NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000&chanID=sa008

Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all."

The rest of the article is even better food for thought. It excellently deflates the "there's no transitional fossils!" argument.

Thats what faith is

Thats what faith is
And it's a dreadful substitute for science in the search for truth.

There is an argument, I always considered a fatigued, inherently fraudulent conviction adhered to and extlled by those whose indoctrination blinds them to the utter erroneous nature of their belief.

There is an argument, I always considered a fatigued, inherently fraudulent conviction adhered to and extlled by those whose indoctrination blinds them to the utter erroneous nature of their belief.

Grammar > big words

Grammar > big words


Your implication being?

Grammar > big words
George Orwell would love you.

That your sentence made no sense (in English, anyway), which stands in sharp contrast to your devotion to using as fancy lingo as possible, even when such is confusing, unnecessary or even inaccurate.

EDIT: Ok, that was probably a bit harsh. And what do you mean, Orwell would love me?

There is an argument, I always considered a fatigued, inherently fraudulent conviction adhered to and extlled by those whose indoctrination blinds them to the utter erroneous nature of their belief.
Jesus, that has worse syntax then the US title codes.

And [faith] is a dreadful substitute for science in the search for truth.
Hear hear! :)

That your sentence made no sense (in English, anyway), which stands in sharp contrast to your devotion to using as fancy lingo as possible, even when such is confusing, unnecessary or even inaccurate.

It does make sense, if one actually bothers to read it and not deride it.

Incidentally, what political orientation are you?

Well, I did read it, and am not deriding it; I'm just suggesting that such sentences are confusing to those debating with you.

And what about my political orientation? How does that have anything to do with the fact that I criticised one sentence of yours?

It does make sense, if one actually bothers to read it and not deride it.

Incidentally, what political orientation are you?
No, actually, it doesn't. Want to know why?
Broken into independent clauses with their subordinate clauses attached

"There is an argument,
[comma splice, by the way, and an incomplete thought]

I always considered [considered what?] a fatigued, inherently fraudulent conviction adhered to and extlled [extolled peraps?] by those whose indoctrination blinds them to the utter erroneous nature of their belief. [still yet to actually make a point re: who is the blind who can not see]"

EDIT: Ok, that was probably a bit harsh. And what do you mean, Orwell would love me?
He wrote an essay on the subject of grammar and language in general.

He wrote an essay on the subject of grammar and language in general.
Ah, his destruction of the KJV version of the bible through use of flowery and ornate language (excessively so). Simple is often the best.

Ok, CSW is broadly right, but I'm not going to get into deconstructing your prose, as it's unnecessary. I apologise in any case.

Anyway, I dislike this article, as it seems to be supposing the existence of proof for evolution, with a fairly dangerous of proof. I think it's right about the fossil record being unimportant in many arguments, but I think moving evolution into the definitive, post-theoretical absolute is a step too far.

And, Neo K, Orwell wrote a lot of crazy crap. I'd rather not be a hero of his just now.

No, actually, it doesn't. Want to know why?
Broken into independent clauses with their subordinate clauses attached

"There is an argument,
[comma splice, by the way, and an incomplete thought]

I always considered [considered what?] a fatigued, inherently fraudulent conviction adhered to and extlled [extolled peraps?] by those whose indoctrination blinds them to the utter erroneous nature of their belief. [still yet to actually make a point re: who is the blind who can not see]"

Firstly, the original point is a rhetorical question, albeit without the question mark to denote so.

Secondly, I omitted the "it" subsequent to consider, my apologies.

Thirdly, read the sentence in context to the issue itself, I assumed those who read it would do so in relation to the issue in question.

It does make sense, if one actually bothers to read it and not deride it.

Incidentally, what political orientation are you?
Actually, your sentence is unclear. There is an argument, I always considered a fatigued, inherently fraudulent conviction adhered to and extlled by those whose indoctrination blinds them to the utter erroneous nature of their belief.
For starters, it's got a comma splice at the very least, as you have two independent phrases connected only by a comma, where there should be either a coordinating or subordinating conjunction or a semicolon. Secondly, it uses pronouns without any antecedents--for instance, the use of "there" in the first independent clause refers to nothing specific, and is therefore unclear in meaning. You've got a misspelled word, which I assume is "extolled," and we have no real indication what the argument is that you considered to be fatigued and inherently fraudulent.

You don't want to play the grammar game here--I teach English composition on the college level for a living.

Firstly, the original point is a rhetorical question, albeit without the question mark to denote so.

Secondly, I omitted the "it" subsequent to consider, my apologies.

Thirdly, read the sentence in context to the issue itself, I assumed those who read it would do so in relation to the issue in question.


Still doesn't tell us which side of the fence you come down on.

Ah, his destruction of the KJV version of the bible through use of flowery and ornate language (excessively so). Simple is often the best.

It was hardly a destruction. Larkin once said of the KJV that it was beautiful, but that it was a shame it was all a lot of crap.

(That's one poet's opinion. I'm not suggesting Christians believe in 'crap'.)

Still doesn't tell us which side of the fence you come down on.

In what respect? I would assume it fairly vehemently implies support for the evolution theory.

You don't want to play the grammar game here--I teach English composition on the college level for a living.

To whom, and what level of students?

OK: LET'S STOP ARGUING OVER HIS SENTENCE.

I was wrong to bring it up in the first place. The argument should be over the sentences in the article.

It was hardly a destruction. Larkin once said of the KJV that it was beautiful, but that it was a shame it was all a lot of crap.

(That's one poet's opinion. I'm not suggesting Christians believe in 'crap'.)
The original version of the KJV is a wonderful piece of writing, I was referring to Orwell's version of it.

Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must be taken into account

or


I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither the bread to the wise, nor the riches to the men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happenth to them all

To whom, and what level of students?
Well, I'm not going to tell you which university employs me, because I like my privacy, but it's a Division 1 school in terms of athletics, so it's not a small one, and I'm an Instructor level, one step below Associate professor. This term I'm teaching 3 sections of freshman composition and a Junior level course in drama. The biggest lesson I try to teach my kids is this--clarity kicks flowery's ass any day of the week when it comes to rhetorical effectiveness.

Well, I'm not going to tell you which university employs me, because I like my privacy, but it's a Division 1 school in terms of athletics, so it's not a small one, and I'm an Instructor level, one step below Associate professor. This term I'm teaching 3 sections of freshman composition and a Junior level course in drama. The biggest lesson I try to teach my kids is this--clarity kicks flowery's ass any day of the week when it comes to rhetorical effectiveness.

In relation to the third best sixth form establishment in the UK, and an individual likely to attend an Oxbridge university, how would you compare?
I can furthermore assure you that the true beauty in the composition of an essay is not solely clarity, but the use of sophisticated, eloquent, elaborate and pertinent vocabulary and terms. A reliance upon clarity merely implies one's inability to utilise elaborate and sophisticated terminology, and according derison.

Ok, bragging about being likely to get into Oxbridge isn't going to win you many friends here, there or anywhere. In any case, all Sixth Form students like writing flowery essays at this time of the year. And what makes a good essay is how good it is.

ANYWAY. How about them monkeys?

In relation to the third best sixth form establishment in the UK, and an individual likely to attend an Oxbridge university, how would you compare?
I can furthermore assure you that the true beauty in the composition of an essay is not solely clarity, but the use of sophisticated, eloquent, elaborate and pertinent vocabulary and terms. A reliance upon clarity merely implies one's inability to utilise elaborate and sophisticated terminology, and according derison.
Sorry, but NS isn't a dick measuring contest. If you think that using ornate language will win you respect in this board, or that we care that you're likely to go to "oxbridge", you're sadly mistaken.

Ever read "The Elements of Style"?


Ornate language is like salt. A bit is good. Too much causes a reader's mind to swell up in disgust.

Sorry, but NS isn't a dick measuring contest.

You clearly haven't met FT RPers.

You clearly haven't met FT RPers.
Ah, but we generalites have our own little world, don't we :D.

Ok, bragging about being likely to get into Oxbridge isn't going to win you many friends here, there or anywhere. In any case, all Sixth Form students like writing flowery essays at this time of the year. And what makes a good essay is how good it is.

ANYWAY. How about them monkeys?

Not sure, however, did anyone see that broadcast about the hobbits in Indonesia?

I thought it was Australia, but that part of the world, anyway. Yes, I did. I find it very hard to get excited about new fossil evidence. Evolution is to my mind a theory that works pretty well on most levels. There are times when it seems odd, but then most theories do. The fact that there's not the OMG SUPER EVIDENCE for it has never really bothered me. I can see someone who follows another theory more closely seeing differently.

(And, seriously, why did you ask about political alignment?)