A Promise
by MikeGeneWhat a difference a week makes. Last week, when the Forrest Mims's story about Dr. Pianka's speech to the Texas Academy of Science broke, some of us at Telic Thoughts were among the many bloggers who commented on it with insufficient skepticism. Although we did not repeat or defend the accusation that Dr. Pianka advocated genocide, we did say that he expressed glee at the thought of 90% of humanity dying of Ebola. Although there was independent evidence that supported this interpretation at the time, hindsight tells us that we should have demanded much stronger evidence given the nature of the accusations.
Since then, a partial transcript of the speech has come out. While the transcript does support some of Mims's account, and shows that Dr. Pianka's speech was a mixture of some rather extreme ideology and science, it fails to support the most egregious accusation. Because of this, and because of the nature of the accusation, we feel forced to conclude that Mims's report is premised on a terrible misunderstanding and misjudgment.
We do feel sympathy for Dr. Pianka for all the stress, accusations, and vicious labels he has had to endure because of this story. It's hard to imagine what it would feel like to have thousands of people accusing you of advocating genocide. We do not feel any sympathy for those who reported Dr. Pianka to the Department for Homeland Security or those who sent him death threats.
The next time the media circulates an accusation that has the potential to do serious real-world harm to a person's reputation, we promise to treat such accounts with extreme skepticism and caution. We invite our readers, both friendly and unfriendly, to hold us to this promise.
April 8th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Well said, Mike. Thanks.
Comment by hrun — April 8, 2006 @ 10:42 am
April 8th, 2006 at 11:23 am
I would also like to echo the sentiment above.
I wonder if certain other blogs and media representatives will show the same degree of integrity displayed here.
Comment by Aegeri — April 8, 2006 @ 11:23 am
April 8th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Well done indeed!
Comment by Mark Nutter — April 8, 2006 @ 11:34 am
April 8th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Yes, thanks Mike for this post. As soon as this story began to break my 'sensationalization detector' went off. What ever the case though, I fail to see why directing so much attention at this kind of story advances ID in any way. I just bought the book "Darwin's Nemesis" and recently got finished reading Dembski's fine essay on "Dealing with the Backlash Against Intelligent Design" where he stresses that the ID community should focus on making progress and "scoring". So it disappointed me that Dembski got so wrapped up in this story over at his blog.
In any case, it's always good to admit mistakes no matter how major or minor they are. It throws some much needed honesty into the mix.
Comment by Dane Parker — April 8, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
April 8th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
This is why this is the only IDist blog I ever look at. The others are shrill and dishonest.
One thing that has fascinated me about the whole flap so far is that, if you read Pianka's actual words, he's… a… conservative!
From Pianka's speech:
I diagree of course, cause I am neither an eco-conservative nor a religious conservative nor a conservative of any other type. But this is interesting.
If you sat Pianka and most ID advocates down and laid down the following ground rule:
- No use of specific religious or ideological symbolism (God, Gaia, the mother Earth, Jesus, etc.) is allowed.
… and had them have a discussion about human society, morality, etc. I suspect you'd find huge areas of agreement.
One more thing that's interesting:
Lots of religious conservatives were deeply disturbed by stuff like this:
Lots of Hindus would agree, including some Hindu/Vedic creationists:
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/...
Cognitive dissonance like this always amazes me.
Comment by AdamIerymenko — April 8, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
April 8th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Thanks for doing the right thing.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 8, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
April 8th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
[...] reputation, we promise to treat such accounts with extreme skepticism and caution" (A Promise). Good work! Incidentally, I agree that Dr. Pianka's actual comments are extreme, and themselve [...]
Pingback by Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Kudos to Telic Thoughts — April 8, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
April 8th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Good posts, good thoughts, good philosophy. Hang in there.
Comment by edarrell — April 8, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
April 8th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
[...]
April 8, 2006
Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts Wusses Out
Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts, without having seen a transcript of the Lamar speech where the recording devices wer [...]
Pingback by Uncommon Descent » Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts Wusses Out — April 8, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
April 8th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
I don't think it's fair to say Mims misunderstood or misjudged Pianka based on the partial transcript we have. The transcript in question starts AFTER the comments in question.
Furthermore-
Brenna McConnell was at the speech as well, and she agrees with Mims' interpretation of Pianka's comments. On her blog (which she deleted two days ago), she stated:
"Dr. Pianka's talk at the TAS meeting was mostly of the problems humans are causing as we rapidly proliferate around the globe. While what he had to say is way too vast to remember it all, moreover to relay it here in this blog, the bulk of his talk was that he's waiting for the virus that will eventually arise and kill off 90% of human population. In fact, his hope, if you can call it that, is that the ebola virus which attacks humans currently (but only through blood transmission) will mutate with the ebola virus that attacks monkeys airborne to create an airborne ebola virus that attacks humans. He's a radical thinker, that one! I mean, he's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population! And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he's right."
So, she came away with the exact interpretation of Mims and says she actually AGREES that this is a good idea. She goes on about how humans are playing God by keeping people alive longer than they should be, and more on the same topic…
Also, in the student reviews of Pianka online, we have these two comments that suggest precisely what Mims said- that Pianka would be pleased with the idea of 90% of the human population being wiped out. Here are those two quotes:
"Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to
the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human
population should die of ebola is the most effective means of
encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be
knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific
research and personal views."
"I don't root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one
child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet."
The fact is- we don't have enough facts to attack Mims in any manner. You have a PARTIAL transcript here…of course it doesn't state Pianka's desire of a 90% decrease in population, but that's because it's not a full transcript and it doesn't cover this section of his speech.
So, we have McConnell who agrees with Mims' interpretation, and she actually agrees that Pianka's idea is a great one for the world. We have at least two students in their professor reviews come away with the same conclusion. Like I said, the evidence is in favor of supporting Mims not proclaiming he misunderstood or misjudged.
Comment by thebluesite — April 8, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
April 8th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
By the way. I've posted several times about this on my own website.
http://thebluesite.com/?p=842
Kathyrn Perez who started the petition against Mims- I E-Mailed her with a few questions. She replied and refused to answer them. I sent her a link to McConnell's webpage but she never replied to that information either.
Pittsburghlive reported on the story and quoted David Marsh (the president elect of the TX Academy of Science) as saying that Mims mischaracterized Pianka's comments, but the reporter makes note that when he asked Marsh for examples of how Mims mischaracterized the speech, Marsh refused to give even a single example.
You're retracting all of this way too early. These two facts add on to the evidence I noted in my previous comment. All the evidence points to the fact Forrest Mims was correct in his original article and that the others who have come away with the same exact interpretation are also accurate in their views.
Comment by thebluesite — April 8, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Pianka made comments that he did not want to be shared publicly. Mims reported on them. Someone released a portion of those comments that seem to vindicate Pianka from the most troubling accusations.
I sent TAS and others a letter requesting that the full text be released, and as you know, that's likely not going to happen. So, while I agree with the spirit of your comment, especially in terms of the need to treat Pianka with respect, I don't think any conclusions can be made on incomplete evidence.
Comment by David — April 9, 2006 @ 12:47 am
April 9th, 2006 at 12:50 am
And lets be careful regarding how we treat Forrest Mims in all this too.
Comment by David — April 9, 2006 @ 12:50 am
April 9th, 2006 at 12:59 am
I will myself reserve judgment until I can see the entire text, in its entirety.
Comment by Douglas — April 9, 2006 @ 12:59 am
April 9th, 2006 at 5:10 am
Blue:
Firstly, doesn't the fact that the TT bloggers have retracted this and have had a really long look at all the facts involved, tell you something about the quality and veracity that Mims claims have sustained in one week? Let me answer several of your points the first one coming from your blog and many from your posts above. I don't intend to omnislash however because it will just make everything a bigger mess.
I will not speak for MikeGene here, but I would immediately suggest this is a gross mischaracterisation of the reason for the retraction here on Telic Thoughts. They certainly did not retract based on "5 mins of Piankas speech" and rather a wealth of other evidence that casts doubt over Mims accusations.
You are very clearly maligning the ability of the TT bloggers to assess all the available evidence, not just what one wants to look at and nothing else like you have with your various screeds on your site, to come to a clear conclusion.
This is contrasted with the fact others who were there have directly stated this is the case. It's interesting to note you first accused (on your blog) Kathryn Perez of not being there and when she actually was. It doesn't appear that the fact Kathryn and many others who have signed her petition, utterly disagree with Mims and instead you've taken what appears to be a minority impression. Something that can happen with anyone who is as controversial and quite frankly, extremely eccentric as Dr. Pianka.
Interestingly you posted this in your first reply to Kathryn Perez:
And then a little later in your screed:
Pot. Kettle. Black. You of course were basing your accusation that Kathryn Perez wasn't there on….what exactly? What fact checking did you do? Do you realise the hypocrisy displayed here or am I the only individual whose irony meter just exploded reading what you wrote?
This is no better demonstrated than your continual throwing about of the whopping 2 (is the sarcasm clear?) student evaluations that interpreted in certain ways somewhat corroborate Mims account. This of course comes from 90+ student evaluations, none of whom seem to have discovered these horrible ideas that Dr. Pianka has held that Mims claims he does. It's either a misinterpretation of what Dr. Pianka thinks, which is fair enough, you could ask the man himself and see what he says to clarify. Mims didn't bother doing that however and while it seems a majority interpreted Dr. Pianka correct, the hysteria caused by Mims has had quite a few effects on 'others'.
For example, you bring up the now beaten to death Brenna McConnell by the wingnut brigade. Firstly, I would like to ask you what your opinion of the following comments made to her on her blog is:
-Anonymous coward 1
-Anonymous coward 2
-Anonymous coward 3.
And now add hundreds of comments just like it. Do you approve of these comments being left? Do you think that being publically named and then quoted as this student was by both Mims and the wingnut brigade was correct? Do you think it was reasonable and fair to expose this student, who was just thinking aloud really to be exposed to hideous and awful personal attacks? Surely if she felt Mims was correct, she could have simply come forward of her own violition and supported his account of things.
Speaking of Blue, explain why nobody else at the speech has come out supporting Mims and yet, a circulated petition has gathered numerous signatures already strongly criticising Mims? Surely such a reprehensible and speech preaching genocide and delighting in it would get more than one voice of condemnation?
Do you agree that Mims has "threatened" to "disclose" another "female student" to the Brenna McConnell treatment given above? Why is it that Mims has to forcefully name 'others' rather than having other individuals at the talk come forward from their own will to defend him? Surely if Mims isn't being dishonest and that petition is circulating a clear lie about him, others who were there would immediately jump to Mims' defense without needing to be threatened to be 'disclosed' lest the petition is retracted. It seems more like Mims is throwing a student to the lions to save his own hide more than a man who's in the right doesn't it?
Why should she bother? You provided a brilliant reason in your first email:
Considering the following evidence:
A) You were not there and Kathryn Perez among others were.
B) The petition speaks for itself and so will the signatures from those who were there.
Why should she respond to you exactly? You sought to accuse her on no evidence at all, that she was some sort of reactionary who wasn't even at the talk (interestingly, one of the first comments I read from her at the Pandas Thumb stated this fact unequivocally) and then you give her the perfect excuse to ignore you, in your own email.
I'm just going to stop a moment and replace my irony meter if you don't mind.
Now, speaking of 'transcripts', one of the other interesting facts in this story is the disappearance of all trace of Dr. Pianka from the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise. Go ahead and try for yourself blue, you can't find a single trace of the story anywhere on their website. This again, is supposedly from a man who is honest and whose claims veracity has survived scruitiny? Why has this newspaper, one of the first to spread and carry the story, backed out and just erased all trace of Dr. Pianka?
Does this again tell you something is wrong Blue?
Also, let me point out the much more complete St. Edwards transcript. The usual answer to this (which has become awfully boring, because it's impossible to sensationalise the words of a man when they are presented in context) is that it's 'not the wrong speech'. But let's bear in mind that: Dr. Pianka is known to have given the same speech, titled the "Vanishing book of life" up to seven times now. We also know that many of the same things that Mims points out in the texas speech as preaching genocide/hatred/anti-human ideals and such nonsense also appear in the St. Edwards speech. The railing against a human centric world is in Edwards. The skulls that Mims found so horrible are in Edwards. The Ebola comments are all in Edwards, as are the often quoted portions from the HIV and other parts.
Essentially the St. Edwards speech is an excellent indication of what the Texas speech was (though not 100% conclusive) and most importantly, puts what Dr. Pianka actually thinks in full context. Firstly, before posting this I'll acknowledge that the source comes from the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise, who have decided to retract their entire story. If you doubt the veracity of the following St. Edwards transcript then I suggest you check other sources which should easily prove the veracity of the following:
Read that in context and what does it show? It shows that Dr. Pianka is an eccentric who is prone to overblown rhetoric and is one very pessimistic fellow. Does it demonstrate that he wants to see the human race slaughtered by a virus and he's a genocidal maniac? Absolutely not.
Once again, Piankas own words establish what he really thinks as opposed to the often quoted and out of context snippets provided by Mims and even the "5 minute" transcript. The majority of those at the actual speech in question did not think this man preached a hatred of humanity and genocide. You must have a pathetically low opinion of people to think ~400 people would give a standing ovation to a man who directly takes pleasure in and preaches human genocide (this doesn't seem a fact worth mentioning though).
You've got to be really desperate, as Mims is, to have to threaten 'exposure' of students to attempt to save your own reputation. It's also equally pathetic to hang a student out to dry by publically naming her as being someone who wants '90% human genocide', when even a cursory read of her blog would indicate otherwise. Allow me to illustrate by quoting something else from Brenna, something you evidentally don't think is important, relevant or significant:
This is from a woman, whom anonymous cowards, using Brenna to further their agenda of smearing Dr. Pianka didn't bother to quote or read. It's written after the speech in question and I want you to tell me: Does this sound like a woman who hates humanity to the point of wanting to see its genocide? This is apparently one of Dr. Piankas 'disciples' that wants to destroy humanity?
Any reasonable observer can conclude there are significant descrepancies that have emerged in Mims account. Any reasonable observer who has bothered to read Dr. Piankas actual opinions can see descrepancies with Mims account. Anyone who has looked at Mims will realise he has a potential philosophical axe to grind and Dr. Piankas abject dislike of anthropocentricism is evident. Anyone who decides to look at the fact a mere '2' student evaluations out of almost 100 can be construed of supporting Mims account, adds yet another bent piece in the jigsaw puzzle.
Finally, you cast a lot of aspirations on TT with your initial claim. If you had read this blog, which I'm not sure you have, I think you'll see the TT crowd have considered all the same evidence you have. They've not just based it on a "5 minute" transcript, but they've looked at all of the above facts and concluded something is wrong with Mims account. The only one here who hasn't looked at the all of the available evidence is you. All you're doing is simply acting as a parrot without considering the actual strength of the available evidence.
If I were you, I would not hold out on a transcript of the Texas speech exonerating Mims. Mims has dug his own grave and I would suggest not jumping in with him.
Comment by Aegeri — April 9, 2006 @ 5:10 am
April 9th, 2006 at 8:02 am
"We're all familiar with selfish behavior in that tiny little circle at the bottom. We're all selfish and natural selection favors selfish behavior. Now you can be a little bit altruistic towards your kin, as long as they share genes that are identical by descent."
Thus, since natural selection favors selfish behavior, there is no genuine altruism. And, if there is, it will be selected against quickly. "Heroes die, and you bury them." Yep, evolution at work, weeding out the unfit. "Mama didn't raise no coward" (no, but evolution apparently did, and does).
Oh, and in reading the text of Piankas' speech, I'd say he's a bit off-kilter, and deluded. So many unspoken assumptions and fears. But, no, he doesn't give the appearance of being one to rejoice in the death of multitudes. He's more clinical - he looks at humanity as a whole, and thinks a little "winnowing" would be good for the environment (and for humanity's survival, as well). However, anyone who has a position in favor of reducing the human population is on the slippery slope to eugenics, and possibly Hitlerian solutions. (Note I said "possibly". Such "solutions" would be a logical progression from a perceived need to reduce the population. Certainly more humane than Hitler's means, but if the plagues don't get us, what's a panicky "Overpopulation" doom-sayer to think or do? This is just my take, and is not meant to imply that Dr. Piankas would progress to that stage.)
Comment by Douglas — April 9, 2006 @ 8:02 am
April 9th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Guys:
the person who published the partial transcript from the audio recording of the TAS seminar, and presumably is in possession of the entire recording, is Nancy Pearcey, a well-known Creationist associated with the DI. To allege that she would be part of a conspiracy to withhold the most damaging parts of the talk is - shall I say - nuts. Equally unlikely is that she would not have explicitly and pointedly noted if her sources only released to her a small part of the talk.
Let's be serious, folks.
As for the rest, it is quite telling that no one but TT contributors have had the guts to step up and apologize, or at least express concerns about how this story was handled. I guess when scientists are concerned, the Creationist approach is that presumption of guilt until proven otherwise should apply. Three hurrays for the American Way.
Comment by Andrea — April 9, 2006 @ 9:32 am
April 9th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Mike, I hope you might clarify this a bit. I welcome your rethinking of the wisdom of your initial message on this issue, and I think it's a great idea to try to be even more careful about speculating about information that could be damaging to someone. If your new posting had just made that point, I would have applauded you. But like a few others earlier in this string of comments, I was really puzzled about your characterization of the "partial transcript" and the suggestion that this somehow affected the analysis. Am I misreading it, or would the most relevant part of the transcript have almost certainly immediately preceded the beginning of the transcript, which begins in the middle of a discussion of a potential vector? If I'm right about that, then why does the fact that it "fails to support" the charges be relevant, let alone persuade you that the accounts are based upon a "terrible misunderstanding and misjudgment" To be clear, I don't know anything about Eric Pianka, Forest Mims, Nancy Pearcey, or anyone else involved in this incident. I really don't much care about whether some professor made a dumb remark at some academic conference, and if Mims is completely wrong about this, then I would be surprised to learn neither that Mims was right or wrong about his basic reporting. But why does that transcript affect the analysis in any way? (I'd also be curious why it starts in the odd place it does. I'm not suggesting any nefarious reason for the strange starting point, I'm just genuinely curious. Did Pearcey or whoever taped this just not begin the recording until that point?) It almost seems like your new characterization of Mims violates your whole point about trying to be more careful in speculating about damaging information about others. I would honestly welcome a clarification about your reading of the transcript. If there is a cogent reason to think that the transcript supports your conclusions, I will happily join you in your conclusion.
Comment by cthomas — April 9, 2006 @ 11:19 am
April 9th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Back to the original post, lets hold off on irresponsible speculation and drawing conclusions regarding the motives and character of Mims, Pearcy, MikeG, and Dr. Pianka.
The call should be for a complete release of the transcript of Dr. Pianka's speech to the TAS, to ensure through appropriate oversight that our public funds that support Dr. Pianka are being used wisely and responsibly.
Comment by David — April 9, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I'm not looking at the available evidence?
The transcript doesn't cover the section in question
Mims never said that Pianka was advocating terrorism, merely that Pianka was happy at the idea of a 90% reduction in the human population. This is something Pianka himself states on his own website.
McConnell, who supports Pianka's idea, agrees with Mims' interpretation.
2 student evaluations agree that Pianka has said the same thing in his classroom. It's not about them being "construed" to read that. The one actually said that Pianka PREACHES death by ebola. That's quite direct. You have two choices- call the student a liar (will you?) or admit that this backs up Mims' account.
The recording devices were suddenly ordered off when Pianka gave his speech
Perez, one of the petition starters, won't add Brenna McConnell to the petition since she agrees with Mims' interpretation. Nor will she add his students who came away with the same conclusion from his class.
I was wrong about Perez not being at the speech, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate for her to dodge questions. I was quite polite in my reply to her and merely asked if she would add McConnell to the petition as well or retract her claim of dishonest and "misleading propaganda."
You obviously didn't read the part where Brenna herself said that she loved her grandparents, but the fact is- they would be dead without us 'playing God' and that they would basically be better off dead now.
You also accuse me of outing a student (McConnell) to back up Mims? That makes little sense. She posted her opinion on the internet, and she was at the speech. She agrees with Mims. You claim she doesn't with a quote from her blog, but the quote I listed on my own site shows that she came away with the VERY SAME conclusion as Mims.
Here is what she said:
You can't get any clearer than this. So, my question- are you calling McConnell a liar as well?
Are you now denying that her interpretation is the same as Mims? Reread Mims' article…he never said that Pianka was going to go out and release toxins. He said the man was gleeful at the idea. I DO think that 400 people would give a standing ovation to Pianka. You, yourself, said that he's an eccentric and pessimisstic man with overblown rhetoric. We KNOW that he has said before that humans are no better than bacteria. You don't think that's hateful towards humans?! You think it normal for 400 people to give a standing ovation to an eccentric man with overblown rhetoric?
Finally, THIS post states that the main reason for retracting the previous stance was the transcript. This post is ABOUT the transcript mainly. So, yes- it's easy to assume that the decision was based mainly on this. The evidence you claim doesn't fit with Mims account DOES. McConnell's statements, Pianka's own website, the student evulations, and more.
The evidence that Mims is lying is NOT there. The single fact that McConnell, who supports Pianka's idea (as I quoted her above, tho you seem to say she doesn't say this!) came away with the very same conclusion is evidence enough that Mims has done nothing wrong (with what evidence we have available.)
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
BTW, this is why it's obvious that the main reason for the retraction was the transcript (which is precisely what I said):
I never attacked TT at all. I said that we shouldn't be quick to attack Mims when the evidence (that I listed) suggests that Mims is telling the truth. That's all I said. I think it's good advice. The evidence just isn't there to suggest that Mims misjudged or misinterpreted or mischaracterized anything. The evidence I put forth suggests that he was at the speech and that he heard what he state in the original piece.
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Dang. One last thing:
I have looked at all the evidence myself. I went and e-mailed the gazette. I emailed SAS. I sent mail to Perez for clarification. I also sent email to the TX Academy of Science to get info.
I looked thru all of Pianka's website, read his 1500 word obituary he wrote, read the speech you listed above, read the partial transcript from Pearcey, read the SAS article and the followup. I read McConnell's entire post on the issue and all the comments. I read the posts at this site here, etc. I'm surely not just looking at the evidence I WANT to look at, and there was no 'screed' on my site.
As far as I know, that's all the evidence THERE IS out there. Outside of those starting a witch hunt against Mims. And, as I stated in the last comment, it's clear from this post that the decision was mainly based on the transcript. There is no other evidence listed by MikeGene or anyone else disagreeing with Mims, just the transcript which doesn't even include the part in question (which is why I'm puzzled.)
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
And then you go and demonstrate you never bothered reading my post.
Thanks for proving my point.
Comment by Aegeri — April 9, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Just to clarify what I meant: Hitting various talking points again without addressing any of the arguments I bought up (that you've failed to address the first time) is not 'dealing with the evidence'.
Yes I did. I also read 100+ comments of people who think like you telling Brenna to kill herself. I also read everything else she posted on her blog, not just (like what you have done) read what I wanted and then made up my mind about how 'twisted' Dr. Pianka had warped her. Maybe you've missed that? Maybe you missed that point somewhere along the line, but the fact you don't even seem to care is telling. Why did she need to be singled out directly and not simply support Mims of her own violition? Can you explain why Mims needs to 'threaten' to 'expose' students to support his view against the other members who were there signing a petition that clearly implicates he is lying.
Welcome to Wingnut logic. 2 student evaluations (out of 90), 3 people from a speech (out of 400), a website and mans own words that clearly demonstrate "I do not advocate killing people*" all somehow 'fit' Mims account. The 88 students who don't think Dr. Pianka advocates genocide in his lecture, 397 other individuals at the speech, Dr. Pianka himself (see the St. Edwards speech, another piece of evidence you never bothered addressing) and such forth, all do not show in any way that Mims may be wrong.
No, one students website (and subsequent viscious attacks upon her), 2 student evaluations dreged up from ~100 and an incredibly incomplete transcript (as opposed to a much more complete one) show Dr. Pianka is a clear genocidal maniac who delights in the death of humanity.
To blue this is 'considering' all the evidence.
Eventually by 'considering' all the evidence I'm sure he'll eventually establish that black=white and be quite at risk at zebra crossings.
Comment by Aegeri — April 9, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Now you're accusing me of lying. I did read your ENTIRE post.
In your comment you said that McConnell didn't support a 90% reduction, tho that's precisely what she says and I quoted her above saying so. She also said she loves her grandparents, but truth be told- they'd basically be better off dead by natural causes already, as opposed to humans with technology 'playing God.'
You seem to be the one who isn't reading everything, since you ignored her direct quote saying she supported the idea by quoting her in another instance and saying- 'awww, look at the humanity of her, no way she could support what she directly said, but I won't quote her in this instance in case it contradicts my point.' Fact is- her direct quote is clear and concise on what she thinks and what she personall advocates with Pianka.
So, you're left with zero evidence that Mims is dishonest.
You also are still completely ignoring McConnell's direct quote:
You cannot look at that statement and say that McConnell, HERSELF, doesn't advocate the death of all but 10% of us. She says it HERSELF in her OWN words.
I think it's you that is refusing to look at ALL the evidence. Maybe you are looking at all of it but wanting to ignore some of it. I'm personally not going to call you a liar, but if you're going to call me a liar you probably need to make sure you know what you're talking about. I've read every comment in this thread so far.
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
I read the transcript of Dr. Pianka's speach. I agree that there is nothing painfully over the top about the transcript. What concerns me, however, is that the transcript begins, "We've got an airborne 90 percent mortality human killing [agent]. Think about that." I wonder if someone turned on their recorder because they had just heard something that they though merited recording dispite the recording ban. Though I agree that Pianka's reputation should not be tarnished without evidence, so Mims' reputation should be given the same respect. I really see a case of insufficent evidence here, not a time to realize that all concern was unwarranted.
Comment by bFast — April 9, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
I won't be replying to anything else you say. You're too childish to be civil, that's your deal not mine.
Mims never threatened to expose anyone!
Also, you say:
I'm sorry, but I never commented on her blog AT ALL. And I do not think she should kill herself, and frankly you've no idea HOW I think. You're making an ass of yourself.
You also accuse me of wingnut logic. 2 evaluations mean nothing to you? So, I ask again, are you accusing these students of lying, and will you state here that they are lying?
You are STILL ignoring McConnell's DIRECT QUOTE:
The problem is, Mims NEVER SAID that Pianka was advocating genocide, that he was wishing someone to act out some terrorist plot. YOU clearly will read PZ Myers, PT, and others who support Pianka, yet you won't even read the original article. Or maybe you did read it but you just choose to distort what Mims said to begin with.
How's this for wingnut logic- I want you to comment here stating that you think the 2 students of Pianka AND Brenna McConnell are lying. You are saying that McConnell isn't to be trusted (you list her with the evidence that doesn't support Mims' view), yet you also try to selectively quote her to support your attack on Mims! Amazing!
I won't be replying to any other comments from you. You've called me a liar, a wingnut, and accuse me of wanting someone to kill themselves. Try acting like an adult, and people might take you seriously.
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
By all means, the call for Nancy Pearcey to release all the transcripts or audio fles of Pianka's TAS talk is justified, since she's the only one who seems to have access to them.
She can be reached at the e-mail address listed here:
http://www.pearceyreport.com/c...
or you can write to:
Nancy Pearcey
c/o Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave Suite 808
Seattle, WA 98101
If she doesn't respond to public pressure, you can send your complaints about this unacceptable suppression of vital information to her direct superior at the Discovery Institute:
Bruche Chapman
President
Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave Suite 808
Seattle, WA 98101
or e-mail the DI's Director of Media and Public Relations, Center for Science and Culture, Rob Crowther, at the address listed here:
http://www.discovery.org/conta...
It is high time these Darwinist organizations stopped stalling and came out with the whole truth.
Comment by Andrea — April 9, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
I totally agree bFast. The transcript doesn't include the parts Mims talks about, and there's no evidence that he is lying. You cannot attack him based on the word of others, if you refuse to attack Pianka on the same word!
Mims said he heard a few other scientists at the conference say they were disgusted at Pianka's speech…yet if you listen to some, you'd think that every other person present in the room has come out with official statements on the issue (aegeri is claiming that 397 people disagreed with Mims, tho the fact is- 99% of the 400 haven't said a single word about the issue!)
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Andrea, I have a feeling that there is no full recording of the event, and that Pearcey received the partial transcript from someone else who only got the last bit of the speech.
There's no evidence that there's any suppression of information or that she's done anything wrong. It seems that the partial transcript is ALL that exists. That might not be the case, but from what we know that seems to be what the deal is. Threats to contact her supervisor aren't warranted. She has no reason, if she has the full transcript, not to release it. So, it's safe to assume she doesn't.
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Then you simply ignored everything in it.
No I didn't. Let me point out to you what I did say as you've evidentally not bothered addressing my point, a typical problem from 'talking point' bouncers. Brenna McConnell wrote, AFTER the date of the speech by Dr. Pianka on her blog (that you evidentally don't think is important):
Then I asked you the following:
You then completely ignored what I asked, went back to the talking points and didn't actually address the argument.
And again, I didn't ignore it I simply read EVERYTHING on her blog and took everything in context. Again, why don't you address my argument and not babble about talking points? I guess you approve of the individuals telling her to kill herself on her blog?
Here are some more words from Brenna you've probably failed to bother reading:
That was unfortunately not heeded as the remaining 180ish comments of firestorm afterwards would indicate.
But again, you like babbling about that one entry and failing to take any notice at all of what everything she wrote, including after the speech, was. It is irrelevant to you if she wrote the above post, but all you want to do is do what any wingnut wants to do, scream about something and get all offended.
I know this is too much to ask, but can you address the actual issues I've pointed out?
If you have it's interesting that you've failed to address any point I've made.
Again interesting that you don't bother attempting to address this:
If I'm failing to look at 'all the evidence', then I don't even want to know what you are doing.
Comment by Aegeri — April 9, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Apparently telic thoughts are easily bent, there seems to be some honesty in your words though: "…we feel forced to conclude that Mims's report is premised on a terrible misunderstanding and misjudgment."
For all the postmodernist tendency to avoid judgement that often seems to result in you falling all over yourselves to avoid judgment, suddenly some very strong judgments have been rendered, apparently based on your own feelings.
Mim's text: "Meanwhile, I still can't get out of my mind the pleasant spring day in Texas when a few hundred scientists of the Texas Academy of Science gave a standing ovation for a speaker who they heard advocate for the slow and torturous death of over five billion human beings."
Pianka's words in another speech that have just been quoted by a supporter here: "…it's not gonna be the one that gets us cause HIV is too slow, it lets us live several years so it can pass itself on to new hosts.
Uh, it's no good, it's too slow.
Now when you get to these viruses "” Ebola Zaire has potential. It kills nine out of ten humans. It's never gotten out of Africa cause its so virulent it kills everybody before they can move."
He wove his normative views in with his descriptive views there (Yuk, yuk, fuuunny, it makes me want to laugh and applaud like the Herd too!) just like the rest of the speech and most likely just like the speech in question.
I'll have to keep an eye out for more of his speeches. It could be a case study as his type of neurosis is always the same, from the Great Past to the Blood and the Soil, to toying with a Final Solution that relies on Death. For instance, note the Great Past: "And I think if we went back 2,000 years when we were living in a cave, we'd have these little social groups "“ tribes "“ where everybody knew everybody, and we met in caves that were like this room and older individuals told stories and younger individuals learned from them."
The thing about the Great Past that those trying to create a State of Fear often make use of is that it usually wasn't all that great, rather like the noble savage that they also believe in.
Interesting to note the scientism based on ignorant views about technology, as technology is about the only thing that Nature does not "select," don't you know:"We've got technology now that is just out of this world. I started using the Net before it was Internet…"
But how did such "unnatural" technology really come to be, perhaps more unnatural selections of the sort that only Homo sapiens can make? Or are all of our selections unnatural, and only the animals' are natural? Aren't we all animals or are only the Noble Savages? Does he feel that if people had not run railways through his Mommy Nature that he wants to save from "rape" for himself ("And I don't see any point in trying to save anything unless biologists are allowed access to it.") that the vast infrastructure and networks that he is using to declare her rape would exist? Ah well, all of this has more to do with his own psychological dynamics than much else but technology is not "out of this world" or some supposed selection against the selections of Mommy Nature, nor are animals inherently good while humans are "animalistic" in the way they breed. "Which is bad or somethin'!" according to half-wits of the Darwinist sort Etc. There are layers of neurosis that lead to these patterns. Yet note that the Homo sapien lecturing about "animal rights" is usually only one species of rectal parasite away from specieism anyway.
"One species is taking half of everything there is for it's greedy little self."
Not to mention that planets are going out of their orbits more and more right now, then the little fellow of the only species that he hates won't be able to go out in the wild and find lizards to touch to make himself feel better about it all, of course he'll be dead long before then. Why does he assume that anyone but his "choir" that comes out the woodwork like maggots from a log to support him now cares? (Note, it would be specieist to object to my use of metaphoric maggots.) The only way that the Left can really justify the notion that the Garden should be gardened in ways that suit the art of living well is in Christianity, which the Left usually rejects, which opens the door to proto-Nazism. I.e., the vegetarianism, nudism and return to Eden type patterns typical to the PETA types are severed from the Christianity that they come from and instead turn up things like a cult of the Aryan body, the Blood and Soil. Note that most of the metaphors of this proto-Nazi are also Christian.
Maybe telic thoughts were bent because of the petition, what is the reason for "feeling forced" Did you think that "the choir" that was there would not support the usual misanthropy that stems from Darwinism? Those who are ignorant and stupid enough to believe that a mystical force of selection known as "natural selection" has selected all the diversity of Life may be the material of satire, but are the proto-Nazi things that they so often say really so funny?
As for Mims, he will probably recieve the same thanks for exposing such things as did William Jennings Bryan in exposing the eugenics movement using American textbooks to promote their Darwinist pseudo-science. I.e. it is likely that few will even remember the original text that caused opposition to proto-Nazis after the propagandists of scientism set to work. So he stands in good company.
Comment by mynym — April 9, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
One final reply. This is too funny.
So, in your world, because McConnell posted a sweet note about a woman Ecuador that suddenly means that she's retracting her direct statement that she supports Pianka's idea?! She never said that. She stated in the comments you quoted that what she said was surely controversial but she never retracted it!
It's like talking to a brick wall. You can ignore her saying she agrees with Pianka's idea because she posted something an old woman and wanting to stay and talk with her. She NEVER retracted her original statement, thus- she probably STANDS BY IT.
You didn't HAVE a point. You simply said- ignore her post where she directly states the very same think Mims does because after this she posted a sweet note about a 70 yr old woman. Again, she never retracted her original claim. A note about an old woman doesn't mean she's changed her mind! You have yet to answer the real question- if Mims is lying, McConnell is ALSO lying because she came away with the VERY same conclusion Mims did!
You also refuse to call her a liar, as you state her post doesn't support Mims when it indeed doed. You refuse to call the 2 students liars when they report THE SAME THING Mims did.
You state that 88 students DON'T think Pianka is a genocidal maniac. Well, here's a clue- Mims NEVER said he was either!! 2 students DID, however, repeat the same thing Mims did…that he preached the reduction of humans by 90%. The other students never mentioned that, but they never said he DID NOT say it either. Their reviews never dealt with this issue!
Again, 397 people at the speech have NOT issued statements on the matter. You're being dishonest in trying to conclude anything from the number. 99% of them haven't addressed the issue at all, which means your 397 against Mims' interpretation is imaginary!
McConnell and the two students agree with Mims. You are distorting what Mims said…he never stated that Pianka was a genocidal maniac, nor have I seen anyone else state that! You can't attack imaginary statements that were never made! Marsh, the President of the Academy refused to give reporters a single example of how Mims mischaracterized what Pianka said. The transcripts starts AFTER the comments in question, etc. The evidence is not on your side.
It's okay tho, you'll continue to comment here against anyone who doesn't agree with PT, Myers, et al. I've seen your own website and your biases against Mims are clear. You attack him in every piece you've written on it that I could find (he's a "disgruntled creationist" you say.) You chose your side from the start of it all, and it wasn't on the side of the evidence.
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Blue:
Wrong.
Mims email about the petition about him reads:
Sounds like a threat to me.
You're the one who is throwing accusations of supporting genocide, wanting to deliberately destroy the human race around and you know, without actually bothering to ask or read more about Brenna for yourself. I know that I'm looking for some way of asking Brenna what she thinks, as opposed to what the wingnut brigade likes to continually quote.
Let's see, may I point out that you've destroyed yet another irony meter.
88 evaluations=Meaningless.
Clearly.
Remaining 397 members of a speech that didn't hear what Mims claims.
Meaningless.
2 Student evaluations and a limited number of individuals at the speech that did.
Clearly correct.
Why? Because they support your contention.
Welcome to the world of the Dr. Pianka incident.
I've read Telic Thoughts extensively and even UD to see what was going on. I read everything from both sides. You're the one with the myopic one sided view here.
No I don't. Maybe you've failed to understand the point somewhere (all indications point to yes) but maybe you could read what I've written. I've stated that if she has been 'warped' by Dr. Pianka (as Mims DOES claim) why is it that she clearly still has respect for human life even after the 'genocidal' speech. Either Dr. Pianka failed to have a long lasting effect on her (he's not a very good Charles Manson then) or she was thinking aloud to herself about the speech. You put words in my mouth that I ever accused her of lying, I happened to read what she wrote and most importantly, what was said about her. I also read everything else she wrote.
Again, something you don't think is relevant.
As for the rest, I don't need to. Everyone can make a mistake or get the wrong impression from time to time. It does happen and any group of people will have some that misinterpret what someone says. The usual way of resolving this is to ask the person in question what they really think.
For wingnuts, the best thing to do is tell the person to commit suicide (and you'll be glad they will), make a firestorm in the media and fail to consider the fact the majority of people didn't hear that opinion.
I would like you to state that 88 students are lying. Because honestly, that's what you do every time when you rant, 2 STUDENTS, 2 STUDENTS, WE HAVE 2 STUDENTS!!!!!!111oneone
Really, you don't think it's funny that 2 students override the impression that over 80 have?
As for the remaining members of the texas speech: You can wait for the petition for the results of that
You've never bothered addressing the vast majority of the arguments I bought up. I assumed that was because you hadn't actually read them, because you just focused on the 'talking points' without considering what I had written (even though I had addressed said talking points).
Use of talking points: Check.
and accuse me of wanting someone to kill themselves.
I asked you:
You never answered. You don't appear to think that opening up a student to having hordes of nuts descend upon them for a feeding frenzy isn't unethical.
Comment by Aegeri — April 9, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
No.
Blue, you are not bothering with wanting to have a discussion. If you are not prepared to answer what points I bring up and just focus on the 'talking points' you are not going to convince anyone.
Again, you never give me the impression of actually having read what I wrote.
Just out of curiosity, but since her first reply on her blog to her deleting it, did you count the number of comments that told her to 'kill herself' and such forth appearing. Just out of curiosity, do you think she deleted her blog because she wanted the incessant attacks to end or because she just wanted to 'hide the truth' or whatever?
Would you tell me the following: If you woke up one day after saying something to find nearly 200+ comments on your blog from people telling you that you're a pathetic human being, should kill yourself and that they will 'get you' what would your reaction be?
Just curious.
Comment by Aegeri — April 9, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I have a picture on my desktop now of a women whose picture I took while I was in Ecuador last year. She's gorgeous. She is probably the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. Her smile has a sereneness to it that I can only hope to one day share. …Her hands and feet are dirty and wrinkled. In front of her is a tray of plantanas that she is peeling. She obviously has a hard life, as the village that I met her in is a poor indigenous village.
Etc.etc…the myth of the Noble Savage has been written many times and can be found many places. The fact is, there are good and bad people nearly everywhere and overcoming the alienation of the "Jewish influence" so that we can be better linked to Mommy Nature and her natural selections has never turned out to be as great as the people ignorant and sutpid enough to believe in these myths have believed.
This is from a woman, whom anonymous cowards, using Brenna to further their agenda of smearing Dr. Pianka didn't bother to quote or read.
What is it about that text which contradicts the notion of wiping out large portions of humanity? It's the supposed Imperial exploiters who are ruled by a conspiracy of people who are "alienated" from Nature that are usually targeted by students taken in by the various charlatans of scientism.
It's written after the speech in question and I want you to tell me: Does this sound like a woman who hates humanity to the point of wanting to see its genocide? This is apparently one of Dr. Piankas 'disciples' that wants to destroy humanity?
Yes. Do you think that the Nazi cult of the Aryan body proves that they didn't want to destroy vast portions of humanity to get back to "natural selection."
Comment by mynym — April 9, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Mims says that he will offer a witness to support his claims against the witch hunt started go after him, and Aegeri labels that a "threat."
Oh. What it would be like to live in fantasyland. I also enjoy how he keeps saying that 397 members who never issued any statement on the speech oppose Mims. He has 88 student reviews that never touch on the aspect in question as opposing Mims as well.
He wants me to state 88 students are lying, yet he seems to be confused because the 88 NEVER MENTIONED the issue at hand, so we have NO IDEA what their thoughts on this issue are!!
Yet he is still ignoring McConnell's direct quote:
In his mind, this direct quote doesn't matter, because she happened to also post about an old woman in a nice way. I guess if someone says they agree that we need a 90% reduction in population and then posts how much she likes old people, we should just ignore the first statement and automatically assume that the story of old people is a retraction of the original! Not quite!
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
It's like talking to a brick wall.
Close…but it is more like goo.
Give a Darwinist a chance and they will lose their mind in their own hypothetical goo.
You can still use it as fertilizer to grow some ideas in though.
Comment by mynym — April 9, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
By the way, as for
This is what Mims said in the original article:
The implications are obvious, at least to me, and to all those, like Dembski, who based on Mims's article assumed Pianka was plotting genocide.
In a later article on the Sequin Gazette, Mims was more explicit:
(The article has since been taken off the SG site, but you can find it archived here)
Tha was exactly my point, I was being sarcastic. Some people here are demanding that the TAS release the entire transcript of the talk, implying that the TAS is hiding damaging material on Pianka, but the only ones who seem to have any of it, and have released it all as far as we know, are people who are Mims's associates. If something is being withheld, it's certainly not damaging to Pianka.
Comment by Andrea — April 9, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Now, he's refusing to deal with her direct quote by trying to claim that someone is accusing her of hiding the truth! He's trying to claim that the quote doesn't matter because of comments she received. Odd, odd thinking.
Instead of dealing with the issue at hand, he just proclaims- she's a victim, what she said doesn't really matter.
He keeps saying I'm not replying to his points (I am indeed replying), yet when faced with the issue of McConnell never retracting her statement supporting Mims' view of Pianka's speech, his only reply is- 'well, she got rude comments!' Uhh okayyyy.
He wants me to have a discussion! His first reply to me he called me a liar, accused me of wanting McConnell to kill herself, called me a wingnut, and so on! Classic stuff.
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Actually here is where I can clearly show the deficiencies in your logic.
My first post in on April 5th. A full 4 days after the blog sphere erupted in the furer over the incident. This is easy to verify from just looking at my blog. At that point, I think that Mims is probably misinterpreting Dr. Pianka but I do not make a firm statement. Instead, I attack what I see as faulty science in Dr. Piankas speech and I intend to do recover what I see as problems in Dr. Piankas doomsday scenario again.
My second post is on April 8th well after the second transcript has come out, well after the partial transcript and more. Then I make my mind up about Mims and it's around April 8th that I also start posting at Telic Thoughts as well.
Let's compare my posts to yours:
You post originally on the 1st of April with the following,
I remained completely silent until more information came out, as I stated in my April 5th post. Even then I suspected that Mims account might not be 'all there' but I only made definite statements after the 5th. First in my debates here on TT and then on my blog 'officially' on the 8th.
I never commented that Mims was a liar and instantly wrong immediately. I never accused Mims of lying or anything similar until I had more of a solid indication of what was going on.
On April 1st when other blogs jumped on Dr. Pianka you jumped straight on and called him:
Without bothering to wait for more facts, a transcript or anything else.
You above have the sheer audacity to claim the following:
POT. KETTLE. BLACK.
I at least waited first. What did you do? Oh wait, we know what you did because your post history on your blog gives you away. You jumped right on board the wingnut train and rode all the way without thinking there could be contrary evidence.
Comment by Aegeri — April 9, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Mims never said he thought Pianka wanted to personally go out and do this or that he wanted others to do it, he simply said that Pianka made mention that this would be a good thing.
Genocide in the sense that Pianka would be pleased with the idea that a virus would do most of us off. Pianka makes it clear that if a virus won't do it naturally that the idea of someone pushing it into action wouldn't be that bad.
There's a difference in saying that Pianka wants someone to go out and kill 90% of us and saying that 90% of us being killed off is a good thing. Pianka, from what we know, does indeed support the idea that the world would be a much better place with 90% less of us around.
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
I would like you to state that 88 students are lying. Because honestly, that's what you do every time when you rant, 2 STUDENTS, 2 STUDENTS, WE HAVE 2 STUDENTS!!!!!!111oneone
Really, you don't think it's funny that 2 students override the impression that over 80 have?
All I can say is, I hope you're not an American university professor because this reasoning would be yet another sad commentary on them.
As for the remaining members of the texas speech: You can wait for the petition for the results of that.
Circle the wagons and gather the Herd, listen as they moo that there is saftey in their number. But is there?
There used to be, the way that the eugenics types and the Darwinists used to work proves that. But is there such saftey these days when it is not so easy for the Herd to gather to trample its critics?
Comment by mynym — April 9, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
OH GASP! I posted on the issue based on 2 articles from SAS. A scientist who was AT THE MEETING and heard Pianka, and 2 stories from the Gazette that stated the same thing. Also a major headline at drudgereport. I guess one should wait until he's talked to every person at the meeting!
I based my opinion on 5 reports that all said the same thing! You don't assume from the start that someone is lying or has reason to lie. You assume that the story, the firsthand account, etc. are accurate, and you base your opinion on WHAT YOU KNOW at the time.
I've looked at all the evidence and it suggests that Mims was correct in his interpretation.
You are still ignoring Pianka's own supporters direct statements agreeing with Mims, but I'm the one who has chosen sides and is sticking to it. I will gladly disagree with Mims and post about it if I see evidence to the contrary. Your star witness to oppose Mims is the same one who supports him! Get real.
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
You'll also notice that in his world, if you read 5 stories that say the same thing and conclude from the evidence available that the dr. is a nut, you're a "wingnut." Even if you visit the doctor's own site to read his 1500 WORD OBITUARY, you're a wingnut to conclude he's a nut. When you read that he spent 6 yrs alone in the desert and yrs alone in "the bush", you're crazy to conclude this guy is a bit off!
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Not really.
Congradulations, you've mastered the strawman argument.
accused me of wanting McConnell to kill herself,
What she said does matter and that's why I've posted what she said. Interestingly, you don't seem to think that the numerous hideous comments on her blog are at all a bad thing.
And yes, Brenna is a victim of a wingnut witch-hunt. She made the wrong statement from the wrong speech and she's paid for it with a large number of people telling her to 'kill herself' among other things. I can only imagine what that Girl felt after seeing ~200 comments in that vein.
But again, Brenna doesn't matter as a person. Brenna is merely a political tool and nothing else.
called me a wingnut, and so on! Classic stuff.
Yep that one is accurate.
Comment by Aegeri — April 9, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Blue
Where are those stories now blue….
Oh wait they appear to be gone? Why is that? Who knows. Yet another point I bought up in my first post that blue either ignored or didn't think was important. Like most of the counter arguments I've mentioned.
Of course, doesn't the fact I waited for more evidence (particularly a transcript or more statements from individuals at the speech) indicate I didn't just jump on Mims as a liar? Where on my blog or a statement from anywhere, did I assume Mims was a liar immediately and just 'jump' on him as being wrong straight away?
I didn't did I blue? You can't find me accusing Mims of being a liar until well after the event had occured. That in itself disproves this allegation from you:
I very obviously didn't as on April 1st, I never said a word about Mims being a liar or anything else. In fact, I actually thought that Dr. Pianka was an idiot and didn't think anything much of it after that. It's only when Mims' story began to unravel, as many have now begun to think including the authors of this blogsite, whom you claim haven't considered all the evidence (just a 5min transcript?).
Again, if you read this blogsite you'll see they considered Brenna (quoted her just as you have actually). They've considered those 'two student' evaluations. They've considered the transcripts and all the other material that has surfaced in one week. In total, it was found to be deficient and hence we have this post.
You have admitted to picking a side immediately based on a paucity of evidence just as you tried to stick on me. Unfortunately, your own allegation backfires horribly on you when you compare how we both posted on the matter.
Speaking of:
This is about your 4-5th post after claiming you would simply ignore me.
Comment by Aegeri — April 9, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
–Brenna McConnell (supprting Pianka's idea)
–Dr. Pianka
Comment by thebluesite — April 9, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
April 9th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I see that I need to further comment on this.
A week ago, I ran across this story and then used it to make a subsidiary point that dealt with the issue of faculty issuing decrees about ID. In that blog, I noted that Pianka expressed glee at the thought of 90% of humanity dying of Ebola, an impression that the student blogger also received after witnessing the same speech. When it became clear that the initial reaction from some skeptics was to paint Mims as being delusional and a liar, we pointed to the evidence that tended to support Mims's account.
Now, as the week went by, various developments occurred. Drudge had picked up the story from the newspaper and Mims's account. It quickly spread and resulted in an extreme outcry of hostility and included an interview from the FBI. Partial transcripts finally came out and there is nothing to support the most egregious accusation (of course, there is nothing to contradict it either).
As I said, "Because of this, and because of the nature of the accusation, we feel forced to conclude that Mims's report is premised on a terrible misunderstanding and misjudgment" and "Although there was independent evidence that supported this interpretation at the time, hindsight tells us that we should have demanded much stronger evidence given the nature of the accusations."
Now, I do not think Mims's report of the speech is a lie nor do I think he is a liar. Pianka's speech was clearly an ideological diatribe and I think it would be easy for people who didn't subscribe to such ideology to misinterpret it. But in the end, this is a classic story of the accused vs. the accuser. Given the serious nature of the accusation (the FBI doesn't interview people over trivial accusations), I simply think that stronger evidence is required as the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. We were not eyewitnesses and we cannot, as outsiders, and in good conscience, continue to speculate about what was and was not said in that speech.
In the meantime, I see that the comments section has turned out to be an arena for people to rehash accusations against Pianka and Mims. I'm going to close them and perhaps reopen them tomorrow.
Comment by MikeGene — April 9, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
April 10th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
[...] he story. Now, after the folks at the intelligent design blog, Telic Thoughts, have wisely retracted their position, they're getting a beating over at UD by Dembski's "Blog Czar," [...]
Pingback by The Inoculated Mind : Get your deleted journalism here — April 10, 2006 @ 9:39 pm