OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Is Web 2.0 the new XML?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

And you're reading more into what I said than is actually there. It's funny
how everyone is right, everyone is more right than everyone else, and
everyone's perceptions and interpretations of others' motives are really
based on their own biases (I do not exempt myself). 

For me this part of thread is closed. It does not belong on xml-dev and I
won't be drawn further into vitriolic dialogue (unless, of course, it is
about the one true science/religion of this forum: XML :-) ).

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Melton [mailto:jim.melton@acm.org] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Doug Rudder
Cc: 'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'; 'Alan Gutierrez'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Is Web 2.0 the new XML?

At 8/12/2005 07:50 AM, Doug Rudder wrote:
>This is the single most offensive post I've ever read (which is a shame 
>since it comes from someone I've always respected).

You don't get out much, do you ;^)

(No offense intended!  It's just that I have seen vast numbers of vastly
more offensive posts, many of them condemning me to an eternity of agony in
the name of a benevolent and loving deity in which the poster believes.)

>One can make (and many scientists have made) a solid, logical, and 
>truly scientific argument that evolutionary theory itself is more 
>religion than science.

Yeah, this is the same tired old argument that I hear from the creationists
all the time.  When the current US administration hauls out its "many
scientists" who dispute whatever it is that the rich and conservative
dislike, everybody is supposed to cower and say "oh, there is such dissent
in the scientific community about this subject that we'd better not make a
decision about it".  Bull!  Scientific American (not exactly the most
liberal publication on the planet) recently reported that some very large
number of scientists (I don't recall the exact number, but I think that it
was well over 500) whose first name was "Steve" signed a letter stating that
their research supported the position that human activities were greatly
aggravating, if not actually causing, global warming.  Since, as S.A.
reported, some very small percentage of the male population in the USA is
named "Steve", that suggests that a very, very large number of scientists
are in agreement with that statement.  While that proves nothing in and of
itself, it demonstrates that hauling out "many scientists" means absolutely

>Your comments are extremely religious in nature; you've taken unproven 
>theory and portrayed it as the One Truth,

I take no position on what Len may or many not have said, but very, very few
scientists whom I know treat evolution (or for that matter, gravity!) as
"the One Truth".  That's why "the theory of evolution" and "the theory of
gravity" are common terms in scientific literature.  Instead, the vast
majority of scientists not employed by the current US administration (and,
for that matter, the vast majority of them...they're just not allowed to
express their opinions--ain't freedom a wonderful thing?) say that "the
theory of evolution is the best way put forward to explain the observed
facts about the relationships between living things".  But they are
virtually all committed to continuing to gather facts, to revise their
theories to accommodate new observations, etc.

This is in absolute contrast to the Creationists, who say "this one book is
absolute truth, and I know so because I believe it to be so", therefore all
of the facts on the ground are unpersuasive.

>condemning all other
>positions as superstitions and its practitioners as mindless, evil, 
>"hideously perverse" morons instead of caring parents and intelligent 
>human beings.

Actually, I believe that caring parents and intelligent human beings can be
incredibly blind to the ignorance they possess and try to inflict on others.
Is that evil?  Well, some people call wolves evil, others call sharks evil.
Is it mindless?  I think that blind belief in something on the sole basis of
"I believe it" or "you have to have faith" is, in fact, mindless.

>I guess what is most disappointing is that someone who seems to 
>advocate broad thinking could be so narrow minded and spiteful. So much 
>for scientific method and objectivity. This is the "I'm right and 
>you're stupid so shut up" method of argument.

Did Len actually say that?  I may have missed it, so I cannot refute it.
But that is exactly what the Creationists say to the scientists whose
research supports evolution as the best known description of the
relationships between living organisms: We are a lot of people, and we
believe that this one book is absolute truth, and we don't want our kids to
be exposed to anything that disagrees with it, so shut up (or we'll do harm
to you).



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS