<Ah, you see a problem now. In the popular mind, the journals you're talking about don't even exist. The "Journal of Geowhatchamacallit Subsurface Studies", to choose a mythical example, will be read by what? - a few hundred people in university geology departments and probably only by a handful of them. OTOH, a popular magazine of science will be in every public library and large book store in the country.>
Yea, pretty much supporting my point that the idea that the scientific is come some aethiest cabal with an agenda is, well, really quite out of line to put it nicely. Remember THAT was the whole point.
Some folks are in such a cabal though, including some who are considered scientists ...as I've shown. That not all are is not an issue to me.
<The thing is I haven't made a single badmouthing comment about the guys who write in the "Journals of Geowhatchamacallit Subsurface Studies" type journals.>
Yes you did, your thinking was that there was a "scientific communtiy" that were all aethiests and had an agenda (well, 100 posts ago or whatever).
ALL? No, some, sure. Furthermore, these folks (Dawkins, Coyne, Dennett, Shermer) are pretty loud voices purporting to speak for the scientific community. Do they not REALLY speak for most or all scientists is beside the point for me. They claim to and many folks think so. I think you should be upset with them.
You ridiculed my ideas about God fitting into my work in science as destined to failure because I'd be considered an idiot by others in science.
I ridiculed? I think I warned you you should be careful who you say that stuff in front of. Saying it to me won't hurt you. Whether I see it the same way you do or not.
You then went off on these popular magazines and media in general (DAwkins is really just media, with a few papers under his belt) as being "science".
And I explained that I'm interested in the popular conception of science, not just your take on it. |
