|
I've been thinking more about these articles refuting the accepted methods for radiometric dating, and it seems that such literature is damaging, not only to the credibility of those who write them, but also potentially to those readers who may be swayed by the perceived or self-assumed status of the authors. If arguments for a different interpretation of theories are to be taken seriously, and be of service to their intended audience, they at least have to engage at something approaching an informed level.
In another thread Paul Davies was mentioned, and although some may question the direction his more philosophical musings take, there is no doubting the depth of his knowledge regarding current scientific practice and theory. On this basis alone his writing merits serious consideration.
Articles such as the ones I've seen this morning are, in my opinion, nothing but selective fluff, carrying no weight of rigour and showing no willingness to enter into informed debate on the issue. In fact fluff is the wrong word. These articles represent an approach to knowledge that is blinkered, biased and selective, masquerading as an approach informed by an exclusive connection to divine knowledge. This is dangerous and damaging to impressionable minds.
If an argument can be formed through an unbiased review of all the literature dealing with a particular topic, which might require taking the time to learn more about a topic in order to understand it more completely, then this is a good point to proceed from. I consider essential as well to hold an attitude of openness, to be prepared to be wrong. This is difficult, but knowing you have approached an issue as objectively as possible is itself a very satisfying outcome.
Anything less is a waste of time, and renders any argument formulated without a willingness to fully engage with the whole body of literature irrelevant at best, manipulative and exploitative in more extreme cases.
Sorry for the rant.
|