Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigD
IMHO, the answer’s pretty simple: stick with the cogent scientific explanations. Style-wise, doggish, wonder-struck (eg: Sagan), pedagogic (as one would speaking to a slow-learning child), and a host of others work well, though some styles – sarcastic, accusatory, etc. – can undermine the cogent scientific goodness at the heart of your demon-haunted darkness repelling efforts.
It’s essential to understand and accept, however, that even the best efforts will fail to sway many “true believer”. Defending science and reason is not identical to persuading the unscientific and irrational to embrace them, the measure of successful defense not the ruin of those who bear the ideas against which one is defending, and ceasing to beat a dead horse not a sign of lack of determination.
|
Gotta love your pragmatism C-Man.
As you allow that some growling only "can" undermine cogency, and so must needs not necessarily undermine it, then
can we allow that in some incidences it is an adjunct? I mean if no one barks a warning when the smell of believer is in the air, how will everyone know to go with the talking-to-a-slow-child mode? Woof!!
Add to all these generalities the belly-load of communication the web has allowed such as never has occured in our history, and you have the grounds for needing to establish some new protocols. Specifically since we are talking here about the hydrogen core business, well yeah,
I'm talking about it
, it seems that we have some room to go with deciding just how long the horse's corpse should be left around on our property as an invitation to beatage. I recall Craig that you mentioned the baloney index or some such elsewhere and I have a suspicion this hydrogen core business aint up to snuff by that measure.
Anyway, no rest for the wicked and the righteous don't need it so back to the salt mines or some other such mixed metaphors as strikes everyones' fancies.
