Your irony meter may just exploded on this one.
Predictably, the idiots (at this stage there really is no other word for them) over at Uncommon Descent have been removing comments that criticize Fuller's vacuous defense against Sarkhar, a philosopher whom philosophical-know-nothing Denyse O'Leary calls "third-rate" (seriously!). In justifying the censorship "Dave Scot" states:
In order to make this thread a little easier to manage any critics of Fuller's must use their real name to post a comment. Check the anonymous bravado at the door. I ought to make that a policy for the whole damn blog not just this one thread.
And Denyse chimes in with
Good for you, Dave!
There is no such thing as anonymous bravado.
Problem is, as most know, "Dave Scot" is not Dave Scot. He's Dave Springer. Not much bravado there. Of course, it's because only critics have to reveal their true identities by using an institutional e-mail address (as "Dave Scot" demands later). Supporters of Fuller, Dembski and O'Leary can just keep on truckin'. Wow!
And then our pseudonymous host goes on to attack philosopher of science John Wilkins whom he calls an "expendable chump".
And to make it even better, "Dave Scot" announces that
Professor Fuller does not want to field questions in the comments here. His only desire was to publically [sic] respond to a critical article in a trade journal. In fact he wanted comments disabled so no one would expect him to respond but Bill [Dembski] convinced him that the comments would be at least worth reading and should be enabled.
This, friends is discourse ID-style. A journalist and an engineer calling two highly qualified philosophers a "chump" and a "third-rate hack" while allowing anonymity for the peanut gallery and denying it to critics. And all the while cheerleading for Fuller, who refuses to engage in discussion but is perfectly happy to have a website which has a track record of ignorance about basic science host his wordy ejaculations.
- Log in to post comments
ID accomplishes nothing in the realm of science, they make no discoveries in the field or lab, they publish nothing in the real journals, or even their own fake journal, all they have is their little blog sites. So they're very territorial about them.
The freedom of the press which got a mention in the Bill of Rights was largely anonymous and pseudonymous, since fear of King George's 'harsh measures' would silence the press entirely if anonymity were prevented.
@ Globle Warren Terrism
Whatever my problems with pseudonymous comments - and I have a record of saying that I think they encourage intellectual cowardice in the blogosphere more than they protect "straight talk" by individuals who need protection - I'm obviously willing to allow them here (your comment being an obvious case in point).
However, I think I'm correct in objecting to "Dave Scot" and his policy of allowing pseudonyms to be used only by one group.
Yup, Steve Fuller is clearly A Liar For The Truth. He has found his friends in the rich thick mud at the bottom of the sewer that is the Discovery Institute.
Fuller has concocted a fictional trail from the great scientists who worked in a world of ignorance through to great ignoramuses who work in a world of science and his argument is essentially that the ignorance in both is ID.
The Uncommon Descent "forum" is quite amusing; it's all the know-nothings sticking their beaks up their oil glands and preening each other. And ID is The Truth, so we must have no dissenting voices.
Fuller's motives are unclear though; he's bumptious and self-regarding, so my guess is that he's just doing this because he loves the publicity. In a couple of years time, he'll probably change his mind and then claim it was all some clever ploy to "out" the intellectual and historic mendacity of his friends at the DI.
Steve Story pointed out a previous instance of anonymous bravado, by "Reader from Riesel, TX". Better known as William A. Dembski.
"Julie Thomas." Now there's a nom de net that rings faint bells. :)
I think this is supposed to be DaveScott's response.
RBH says,
I'll say, and it sounds very suspicious in this context. I assume that the Julie Thomas above has no idea that her name was used for a long time as a pseudonym by a prominent male ID proponent. (Who was never conclusively identified.)
I'm a pseudonymous blogger who has been the subject of St Denyse's ire. Not using real names can lead to things being said one wouldn't normally say... But avoiding comments, as UD and DO'L routinely do, does tend to wind people up. Anyway, "banning" opposition is the act of a true coward.