If by “purposefully misreading and misrepresenting what I said” you mean directly quoting, then you’ve got me… no question.

Sometimes I simply cannot understand you… Here’s a good example:

Your complaint to me is that I obviously didn’t read your comments or the article, and you partially base this on an argument that you were clearly referring to the theory of gravity…. here’s the quote.

“Clearly when I’m talking about “theories” here, in context I’m referring to the “theory” of gravity.”

Aaaaaaand here’s the quote from your earlier comment:

“and my idea that evolution is not a theory in the sense that most people believe, because when scientists call something a theory, it has practically reached the level of fact.”

Somehow it was supposed to be clear that you were talking gravity when you said evolutions? Honestly… I think maybe you need to take a deep breath before you write your comments Philip.

Phillip… I don’t think I misquoting or misrepresenting anything… you said that effectively anything called a theory has reached the level of fact… I took issue with it, and pointed out that improper use of these scientific terms confuses a LOT of people, many things called “theories” do not meet the level of scientific fact at all… sometimes because the writer has confused what should be called a theory vs what should be called a hypothesis vs what is a law… but in no way has everything which has been classified as a theory, begun to be treated as scientific fact… just as an offhand example, several of the current theories regarding the makeup of the universe, are mutually incompatible. A theory is so classified if it summarizes a hypothesis (s) and is supported with testing and has no evidence which yet disproves it. (per about.com) That criteria is able to be met by mutually incompatible scenarios, and they should all in no way be treated as scientific fact. They’ve progressed beyond hypothesis, but have not yet been able to become a law generalizing the observations.

Why is it so bizarre that I took issue with an improper use of scientific terminology? Furthermore, what does that have to do with the above article at all? I took issue with a point you made in a comment… how you’re extrapolating from that to claim that I didn’t read the actual article, is just one more oddity to add to the list. Why even bring it up?

I’m also a little curious why my insistence that a person involved in the media like yourself, should utilize terminology properly, is in any way a proof that I’m anti-intellectual? Obviously to any rational person, it’s evidence of quite the opposite. You state that the arguments by the ignorant anti-intellectuals has “clearly worked in my case” because I’m complaining that you’re not using terminology correctly? Another very odd argument there… It’s kind of a strawman fallacy to even bring up the supposed argument that ID is “just as valid” a theory as evolution… I certainly never mentioned such a thing… in point of fact, I’d have come in on the other side… I’m complaining that you need to use and define “theory” correctly. Evolution is currently a theory… ID is not. By definition a theory must be supported with repeated testing, and since intelligent design cannot be effectively tested by any known means, it should therefore properly be classed as a philosophical hypothesis, not as a theory at all.

I find it very interesting that a complaint like this, would immediately engender the complaints you’ve offered… There’s a lot of words, a lot of propaganda, but not a lot of meat to what you say. Your articles are often at least well thought out though… I kind of wish you put as much thought into your comments as you do to your articles. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if perhaps they are written by the same person, because there’s such a discrepancy between the amount of thought you put into the two areas.

Not very mature of you.

Perhaps you should finish reading the column and think about the context before you make a point that “no-one” [sic] agrees with.

Sigh… please let that be sarcasm… oh please oh please oh please….

Surely no-one is so unaware of the differences between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Scientific theory… that term covers a whole spectrum… some theories have much more fundamental support than others. In no way does everything classified as “theory” have sufficient scientific backing to have effectively reached the level of scientific fact. This statement is just so misguided, that I seriously hope you were being sarcastic Philip.

There’s plenty of kooky… braindead theories out there… please don’t try to convince your readers that anything classified as “theory” is effectively fact…. even evolution… while the single best theory out there, with quite a significant amount of scientific evidence supporting it, is still classified as “theory” precisely because it has not been able to yet be demonstrably and repeatably proven. That’s why it’s still “theory” and not “law”. That in no way changes the fact that there’s no other practical scientific theory in competition with it, and that it’s the current best theory in existance. Making bogus claims like claiming that once something is “theory” its essentially established fact hurts science… it doesn’t help it. Please be careful about publishing actual falsehoods.

I don’t agree with much of the rest of ‘n900mixalot’s comment, but unfortunately, I do agree with this. I’m no old man (28 currently) but I’m astonished to see the behaviour and ‘manners’ of today’s school-aged kids.

I work at RadioShack in downtown Fort Worth, and we share a building with TCC, which gives us a special view into the up-and-coming youth seeking higher education. Honestly, being the first in my family with a college education, I’m proud to see the diversity in students here. Unfortunately, I’ve also seen and heard some awful stuff in these hallways.

I think the real downfall is the way kids talk to each other in friendly, normal conversations – it’s pretty bad, both the language being used, the topics being discussed, and the inability of most of them to form actual sentences and complete thoughts. Given this is ‘acceptable’ when talking with friends, it’s no surprise that outbursts of hate and fear are as bad as they are.

What is interesting is how unruly this family is. This woman ran an entire state, but obviously didnt have the ability to raise a civil family. Could this be our first family some day? I wouldn’t put money on it, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

Look, this is how a LOT of people talk here in the US, and the word fag or faggot is commonplace. That will never change, ever, because it isn’t something like an ethnic slur. People here really don’t care about gays, who are easy to hate because gays will never be generally accepted. No other minority group has what goes on in the bedroom as the platform for its fight for equality. Mix that with a far more populous and aggressive Christian right, and this is what we get:

Parents who don’t care that their kids use homophobic slurs because the gays are society’s downfall in the first place.

Friggin stupid, no home training, zero etiquitte, unable to think for themselves, yet with too much money and power. That’s who runs America.

So why do I mention I don’t like Sarah Palin? Because I’m writing a post defending her daughter, and saying that I don’t think she’s a bad kid, as I’ve heard from others. Also, even though I’m not a Palin fan, I’m not going to say that Sarah Palin is a bad person because of what her kid says. I say I’m not a Palin fan so readers won’t think I’m an apologist for my favorite political figure.

Also, because it’s true.

I agree with you on every point save one, Philip. I’ll phrase it as a question: Why do you feel it necessary to say that you’re not a fan of Sarah Palin? And more to the point, if you’re trying to make a broad appeal, why take the time to make unfounded and unsupportable statements like; “Not the political fans of Sarah Palin, they can all jump off a glacier – oh wait, there are no glaciers any more. Plus, they’d probably float away, because gravity is only a theory, and they don’t believe in silly, scientific theories.”

I enjoy tech blogs, and I’m an enthusiastic supporter of scientific research. I also place great faith in some, not all, of the economic policies espoused by conservatives like Sarah Palin. Must you insult people like me in order to appease those who you fear will attack you from the other side?

I appreciate your call for civility from Willow Palin and others who use the homophobic slurs so easily thrown around today. But why do you feel it necessary to be uncivil to people who might be won over to see things your way by being uncivil to half of (perhaps) of your readers?

It’s no secret that Sarah’s kids are out of control. It’s well known in Wasilla that Trak had to go into the military or face prosecution for cutting the brake lines on a fleet of school buses. Willow trashed a vacant house with her friends while partying to the tune of $30K in damages. Bristol, well we know what happened to her. None of them have gone on to college.

If Sarah can’t even raise her own kids well, how is she supposed to run the country well?