Deplorable ignorance from a skeptic
[h/t to John] In a completely unreferenced guest post by a Lloyd Robertson on Bishop Hill we read:
"Of course I am a skeptic, and I am giving the impression that the egregious faults are all on the other side. I suppose the skydragons, whoever they are, are plain ignorant, not trying to learn, but probably honest. I don't read them, I had never even heard of them until Judy Curry sharpened her lance against them."
The idea of judging someone whom you know nothing about is very adolescent and as ignorant and unscientific as any of those he criticizes. If he has any self-respect and intellectual integrity the ecclesiastical one should take this bit of foolishness down.
The article claims to be a taxonomy but the first step for a taxonomy is to be very familiar with the subject matter.
For reference I am not myself one of the "skydragons". Background on the "skydragons" here
See related article
Add comment
Newest comments at top. Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
"I'm ignorant, unwilling to learn, but honest? Really? I'm not the one who sees a 33C greenhouse gas effect mentioned in a physics textbook and accepts it without knowing its basis. Where does it come from? How does it work? How can I replicate it in my living room or a lab? I'm the one who is incurious?"
I think what Robertson said was that some are unwilling to have others think for them, and that this trait is somehow undesirable, and that is truly ignorant.