Ego, ratings, and truth
Ego, ratings, and truth
From Knight:
ThePhy, seems to listen to every Bob Enyart Live Show which of course is great! I appreciate ThePhy supporting Bob's show through his listenership.
If listening is all it takes to be counted as a supporter, then never again will I give ear to a number of streams of nonsense that emanate from either radio or TV. But as I am sure you will agree, it is advisable to first listen to understand someone’s views before commenting on them. Listening does not equate to support.
And it's pretty obvious ThePhy disagrees with much of what Bob's says... and that's OK there is certainly no crime in disagreement.
I do disagree with much of Bob’s material, but not all. I have heard him offer some good ideas, but like most people, I sit silently in the background most of the time, and am galvanized to respond only occasionally. For the most part, when he is discussing politics or pure theology, I let the issue pass. I might seriously disagree, but I am not able to conclusively prosecute my case in these subjects any more than most of the other posters on TOL. I usually restrict my comments to those ideas of Bob’s where I feel a demonstrable breach of honesty or truth has occurred.
Yet, ThePhy expends a good amount of energy responding to Bob here at TOL where Bob himself is not a daily active participant.
I think ThePhy should be a guest on Bob's show so that ThePhy can straighten' out Bob in all his apparent errors.
ThePhy.... what say ye?
I can set it up for you if you like. You can be a guest on Bob's show! What do ya think?
The offer is noted, but respectfully declined. The prospect of being a featured participant on a broadcast medium appeals to my ego, but not to my intellect. In this case, I will defer to logic over fame. Or perhaps I do not relish the idea of having my name added to the end of the list of other scientists that in his show he repeatedly professes to have mercilessly exposed – Michael Shermer, Eugenia Scott, Zakath ….
A few months ago “godrulz” asked me to look at Bob’s material in BR VII. As I recall, I had made some claims about some scientific issues, and so “godrulz” asked me to evaluate Bob’s arguments scientifically. I said I would - perhaps a bit too hastily - since I didn’t know the extent of the material that was on TOL relative to Bob. Even now, several months later, I have not taken the time to read and digest all of BR VII. I told “godrulz” that I felt the subject of “Does God Exist” was a poor one to be considered from science, and more importantly, that the medium of debate was a poor one to try to determine the validity of scientific ideas.
Admittedly Bob does not seem to personally enter into these threads discussing his show. That is his right. But he does reach out with his ideas to his audience via his KGOV show. I suspect his KGOV audience greatly exceeds the one that monitors these threads. By virtue of the audience size reached, he is getting his message out to a much wider audience than I am by restricting myself to these forums. But as some Biblical accounts show, truth is not determined by numbers, and sometimes it takes a while for fatal errors in ideas to become visible. Naturally I cannot prevent Bob from noting the arguments I offer, and if he wants, rebutting them unopposed on the air. As he made clear in a number of cases, he considers something sent in e-mail or otherwise in the public domain fair game as fodder for his show. I have wondered if he might decide to discredit me on his show as a means of impaling my credibility in these forums.
For me to engage Bob in a live radio conversation is little different from a formal debate. Bob has specialized for years in fine-tuning the sound bites that he offers against ideas he opposes. For example ideas like “Does or does not the brutal rape of a woman qualify as an absolute wrong?” are very effective in evoking both horrible images and strong emotions. In his older shows, I have often hear him use his claims “A rock cannot create itself” and “A fire never burns forever”. These are actually simplified ways of stating two laws of thermodynamics, and stating them in that way obscures some important elements of these laws of physics. I have not noted his offering these ideas recently, so I have not picked them up as subjects.
I am sure Bob has scientific questions and ideas that I am not qualified to answer. I remember significant questions in science that I did not find the answer to for years. I have books on my shelf of unanswered issues in science. A visit with almost any PhD faculty member who has graduate students under his charge will reveal that he has a list of open questions in science that he is just waiting for good students to take on as theses.
Even trying to establish the validity of some scientific ideas under rules like those in place in BR VII – 48 hours between responses – is inadequate. In the world of real science, disputed ideas sometimes take years of dialogue to clarify and finally resolve. If Bob would like to meet me in such an on-line forum, without the limitations of timelines, I would be more amenable. If he presents ideas that I cannot counter quickly, he would have the right to note that his challenge on that idea had not been refuted (yet).
In summary, to engage Bob live on the radio would likely do little but provide Bob’s ego with another trophy. If Bob would like to consider pure science in the way that scientists do – via in-depth consideration of ideas - I would consider accommodating him. If he prefers to continue his rantings on his radio podium instead of – as Shermer recommended – “take some classes and really learning about science”, then let that stand a witness to his honesty.
I am, as Bob says, “Doing right, and risking the consequences”. I am content to let the few readers of these forums see that Mr. Enyart is not above smoothly reversing ideas without admitting it, or seriously misrepresenting ideas for ratings. He is a man who has found that the type of ministry he offers, and the type of show he hosts go a long way to boosting his ego. For him, truth is a word to give lip service to, but it must not stand in the way of his theology. If my credibility on these forums is lowered by my decline of your offer, then so be it.
