Is the term “idiot” to harsh to use?
October 5, 2013 | James Kohl
I’ve been participating on the evolutionary psychology yahoo group for several years, and received notice earlier today from the owner/moderator that I will not be allowed to contribute to discussions. People are complaining about me, and they have good reasons to complain. For example, see: Mutations theory vs biological fact.
Cave fish eye regression and industrial melanism: fawn to peppered-colored moths (and back), exemplify the fact that mutations are not fixed in the genome of vertebrates or invertebrates. Model organisms from across species attest to the fact that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.
What kind of idiot refuses to admit that their belief in mutation-driven evolution was idiotic? That was a rhetorical question. Everyone knows who the idiots are (except the idiots, of course).
I realized that seemed harsh and followed with this: Idiot (so as not to offend)
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Archaically the word mome has also been used. The similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/an ignorant), neither of which refers to someone with low intelligence.
Clearly, I meant to differentiate between idiots and anonymous fools et al., and did not mean to infer that anyone was unintelligent. Each of us probably has some form of mental deficiency. I have very little spacial sense. Knowing that I am mentally deficient in that context I do not try to tell engineers anything about engineering. Yet, I am willing to learn from engineers. However, those who try to tell me about biologically-based cause and effect are acting in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way unless they actually know something about biologically-based cause and effect. Indeed there are words with special meanings that may best describe some people, but “idiot” is probably best for any evolutionary theorist who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
I reserve the use of “dunce” for human ethologists who are specifically incapable of learning anything about biologically based cause and effect. Besides, Jay Feierman won’t allow me to use some words, no matter how I define them.
The moderator/owner of the evolutionary psychology group previously wrote: That you languish in the opinion/discussion forum is, by far, the biggest admission of the weakness of your overall position. See also the comments by Robert Karl Stonjek here: Re: A serious scientist would do WHAT? Since then, however, my position as a serious scientist with a publication history dating back to 1995 has been strengthened by my publication of Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model and publication by Chelo et al of a refutation of mutation-driven evolution.
I was about to provide examples to show the difference between 1) what a spontaneous change in a single base pair does, and 2) what a nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled change in single base pair does. But I’ve been eliminated from participation and cannot tell the group anything further about the differences between their ridiculous theories and biological facts. The group members are complaining too much. Obviously, they do not want to known anything more about biological facts. That’s why they participate in discussion of evolutionary psychology where theories count most, even after they’ve been refuted.