The Biggest Joke in the Universe

Adam/names_mean_nothing:

You state:

The point of my "no name" is that egos are pointless.

I understand and appreciate your sentiment, here. I even understand the desire by some, especially on the internet (even more-so when "ranting", "flaming" or otherwise acting poorly), to desire anonymity.

Fair enough.

However, even if one chooses a pseudonym, like your "names_mean_nothing" (and I can't even be sure "Adam" is not also such), it does help the tracking of comments (this is a multi-way forum, after all) when such are at least used in some consistent manner. (At least you have been signing most of your messages here with "Adam" at the bottom.)

You obviously do have an "account" here, since this is your blog area. So why don't you log in, so you are not perpetually "Anonymous"? (To be confused with so many other "Ananymouses" here, even ourselves when we forget to notice whether we are logged in. :-} )

No, names are not, in and of themselves, the important thing. (Even if you were to use your full real name, it may well not mean all that much to any of us who only know you through your posts here.) However, it sure helps give some continuity to discussions, to help us form an "identity" of those with whom we are trying to have a conversation. Especially in multi-way forums such as this. (Remember, we don't even have each other's voices to use as reference.)

So, while names may "mean nothing" (and, certainly, egos do little more than get in the way), it does help to have reference points in such a multi-way forum when one is attempting to communicate.

David

Adam,

Thank you for giving yourself a name. It's not an ego thing, but rather a matter of credibility. By attaching a name, you indicate that you stand behind your words.

I have a number of brief replies, though I must admit that your messages are hard to read. Try keeping your paragraphs short and putting two line breaks between them. That helps anyone who is trying to read on a screen. Because of that, I again am replying with the admission that I only skim-read your comments.

This post notes several common but usually incorrect themes and approaches that I see in your original rant and your less confrontational response.

I'll leave further discussions to others after this. I would suggest, in fact, that you start with a new message that is less of a rant and more of an invitation to discuss the issues that concern you.

For what it's worth, here are my responses.

First, the name thing:
A fruitful discussion is only possible if people can consider the source. People who recognize my name understand some of my concerns and biases. It's not a matter of ego but of honesty. I admit to being concerned about the name I make for myself. My livelihood depends on selling my writing, which creates two intertwined motives. First, I need to get my name out in the world so that people will spend money for what I write in books and newspapers. But I am concerned with the kind of name I make for myself. I want that name to represent clarity of presentation and a concern/respect for my readers. I want people to know that I do not indoctrinate but rather try to foster and follow questions. I want people to know that my mind is open to new ideas but respectful of the foundation that provides an environment in which new ideas can thrive.

Recently at the National Council of Teachers of English Gallery of Writing, I posted a short talk I gave in accepting an award for my writing from the American Institute of Physics. You might find it useful to understand where I am coming from.

That leads to the second point, which is that your post attempts to characterize me rather than to discuss the issue that you posed. If you truly belief that what I say is more important than who I am (and I agree with that), then you shouldn't try to characterize me. Trying to characterize what motivates another person believes (e.g. "I can see a yearning for knowledge in your words but not the will to use it," and "Cling to your standard models if you wish") is really a useless exercise and usually ends up being incorrect. Let the person and the person's words convey that person's character and motives.

A third point is that I felt a note of sadness when I read these words from you: "I would love to further elaborate but teaching has always bored me."

I am sad that you never had an inspirational teacher. If you follow the link to my acceptance speech, you will note that I pay homage to my high school physics teacher, one of several mentors who have been important in my life. In one memorable class, he told us about his approach to learning as an activity that can only take place when both teacher and student are engaged in a mutual quest. He was willing to put up with our teenage pranks, but he would let us know in no uncertain terms that our attitude must never be, "I'm here; teach me something."

In my teaching, which is usually indirect as in this response, I hope to be a mentor to others who say, "I'm here, and I'm ready to learn with you."

My final point for this reply is that your post conveys a significantly different way of thinking than my above statement, "...my mind is open to new ideas but respectful of the foundation that provides an environment in which new ideas can thrive."

The second part of that statement conveys an appreciation for what I consider the heart of critical thinking. Your mind can't be so open that you accept all ideas equally and without criticism. When an idea reaches the level of respect that it is called a theory--evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, the standard model, the Big Bang, etc.--then a challenge to that idea must also respect the evidence behind the theory and the predictive power of its representations.

Note that last statement distinguishes between evidence or representations and "fact" or "truth." The last two are not really scientific concepts, because science considers any discovery open to change in light of additional evidence.

In other words, I would argue that your words convey too little respect for the body of evidence that underlies established theories and not enough willingness to admit that most new ideas fail under critical analysis and never rise to the level of a theory. That may seem to you like I am "clinging" to the past. But it is rather that I am demanding that the new ideas undergo the same level of critical analysis that the old ones faced and overcame. That's why they are now considered theories. The new ideas need to prove their mettle under similar challenges.

If I am misrepresenting what you meant, please know that I am stating my own perception of the post. I am characterizing what your words conveyed to me, but not you personally.

I am taking the time to write this because I think that "Adam" who invites discussion is far better than a "no-name" ranter. Don't you agree?

Fred Bortz
Science Books for Young Readers
and
Science Book Reviews