Last week at Rationally Speaking, (Dr.)3 Massimo Pigliucci criticized my position that scientists who accept untested (or untestable) supernatural hypotheses as truth, while refusing to do so in their professional lives, are “philosophically inconsistent”. Although Pigliucci did not explain how he sees this kind of consistency, he argued that I was philosophically naive, unqualified to comment about such matters without extensive philosophical training and, presumably, the relevant Ph.D. I responded here, explaining again what I meant by philosophical consistency. Last night, after five days of severe drubbing from his commenters, Pigliucci issued a terse response as a comment after my post. I present it here without further response.
My Dear Jerry,
in answer to your two proposed hypotheses to explain my “sweaty” behavior:
> 1. He doesn’t like me
I’ve met you exactly once. I have no personal opinion about you, so there is no reason to wine [sic] about imaginary personal dislikes.
> 2. He thinks I don’t know anything about philosophy and therefore I — and most other scientists — should shut up about it.
That’s exactly on the mark, unless you are willing to do your homework seriously. I’m sure you would say the same to anyone who started writing about speciation without knowing the basics, yes?