Antidote to error is debate

A hit piece on Barrett, but look at the last paragraph where he suggests that debate, rather than Kevin's dismissal, is the best way of silencing him. Isn't that what Kevin, Charlie Sheen, and everyone else wants? To be debated on the facts?

The author of this article seems to be a big proponent of debate and the Truth, feel free to test him on this. His email address is:

But their dollars are really going to a broader and entirely worthy purpose, namely open inquiry in the pursuit of truth. Barrett and Butz have reached crazy and offensive conclusions, but just as bad movies can heighten our appreciation for good ones, their errors can sharpen our perception of the truth. Besides, silencing them doesn't refute their arguments. You can't refute an argument without first hearing it.

To remove them from teaching is to lend them credence by suggesting we're afraid they may change minds. In fact, the best antidote to error is unbridled, vigorous and searching debate. When that sort of debate occurs, the truth has nothing to fear.

Thanks to Edward for sending this in.

Apparently, Nass has much to

Apparently, Nass has much to fear. Deep down, he is very afraid, because he has never looked at the evidence.

OT: What's with all these


What's with all these new icons next to the stories? I used to be tech-savvy... heh

This looks like a hit piece

This looks like a hit piece but its actually a sly way of telling Nass to put up of shut up.

"If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything."

This is really a sly tactic.

This is really a sly tactic. It is similar to what Kevin himself said: If you prove me wrong, I'll stop talking about 9/11 inside job.