The Book Richard Dawkins Does NOT Want You To Read.

[Lazarus]

I'm certainly not trying to fool you.
'Higher knowledge' is your term..........there simply happens to be good reasons why I'm pretty familiar with the core issues in this debate.
Was minded to make a few points about Dawkins.
He is not considered a serious commentator, except among the pub philosopher or pub scientist community..........ironically most ordinary non sophistry persons are rightly dubious about him. He is a good example of being a clever fool.

Actually a lot of what he has to say about 'religion' is very correct. But religion/spirituality in it's broadest sense extends far further than he realises. He is absolutely blind to that and makes himself look ridiculous and has no insight whatsoever into that.

We laugh now at medieval (Western) science with it's childish cosmology and endeavours at transmutation of base metals.
It doesn't take a prophet to appreciate that in 500 years we will similarly smile at today's scientific canon.
Those familiar with what is emerging at the level of the very small see this directly. In this arena we are certainly at the 'medieval' stage.
Scientists are having to conceptualise about phenomena at a level beyond form itself. There's an argument that forms anyway are essentially myth and issues of 'cognition' itself are raised.
When the issue of non local coherence is being pondered the nature of pondering itself is dragged into the equation.
What exactly is 'known' and 'who' knows it?
The answers to these questions could undermine our current assumptions about the universe in the same way that Copernicus' cosmology transformed medieval (Western) science.

The pub scientist cheerleaders for the current paradigm are a sort of modern flat earthists. Dawkins appears to be their Messiah.

Finally, someone has dared to question Dawkins! Thank you. Has it ever occured to anyone that it is quite OK to question a genius, even one who does not have mobility? Dawkins philosophy is coloured by his physical condition, of course it is. He is an angry man, a genius, but angry, and who can blame him. His disability has not given him omnipotent knowledge. His last two books were slated by scientists. Now acccept it. Dawkins is a human being. He makes mistakes. Grow up.

[martino]

Finally, someone has dared to question Dawkins! Thank you. Has it ever occured to anyone that it is quite OK to question a genius, even one who does not have mobility? Dawkins philosophy is coloured by his physical condition, of course it is. He is an angry man, a genius, but angry, and who can blame him. His disability has not given him omnipotent knowledge. His last two books were slated by scientists. Now acccept it. Dawkins is a human being. He makes mistakes. Grow up.

I think you might be getting Dawkins mixed up with Hawking: Dawkins isn't in a wheelchair, Hawking is.

[Twin Towers]

I think you might be getting Dawkins mixed up with Hawkings: Dawkins isn't in a wheelchair, Hawkings is.

Yeah, had to do a double take there, presumably Stephen Hawking is meant.

[MauriceColgan]

I hear what you're saying.................

Yes, you are actually reading my words.

That's a start.

[MauriceColgan]

Left Wittgenstein back in the early 1970s.

A Cambridge scholar I knew gave up Chemistry to study Philosophy and Social sciences. He came to our home to buy a piano circa 1970 after he had left his home with Monks in Ireland to join a commune, before becoming a a social worker in "The Classic Slum" where he at 22 worked for the social services advising married couples after his own relationship with a woman had broken up!

He was a clever clogs too, but he couldn't beat me at chess.

[dotski_w_]

Finally, someone has dared to question Dawkins! Thank you. Has it ever occured to anyone that it is quite OK to question a genius, even one who does not have mobility? Dawkins philosophy is coloured by his physical condition, of course it is. He is an angry man, a genius, but angry, and who can blame him. His disability has not given him omnipotent knowledge. His last two books were slated by scientists. Now acccept it. Dawkins is a human being. He makes mistakes. Grow up.

very very funny post! says a lot about how uninformed much of the anti-Dawkins brigade are when one can mix him up with a disabled physicist, and claim that disability has something to do with views they've clealry only the loosest familiarity with.

Mind you, at least you're not just a troll like the other guy 'yurewhatshis name' - he's not even a good one.

[jtbooker]

Richard Dawkins was having an argument with God, and said: “With the state of knowledge today, I can make man from dust too.”
“OK,” said God, “go ahead.” So Dawkins starts.

God then says: “No, no, you don’t understand. Go get your own dust.”

Very good...

[madmick216]

'there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID'

However (and I'm not an advocate for ID, let alone 'creationism') it is equally true to say that ID cannot be disproved.
Those who take the 1st statement as implying that ID is false are, in the real meaning of the term, antiscience.

If you clicked the antiscience link, you'd find it was dealt with on the site.

So there's no misunderstanding, i've lifted it almost in full.
Read, enjoy


[QUOTE
ANTI-EVOLUTION

"EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY, BECAUSE THERE IS NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT SPECIATION OCCURRED, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION CONTINUES TODAY." (Internet site).

People who try to demean Biology by saying that "evolution is just a theory" do not know an apex of the scientific semantics. This makes them to collapse under their own expressions, let’s understand why:

For Science, a theory is a statement that is released after and only when researchers have observed facts from nature, have elaborated hypotheses and have performed experiments through they can prove the trueness or falseness of prior information and/or the trueness or falseness of their observations. If someone says that "evolution is just a theory", he/she automatically would be admitting that Evolution is factual because it is based on facts that scientists have interpreted and verified through experimental procedures, after which the statement has been formulated and formalized. This drives like this: observed facts >>> questions >>> hypotheses >>> experimentation >>> theory. As we can see, the theory of the evolution is based on observable and verifiable natural facts, and it has been verified many times by experimentation. Scientists design many experiments to demonstrate the observations about nature. If the observation -or the interpretation of that observation- is wrong, the experimentation will remark it; but if the observation or the interpretation on that observation is correct, the experimentation will also support it. If the statement is sustained by the observations of many other researchers, then the statement becomes a theory. Then, yes, Evolution is a theory.

TOP OF PAGE ^^


CREATION "SCIENCE"

In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation “Science”, Theistic “Evolutionism” and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.

Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve one’s personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.

Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.

In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.

Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.

TOP OF PAGE ^^



ANTISCIENCE AMONG SCIENTISTS

In a TV program emitted by channel 12 in Monterrey, N.L., Mexico, a Doctor of medicine of the Secretary of Health declared that American birds do not migrate! His decree followed an attempt to harm the reputation of the biologist's assertions said through the same program. We have the video with doctor's fibs.

A group of creationist archeologists wants to change the chronicle of the Egyptian period, through diverse channels. They are determined to eliminate all systematic register by replacing it with the biblical chronicle. Another group of geologists (!) joins to them when at all costs wants to show the truth of the biblical stories, saying that the scientific methods to compute times are useless. Both groups have happened to the excess of saying that the entire modern archeological records are wrong, and that the biblical chronicle is correct! A clear example of it is their intent by showing the occurrence of the flood. They argue that the flood is a story related by diverse peoples, which had not contact one with other. On the other hand, neo-creationists say that the scientific fossil registration is false. They say that the presence of fossil remainders in caves, far away from oceans, tests that the flood's waters dragged them towards there. According to them, dinosaurs were contemporaries of man. They say that if we do not find fossils of dinosaurs and humans in the same geological strata is because flood's waters placed dinosaurs, by being heavier than man is, in deepest strata. These are for them maximum evidence that the Noah's flood in fact occurred. Besides, creationists say that science is wrong because science is an unreasonable human creation, while Bible is God's creation.

Digression: From immemorial time, tales on leprechauns have existed in all cultures. Aztecs, Semites, Russians, Chinese, Greeks, Germans, Thais, and almost all peoples on Earth have had and have their own stories about leprechauns. Those stories on leprechauns come from times when those peoples were not related one with other. So, can we deduce that leprechauns existed? Of course, we cannot! THIS IS NOT A RATIONAL OR VALID WAY TO VERIFY ANY DATA.

By coincidence, creationists have not noted that we have found fossils of beings lighter than dinosaurs in deeper levels (e.g. trilobites, ammonites, etc.). We have found also many small and tiny dinosaurs in the same strata than heaver dinosaurs. We have not found light dinosaurs (with weight and height like humans) with humans in the same strata. There is not geological evidence of a universal flood.

Phenomenologists, existentialists and creationists, in a sordid hostility towards science, have generated these illogical barbarities. Could we base our knowledge on the biblical chronicle, if the authors of the Bible assigned only just 6000 years
to the existence of our universe?

OUR TECHNICAL METHODS TO KNOW THE AGE OF MANY ELEMENTS OF OUR UNIVERSE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AND THEY ARE TRUSTWORTHY AND PRECISE.

Finally, the Bible contains numerous scientific factual errors, so obvious that any student of basic school would be able to detect them. The Bible is as man-made as the other sacred books.

TOP OF PAGE ^^


ANTIREALISM/CONSTRUCTIVISM

Is it true that science is not real, that science should not exist, that it is useless, or that it discordant with respect to the reality out there?

These are the favorite trinkets used by the antirealistic, illogical and insane constructivists when they try to expunge science from the annals of the history.

They begin saying that the reality from outside cannot be identified, nor described, by human beings such as it is. However, this is an unfortunate claim; therefore, it lacks of logic. Let's analyze what is occurring within this starting assertion:

Antirealists say that the outer reality cannot be truthfully conceived nor described by any human. To affirm this, at least one person should be capable of recognize the reality as it is; if not, then how do they know that nobody can perceive and describe the reality? For a person can say that no one can describe the reality as it is, he should hear at least one right description of the outer reality. Thus, that person could compare both, unreal and real descriptions, to distinguish between a real description of reality and another unreal description of reality, and truthfully describe both unreal and real perceptions and descriptions of reality. Otherwise, constructivists would never be able to say that nobody can describe the reality just as it is. How would they know it?

The person that has been allowed to understand the outer reality as it is could describe the reality that he has conceived in his own restricted or inadequate language. Languages do not make reality, the reality is out there, with or without language. Languages are tools for describing a reality settled out there. Let me show it by an example. Some hunters rested under a tree’s shadow at the African lowland. One of them is a constructivist. Furtively, a lion rushed towards them with a very bad intention (bad for all hunters, except the constructivist, who interprets in his own language that a lion never has eaten human meat). No hunter saw the lion except one of them (not the constructivist, who said in his own language that there is no danger in the African prairie), who warned his companions about the danger. All of them ran for their lives, except the constructivist, who thinks the language of the adviser is incorrectly describing the reality. That day, the lion ate constructivist's meat. The last words of that constructivist were, “Please, help me!”.

Let us see another example: You knew it was raining out there. Your sister tried to leave home without using a protection against rainy conditions. You warned your sister she should not leave home without using an umbrella and her rainproof clothes. Your sister thought that you were not describing the reality as it was, given the inconsistency of your language, or that you were describing your own reality about something to which she was immune, because she owed her personal language to describe reality. Your sister leaves home under the rain. She returned home crying and soaked from head to toe.

In both samples, was the reality correctly or incorrectly described? Was the language an obstacle to see the reality as it was or for not knowing it as it is?

TOP OF PAGE ^^


INDETERMINISM

Scientific Determinism establishes that something that will occur in the future is predictable. (Hawking, Stephen).

Another form that characterizes to scientific determinism is that this theory permits us to know the trajectories of natural processes, allowing us to predict, in principle, the possible future states of those processes.

Other theories derived from this theory, as causalism, which says that every observable effect has an initial cause, and irreversibility, which affirms that natural processes cannot be reversed without provoking other irreversible processes.

Previous statements are congruent with the observable macroscopic world and in agreement with the realism of science. However, from a distorted formulation of Heisenberg´s Uncertainty "principle", many Physicists took a very accidental, antirealist, and antiscientific way, which is more bonded to teleological and metaphysical concepts than to real facts, and that was displayed in an absurd and also twisted Copenhagen Interpretation.

Copenhagen Interpretation, which was accepted by an awesome greater part of Physicists from that epoch (with the worthy exception of Albert Einstein, Max Born, J. C. Bell, David Bohm, Wigner, Schrödinger and others), opened the doors of Physics to the pseudo- and antiscientific speculations. Copenhagen Interpretation took the trajectories of natural processes as reversible, unpredictable and impossible to know them objectively, generating indirectly many absurd ideas as parallel universes, trips through time, echo-Universes, the mirrored Universe, etc.

We call this assembly of negations to the scientific knowledge as "Indeterminism", and it is more held to solipsism (metaphysics) than to real science.

The principle of uncertainty affirms that all the knowledge that has been acquired, so from the macroscopic world as from the microscopic world, succumbs under the subjectivity of the observer. If you rationally examine the Copenhagen Interpretation, you will detect soon that it is a meaningless ode to the ancient phenomenology.

Naturally, there are modern scientists that remain in opposition: Great representatives of modern Physics, as Goldstein, Kleppner, Bricmont, Hawking, etc., assert that our ignorance about the subjacent variables of microscopic processes does not invalidate the determinism of those processes. This means that the fact that for scientists some "hidden" variables remain yet unknown does not imply that the microscopic processes must follow random, unpredictable and non-causal trajectories.

We do not possess a mechanism for a straight observation of those variables. I think this is quite clear. We observe the effects; but we cannot still infer the causes. For measuring the momentum and positions of a wave-particle, we have to quantify each entrance apart.

Something that has exceptionally called my attention is the experiment on the diffraction pattern of the Airy disk. In relation to biological processes, it is an overwhelming attestation in support of non-observable variables and a crashing real proof against the unscientific indeterminism. Boltzmann and Darwin would not allow me to distort what is evident.

C. J. Myatt, D. J. Wineland and colleagues demonstrated that the amount of superposition still surviving (decoherence) declined over time in the manner PREDICTED (determinism) by quantum theory. Thus, they demonstrated that quantum-mechanical processes bond the quantum world to the macroscopic world.

TOP OF PAGE ^^



REASON VS IGNORANCE

CHARTER OF INTELLECTUAL ACADEMIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES:

1. Every academic has the duty to search for the truth and the right to teach it.

2. Every academic has the right and the duty to question anything that interests him, provided he does it in a rational manner.

3. Every academic has the right to make mistakes and the duty to correct them upon detecting them.

4. Every academic has the duty to expose bunk, whether popular or academic.

5. Every academic has the duty to express himself in the clearest possible way.

6. Every academic has the right to discuss any unorthodox views that interest him, provided those views are clear enough to be discussed rationally.

7. No academic has the right to present as true ideas that he cannot justify in terms of either reason or experience.

8. Nobody has the right to engage knowingly in any academic industry.

9. Every academic body has the duty to adopt and enforce the most rigorous known standards of scholarship and learning.

10. Every academic body has the duty to be intolerant to both counterculture and counterfeit culture.

(Excerpt taken from Bunge, Mario; Charlatanism in Academia; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 775, The Flight From Science and Reason; pp. 110-111; New York, NY, 1996).

TOP OF PAGE ^^



MODERN ANTISCIENTIFIC MOVEMENTS

Remember that antiscience means against science; thus, antiscientific movements are groups of activists that are opposed to the scientific knowledge. Besides the rejection of real science, they formulate their own ideas about the cosmos presenting them as if they were real scientific statements. Take care of them! They are only behind your money. Most popular activists against science are:

Metaphysics (Metaphysicists argue: It is the study of all non-conventional physic phenomena). They also say that "conventional" science was created ad arbitrium by white males.
Constructivism (Constructivists say that, based on our past experiences, we build our own conception of the Cosmos in which we live).
Creationism (A belief on an Intelligent Designer different from the God of religions that opposes to the scientific methodology).
Ecofeminism (Ecofeminists say that white-males are destroying the Biosphere and that the world needs to change for a feminine science).
Postmodernism (They are the present-day modernists who say that the Universe does not exist. It is also known as "Solipsism").
Biblical Science (Although the Koran Science is more active than Biblical Science, this is the label set to a new pseudo-philosophical trend claiming that the real science is what Bible says, not what humans say).
Social Relativism (It assures that all which the society endorses as truth about the Universe is true; no matter if science demonstrates quite the opposite).
Quantum Philosophy (As said by these "thinkers", God is a big quantum state that generates many quantum microstates).
Constructivist Psychology (This kind of psychologists thinks that what the patient says it is an unchallengeable truth).
Constructivist Anthropology (To give you an idea, they think that all myths are real).
Radical Environmentalism (They think that all deriving from science is wicked, unnatural and toxic).
Alienology and Alienism (Read our page on Aliens to know what they teach)
UFOlogy and UFOlogism (Please, read our page on Aliens to know what they teach).
Antienvironmentalism (Anything said by the environmentalists is opposed to reality and good judgment).
Radical Christianism (They teach that sciences are the Satan's weapon against Jesus Christ. Only the Gospels contain the truth. The Old Testament was degraded by Pharisees, except the prophecies on the advent of the Messiah).
Radical Judaism (A new collection of beliefs that maintains that the real Science grew from Bible. Science that did not arise from Bible is false. Radical Judaism does not agree with the Orthodox Judaism).
Radical Islamism (As the previous one, but presuming that it was said by Mohammed).
Scientology (These people think that all can be achieved by the humans mind. They think that the modern Medicine is totally false. They hate and they are radically against the psychiatry). /QUOTE]

[Thranduil]

Scientific Determinism establishes that something that will occur in the future is predictable. (Hawking, Stephen).

Another form that characterizes to scientific determinism is that this theory permits us to know the trajectories of natural processes, allowing us to predict, in principle, the possible future states of those processes.

Other theories derived from this theory, as causalism, which says that every observable effect has an initial cause, and irreversibility, which affirms that natural processes cannot be reversed without provoking other irreversible processes.

Previous statements are congruent with the observable macroscopic world and in agreement with the realism of science. However, from a distorted formulation of Heisenberg´s Uncertainty "principle", many Physicists took a very accidental, antirealist, and antiscientific way, which is more bonded to teleological and metaphysical concepts than to real facts, and that was displayed in an absurd and also twisted Copenhagen Interpretation.

Copenhagen Interpretation, which was accepted by an awesome greater part of Physicists from that epoch (with the worthy exception of Albert Einstein, Max Born, J. C. Bell, David Bohm, Wigner, Schrödinger and others), opened the doors of Physics to the pseudo- and antiscientific speculations. Copenhagen Interpretation took the trajectories of natural processes as reversible, unpredictable and impossible to know them objectively, generating indirectly many absurd ideas as parallel universes, trips through time, echo-Universes, the mirrored Universe, etc.

We call this assembly of negations to the scientific knowledge as "Indeterminism", and it is more held to solipsism (metaphysics) than to real science.

The principle of uncertainty affirms that all the knowledge that has been acquired, so from the macroscopic world as from the microscopic world, succumbs under the subjectivity of the observer. If you rationally examine the Copenhagen Interpretation, you will detect soon that it is a meaningless ode to the ancient phenomenology.

Naturally, there are modern scientists that remain in opposition: Great representatives of modern Physics, as Goldstein, Kleppner, Bricmont, Hawking, etc., assert that our ignorance about the subjacent variables of microscopic processes does not invalidate the determinism of those processes. This means that the fact that for scientists some "hidden" variables remain yet unknown does not imply that the microscopic processes must follow random, unpredictable and non-causal trajectories.

We do not possess a mechanism for a straight observation of those variables. I think this is quite clear. We observe the effects; but we cannot still infer the causes. For measuring the momentum and positions of a wave-particle, we have to quantify each entrance apart.

Something that has exceptionally called my attention is the experiment on the diffraction pattern of the Airy disk. In relation to biological processes, it is an overwhelming attestation in support of non-observable variables and a crashing real proof against the unscientific indeterminism. Boltzmann and Darwin would not allow me to distort what is evident.

C. J. Myatt, D. J. Wineland and colleagues demonstrated that the amount of superposition still surviving (decoherence) declined over time in the manner PREDICTED (determinism) by quantum theory. Thus, they demonstrated that quantum-mechanical processes bond the quantum world to the macroscopic world.

The Copenhagen interpretation was simply stating things as they were understood, it is impossible to determine the precise position and velocity of a particle - so we must use probabilities. This doesn't necessarily imply true randomness or a 'God' effect (the quote by Einstein is often mentioned 'God does not play dice' which put a mystical slant on the issue that may have caused confusion), it was just the scientists stating that as far as they knew back then there is no way to discover the 'hidden' variables at work in nature (if they exist to bridge the gap between Quantum theory and determinism), so they use probabilities.

Determinism has always fascinated me because one of it's predictions is about free will - that it does not exist and our futures are determined according to physical processes like the exact state of our body at any time (the accumulated knowledge of all it's particles - their positions and velocities and energies) so therefore we decide nothing in life because we are basically like a stone that is pushed off a ledge when the wind picks up - but a more complicated version.... I have to admit that the possibility of the unknown/unknowable in nature is more reassuring and attractive than determinism as it makes the human condition more important and gives life mystery - it's kind of strange and difficult to think of oneself as a deterministic automaton... However they investigated whether free will could be accounted for by Quantum uncertainty and i think i recall that they determined that the processes of neural firing are too large scale to be majorly effected by quantum 'randomness' (or hidden variables if you prefer), so it looks like free will not yet be getting a 'get out of jail' card by quantum mechanics.

We call this assembly of negations to the scientific knowledge as "Indeterminism", and it is more held to solipsism (metaphysics) than to real science.

It could be argued that science is best pursued with a solipsistic mindset, you are only supposed to be allowed to accept things that are layed out in front of you, that you can account for and not the things beyond your field of 'vision' (that's the province of religion for example). Isn't it more a kind of 'mystical' reasoning to assume that the world works a certain way and then when you come up against a stumbling block like quantum uncertainty you still go on believing that the hidden variables which will confirm your belief in determinism exist and will be discovered one day (and even if they can never be described to still believe that they behave in a deterministic fashion)?

[greenporcupine]

Stephen C. Meyer is a leader of the Discovery Institute who have been pushing ID for the past number of years. ID is about as scientific as astrology. Richard Dawkins will have no problem with you reading this book. Don't be surprised if the "Designer" turns out to be an old geezer with a long beard, holding two stone tablets and spouting Hebrew.

Recursivity: Stephen Meyer's Honesty Problem

Another unscientific predjudiced so called rationalist.
In other words you have not a clue,but you have a 'sure'opinion.

In order to have a ''scientific' point of view on something,you would surely have had to study it in depth,no ?
And of course you have not done that at all ,and certainly not in a scientific way, using ASTRONOMY.
You being the 'rational' scientific minded person that you are,, have decided
that you can make SUCH statements,without going to the bother of ALL that work.
Arrogance is the word for those who pontificate without the slightest idea of what they are saying .
Funnily enough you and the C. Church have the same opinion,and neither of you are correct.
But you claim to be 'rational ,detached ,and knowledgeable',that is supposed to be the difference,NO ?