In the now closed "Huge Gap in the Cat" thread, I was unable to post the following response to one of SC's comments. I am sorry to belabor this theme, but since I was a substantial part of the discussion, I would like to add this addendum to my prior comments:

SC said the following:

"Let’s be clear about what’s going on here.
This whole thread is a giant ad hominem attack by the biggest most abusive bullies on the playground with you as their leader egging them all on."

RESPONSE: This is a gross overreaction. Much if not most of this particular thread, including the OP, raised substantive points, without any personal or ad hominem attacks, and with reasonably respectful language. This includes some substantive points raised by LW and EOD. It seems to me you need to differentiate between what are legitimately pointed criticisms, and what are sarcastic, non-substantive, personal attacks. You cannot hide from the former by rhetorically proclaiming the latter.
________________________________________

"I have a right to defend myself against abuse, even when it’s a woman doing most of the abusing."

RESPONSE: As you know, I fully and completely agree that you should be able to express your point of view without relentless non-substantive personal attacks and snide remarks that appear to be designed solely to marginalize you personally, and call into question your participation. It seems to me that you always have a right to defend yourself if and when such abuse occurs.

However, that right is not a license to claim abuse when legitimate criticisms are made--even if made very pointedly and passionately; nor is it an excuse to refuse to substantively and effectively respond to criticisms that are offered civilly and fairly.

Specifically on your continuing reliance on the authority of "genius" in the formation of your worldview, such reliance is misplaced and fallacious. In the first place, there is no effective operational measure of "genius," and thus no working definition of the same from which to differentiate individuals who are "geniuses" from those that are merely "cognitively gifted"; Second, "genius" is always associated with a particular expertise, and a particular insight or contribution. There is no logical basis to extend "genius" to areas beyond a person's narrow expertise and their particular "ingenious" contribution(s). Third, "geniuses" notoriously disagree (like Bohr and Einstein) and in fact an acknowledged "genius" is often wrong--even within his own area of expertise, and is sometimes successfully identified as such by an ordinary "non-genius." In short, there is absolutely no application of "genius" to either authority or reliability when determining truth for purposes of forming one's worldview.

Now, that was a substantive, non-abusive, criticism. Can you refute that criticism. If not, can I assume you will never make this argument again?

(P.S. Your women "geniuses" exclude women who are far more noteworthy as possible "geniuses" than the the women you mention; including, Emmy Noether, Lisa Meitner, Marie Curie, and Rosalind Franklin, to name a few. Moreover, several of the men and women on your list are questionable because their contributions--however significant--do not suggest an extraordinary level of cognitive capacity or mental insight over and above their tenacious (and admirable) focus on solving some particular problem.)

I started the topic because I didn't understand how SC could think the biosphere of the earth could come from the stars yet claim Pantheism. I assume the below definition is what he claimed and not a belief in all gods.

pan·the·ism
/ˈpanTHēˌizəm/
noun
1.
a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

And his use of Carl Sagan for his God really really irritates me. My problem.

For someone who claims to believe to identify God with the universe how would an origin of life on this pale blue dot matter so much? I get his looking for his God in Dark Matter. I get that he is scientistic in his search for truth.

I thought he was touting Naturalistic Pantheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism#:~:text=Naturalistic%20pantheism%2C%20also%20known%20as,of%20all%20unified%20natural%20phenomena.

But alas, no. He seems to have found a true religion in the stars and like any true believer needs an origin story for his pantheon of other people's ideas. So I posted as much. His scientistic tendencies override all else for him I think. It is a religion that requires evangelizing to help him feel the spirit of his beleifs. And all the sacred cows are fair game. My sacred cow - Sagan's agnosticism - seems to be a central doctrine for his religion.

And so I engaged with him in a thread that he claims was abusive. It wasn't. So thanks for your thread.

And about your post script, I want to see this.

https://www.spiritualityhealth.com/reviews/film/2019/02/14/film-review-symbiotic-earth

It looks like a great introduction into someone I never heard of who looks like made a huge contribution to human understandings.

Lynn Margulis is an interesting player in evolutionary biology; definitely a "rogue" (so to speak) with interesting ideas, most of which are controversial. Incidentally, she was the first (I think) wife of Carl Sagan.

Without getting into the details, she always reminds me how intellectually open, metaphysical, and speculative evolutionary biology can be--even among experts--which in my view makes biology interesting, assuming the dogmatism of the standard narrative of biological reductionism can be displaced.

In very general terms, she was a critic of so-called "Neo-Darwinism" as expounded by people like Richard Dawkins, and had a "symbiotic" view of evolution, rather than a competitive "survival of the fittest" view. I would like to see this video as well. Thanks for sharing.

As an aside, I've always greatly admired Marie Curie. Thanks for including her in your group of genius-level women.

I've always thought she's been underrated, at least by the general public.

Her name was the answer to a recent Jeopardy question. Nobody got it, to my great disappointment.

Did you see the movie "Radioactive" with Rosamund Pike? As with all bio-pics, it played a little loose with some facts, but I personally enjoyed it a lot, and found it very inspiring.

One of the things it would be well to point out when talking about geniuses is the tendency to minimize pure dedication and effort. Frankly, I am not sure Madame Curie was a genius in the cognitive sense. But she was certainly extremely gifted. More importantly--at least for me--was her scientific character; tenacity and sacrifice in the context of huge resistance.

I love this photo of the 1927 Solvay conference;

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/solvay-conference-probably-intelligent-picture-ever-taken-1927/

And she won the Nobel Prize twice! and raised a daughter who also won the prize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ir%C3%A8ne_Joliot-Curie

You probably know all this already, but its great to think about this great scientist. Thank you.

In France, at least, she is not forgotten. I work for a company founded in 1893 and one of my more pleasant tasks in 2018 was to translate a manuscript letter dated 1894 from Pierre Curie to the founder of the company, ordering some electrical measuring equipment and seeking a meeting between our founder and Marie Curie to discuss our founder's work on magnetism (presumably electromagnetism, as our specialization has always been electrical. I have a scan of it somewhere. I could dig it out for you, Nightingale, if you want.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2021 03:31PM by Soft Machine.