Reply #22: I thought honesty entailed engaging arguments

[OnTheOtherHand]

You haven't engaged posts 9 or 14 at all, have you?

I'm serious. If I had said, "most political scientists are convinced that Bush got more votes," you would have a case, because I have no way of knowing what proportion of political scientists have thought seriously about the 2004 election. But to say that most political scientists "remain unconvinced" that fraud altered the outcome is utterly uncontroversial. I can point you at conference papers about the 2004 election if you want, but I think you already know how that will turn out.

So, if I had written that the majority of biologists accept evolution, would you have said that I had my hand caught in the assumption jar? if not, do you have a point?