I never said being argumentative is being derisive or dismissive, I said being derisive or dismissive is being argumentative. Argumentative is a super-set, a general word that describes any number of tactics, two of which I accused you of. That's why your attempt to constrain me by a definition of a general term does not apply. You suggest there is only one way of being argumentative.I'm not wedded to that dictionary. If you have a dictionary that defines argumentative as dismissive and derisive,
OK, you got me. Then I am completely flummoxed as to what your stance really is.I can't let it go with you summing up by misrepresenting me: I am not dismissing the lesson. I stated explicitly that the lesson, as you stated it, it is not in dispute. Here again, as I remarked the last time we had one of these extended dialogs, it's like you're not even reading what I write. I said, explicitly "Not in dispute," and you, never-the-less characterize me as dismissing it.
How on Earth can you see it as science-bashing?I think you blindly risk condemning him to a semester of science-bashing
If, as you indicate above you see the lesson as valid, then how can you assign it such a destructive effect?
I guess, to me, that's the crux of the discussion. Some people see the comment 'remember, science must never get cocky about its conclusions' as an attack, others see it as wisdom.