4 ms·

Kurzweil, I think, comes off better in that respect, using phrases like "some of my critics claim that I underestimate the complexity of the problem" which neat

by m0nty 16y ago

Kurzweil, I think, comes off better in that respect, using phrases like "some of my critics claim that I underestimate the complexity of the problem" which neatly remove the personal jabs while still responding directly to the argument. Myers's style is to get personal and it does occasionally get a bit tired, but usually he gets away with it because he's right. Probably they'd both get on a bit better if they actually met and had a reasonable discussion, rather than relying on reports of what the other said.

bioinformatics 16y ago
I don't think Myers is always right. Surely, it always seems that his assessments are correct, until you look at the right angle.
- kragen 16y ago
  Not always, but usually. In part this is because he's usually writing about subjects (like evolution) that he knows a lot more about than his interlocutors (like creationists). In this case, the situation is reversed: he's writing about subjects (artificial intelligence, information theory, and self-reproducing systems in general) that he knows very little about, and that Kurzweil knows a great deal about. It's unfortunate that he didn't bother to find out what Kurzweil was actually claiming, instead relying on some dumb-ass "science journalist", before launching his little jeremiad. You'd think Myers, of all people, would know better than to trust science journalists.
  - bioinformatics 16y ago
    I agree with you. I can only add that PZ Myers, unfortunately, for Science and scientific blogging has become a buffoon, and some of his posts are just as detrimental to the scientific community than most of his opposition. It's not difficult to know more evolution than creationists, as most of evolutionary theory is just logic and facts, something lacking in most creationist reasoning. This is not the first time that he uses his mob-leadership to attack someone, and it won't be the last. He is not a scientist anymore, he's just a blogger, that for better or worse has cult followers.
lotharbot 16y ago
Myers can usually get away with it because he's right, but also because he's often arguing with nutjobs who nobody feels sympathy for. When he's telling off some guy who thinks Genesis 1 is scientifically useful, there's a sense that the other guy deserves to be taken down a few notches, and we're willing to tolerate his abrasive personality in the process. He comes off a lot worse in this circumstance. Kurzweil may in fact be wrong, but not in a way that makes him deserve the Wrath of Myers. Myers' method of "getting personal" simply isn't appropriate in this case.

by m0nty 16y ago

bioinformatics 16y ago

I don't think Myers is always right. Surely, it always seems that his assessments are correct, until you look at the right angle.

kragen 16y ago
Not always, but usually. In part this is because he's usually writing about subjects (like evolution) that he knows a lot more about than his interlocutors (like creationists). In this case, the situation is reversed: he's writing about subjects (artificial intelligence, information theory, and self-reproducing systems in general) that he knows very little about, and that Kurzweil knows a great deal about. It's unfortunate that he didn't bother to find out what Kurzweil was actually claiming, instead relying on some dumb-ass "science journalist", before launching his little jeremiad. You'd think Myers, of all people, would know better than to trust science journalists.
- bioinformatics 16y ago
  I agree with you. I can only add that PZ Myers, unfortunately, for Science and scientific blogging has become a buffoon, and some of his posts are just as detrimental to the scientific community than most of his opposition. It's not difficult to know more evolution than creationists, as most of evolutionary theory is just logic and facts, something lacking in most creationist reasoning. This is not the first time that he uses his mob-leadership to attack someone, and it won't be the last. He is not a scientist anymore, he's just a blogger, that for better or worse has cult followers.

lotharbot 16y ago

Myers can usually get away with it because he's right, but also because he's often arguing with nutjobs who nobody feels sympathy for. When he's telling off some guy who thinks Genesis 1 is scientifically useful, there's a sense that the other guy deserves to be taken down a few notches, and we're willing to tolerate his abrasive personality in the process. He comes off a lot worse in this circumstance. Kurzweil may in fact be wrong, but not in a way that makes him deserve the Wrath of Myers. Myers' method of "getting personal" simply isn't appropriate in this case.