "responses", counselor.
Emphasis -- "
any" -- entirely your own. I'm leaving the juvenile "Harstraw" in because it's so much more fun to have it there when you yourself can't even decide on what you said.
You want to create the harstraw that I "dismissed" their criticism of the challenging data. I never did.
Oh, but you did -- you dismissed it as immaterial:
Is there a point....other that some in science are human?
See, no one's going to believe that you were doing anything else.
This, of course, is if you were commenting on them at all, because you said you never did. But apparently you did, as you
now say. Unless you didn't, and that's just another "harstraw." Whichever you think works for you at time, I guess. Heck, it all works for me, because it makes your responses more and more hilarious as this goes on.
This is just you believing you can make me out to defending the criticism. I wasn't, but you have sunk your teeth into "something" of your own creation.....which is nothing. I understand that orthodoxy exists (and my understanding that it does, that it is part of the human condition is not an endorsement of it), and new evidence will always challenge it....and that goes both ways as it should. But as usually you still ignore my main point......of all people who should relate to the stubbornness of orthodoxy.....are conservatives.
Weird, that's not what you said your "main point" was just above:
What? Such audacity to think that YOU got to the essence of what I said by deleting the point! Jack has a history of relying on SOME science to try to put down OTHER science which does not agree with his agenda. One example being his continued use of "solar activity" to counter CO2 argument on GW.
Now we have him again trying to sow seeds of doubt on a school of science (archaeology) by trying to argue that since science has not accepted challenges to some orthodoxy, then it is an imperfect entity. The counter argument is "wow, no kidding....humans have an inherent tendency to hold to orthodoxy and not change instantly in the face of counterfactual argument."
The irony is that, as a (neo)conservative, he should be aware of just deep that goes.
You said your main point was that Jack tries to deny science. Oh, sure, you added something it being an "irony" somesuchwhatever "conservative" (or is he a neoconservative? You're not clear on that) blah blah blah, but that wasn't your "main point." But then, your inability to know if you commented on the scientist's responses or not (you didn't, except that you did, according to you) indicates you don't know what you say from post to post, so I can't really expect you to even know what you "main point" ever was.
And besides, you've been calling me "Harstraw" and "counselor" throughout this exchange for what you call my presumption of mind-reading, yet you expect a reader to divine this context -- a supposed history of Jack's science-denial -- out of your post (#2)?
One of these days, you might make up your mind what you're actually doing and saying here.