Egnoratic Dialogue

Neurosurgeon and ID shill Michael Egnor has been riling up the reality-based blogosphere for some time now. His latest is a twist on the Argument by Technobabble that I discussed in an earlier post. He calls it "citation chaff."

It works like this. Egnor asserts that something stupid and untrue about evolution, and asks "Darwinists" to explain it. He is pointed to the volumes of scientific work explaining why his assertion is wrong. He then dismisses all that work as simply being "citation chaff" meant to confuse and distract him.

That's real tactical brilliance there. Whereas those of us who are... what's the word? ... sane are more likely to accept a proposition if there is a great deal of evidence to bolster it, Egnor actually makes having a lot of evidence into a detriment to the argument!

I think this form of discussion should be called an Egnoratic Dialogue. It's just like a Socratic Dialogue except that the questioner accuses you of knowing less the more you answer his questions.