Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
publication policy Channon, Martin Nov 20, 2009
I don't think that I have ever come across so blatantly biased a publication policy as yours. So you want to completely ignore any contrary
comments? And you view this as "reason"? The value of contrary comments is that they can serve to sharpen one's understanding. You have provided a forum in which like-minded people can reinforce one another's beliefs, but that's about it. Learning involves real debate. That can't happen here.

Consider this simple fact: either the universe is the result of an accident or it is not (a "perfect disjunction"). The latter position is
that of the ID enthusiasts and it is considered unscientific (for well-considered reasons). But theories in the former category (e.g., the
scenario of the multiverse) are routinely criticized for being nonfalsifiable. That would make them unscientific. Either way we go, we
have a serious problem. And you don't want to even look at it? Oh, BTW, I'm not a creationist.

Title Author Date
publication policy TalkReason , Nov 20, 2009
Dear Martin Channon:

Thanks for your critical remarks regarding our publication policy. You may read (if you have not done so so far) the About Us section, where we had from the very beginning explained that Talk Reason is not a debate forum but rather an archive of materials mainly adhering to one side of the debate. If you are interested in materials contrary to the views of our authors, there are at your disposal any number of sites and blogs evincing opposing views. When we started Talk Reason, there seemed to be a shortage of sites expressing our side, so the creation of Talk Reason seemed to be useful. Since then the internet underwent immense
changes, and Talk Reason has become just one of many sites with a similar goals (especially blogs) but in the meantime we have collected a vast number of contributions which, in our view, are useful and provide a source of a variety of arguments gathered in one place. There are many variations of views held by our authors, and, additionally, in the Letter section there are hundreds of posts critical of our position. Lastly, if you don't like our publication policy, nobody can force you to read our site or, say, stop you from starting your own site which would fight the views of our authors.

Best wishes,
Talk Reason administration

Title Author Date
publication policy Channon, Martin Apr 22, 2010
I chanced upon this site some months ago and quickly determined its purpose (countering the foolishness of most creationist claims), ONE THAT I RESPECT. However, I noticed its publication policy, one that is intended to
turn a deaf ear to those who would present contrasting points of view. I was astonished. Ordinarily, I would have just moved on, but the supposed scientific nature of the site seemed so hypocritical that I felt the need to leave a comment characterizing the publication policy as the definitive example of "blatant bias." I did not enroll in e-mail notification for the
site, but since then, I have been receiving them. I didn't pay any attention to them, since I didn't connect them with this site. (I had
forgotten about it.) But today, for no פarticular reason, I followed the link and found myself back at this incredible place.

Boys and girls, the lesson here is very simple. You cannot make progress on a scientific issue if you consider only one side. This would be like a trial in which only the prosecutor (or defendant) is allowed to talk. You are not doing science here. You are simply reinforcing your own opinions, some of which are woefully misguided. It is indeed true that the typical creationist is apparently lacking in commitment to reason. It is also true that the typical opponent is lacking of intuition and grievously ignorant of critically related science.

This topic is one that boils down to physical cosmology and, in particular, considerations relating to primordial conditions. If you are unfamiliar with this material, your opinions will be poorly informed.

Here are a few facts to consider. #1. Current science can describe primordial conditions back to a time of about 10^-35 seconds after time t = 0. There is no established science whatsoever for prior periods. #2. The notion that any events or conditions prior to t = 0 cannot be investigated
scientifically is based on an unsubstantiated theory (that all of time and space were formed at t = 0). #3. Either the universe is the result of an accident or it is not. This is a perfect disjunction (necessarily true). #4. There is the distinct possibility that we can rigorously prove that the universe is not the result of an accident. (See http://projectcosmology.net/FRAME2_HTML/FAU/Channon_FAU%20no%20comments.htm)
This is a paper that has been repeated well received by widely-respected professionals in astrophysics (even the editor of the Astrophysical Journal). However, it has also been repeatedly turned down for publication,
apparently because of the sort of bias that this site manifests in the most explicit form.

Well, let's see if the moderators of this site have the courage to publish this little note. I have not bothered to put much effort into it, since I doubt that it will be. If they do, however, I will follow up with
more comments. I have strong reservations about involving myself with such a counter-scientific project, but I'm a risk taker.

Title Author Date
publication policy TalkReason , Apr 22, 2010
Dear Martin Channon:
Whereas we have no reason to doubt your assertion that we did not post your
previous letter, unfortunately we have no recollection of such an event. As you can see, we have no fear of your argument made public on Talk Reason, so we post now your letter, As to our bias, please look up the "About Us"
section where we have clearly explained the goal of this site and its policy regarding the choice of posted material. If some readers would be interested in responding to you, we'll post their responses. We can't, though assure that such readers will appear.

Best wishes,

Talk Reason