Is the term "idiot" to harsh to use?

I’ve been participating on the evolutionary psychology yahoo group for several years, and received notice earlier today from the owner/moderator that I will not be allowed to contribute to discussions. People are complaining about me, and they have good reasons to complain. For example, see: Mutations theory vs biological fact. 

I wrote:


Cave fish eye regression and industrial melanism: fawn to peppered-colored moths (and back), exemplify the fact that mutations are not fixed in the genome of vertebrates or invertebrates. Model organisms from across species attest to the fact that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.

What kind of idiot refuses to admit that their belief in mutation-driven evolution was idiotic? That was a rhetorical question. Everyone knows who the idiots are (except the idiots, of course).


I realized that seemed harsh and followed with this: Idiot (so as not to offend)

From wiki:
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Archaically the word mome has also been used. The similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/an ignorant), neither of which refers to someone with low intelligence.

Clearly, I meant to differentiate between idiots and anonymous fools et al., and did not mean to infer that anyone was unintelligent. Each of us probably has some form of mental deficiency. I have very little spacial sense. Knowing that I am mentally deficient in that context I do not try to tell engineers anything about engineering. Yet, I am willing to learn from engineers. However, those who try to tell me about biologically-based cause and effect are acting in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way unless they actually know something about biologically-based cause and effect. Indeed there are words with special meanings that may best describe some people, but “idiot” is probably best for any evolutionary theorist who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

I reserve the use of “dunce” for human ethologists who are specifically incapable of learning anything about biologically based cause and effect. Besides, Jay Feierman won’t allow me to use some words, no matter how I define them.


The moderator/owner of the evolutionary psychology group previously wrote: That you languish in the opinion/discussion forum is, by far, the biggest admission of the weakness of your overall position. See also the comments by Robert Karl Stonjek here:  Re: A serious scientist would do WHAT?  Since then, however, my position as a serious scientist with a publication history dating back to 1995 has been strengthened by my publication of  Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model and publication by Chelo et al of a refutation of mutation-driven evolution.

I was about to provide examples to show the difference between  1) what a spontaneous change in a single base pair does, and 2) what a nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled change in single base pair does. But I’ve been eliminated from participation and cannot tell the group anything further about the differences between their ridiculous theories and biological facts. The group members are complaining too much. Obviously, they do not want to known anything more about biological facts. That’s why they participate in discussion of evolutionary psychology where theories count most, even after they’ve been refuted.


About James V. Kohl 1308 Articles
James Vaughn Kohl was the first to accurately conceptualize human pheromones, and began presenting his findings to the scientific community in 1992. He continues to present to, and publish for, diverse scientific and lay audiences, while constantly monitoring the scientific presses for new information that is relevant to the development of his initial and ongoing conceptualization of human pheromones. Recently, Kohl integrated scientific evidence that pinpoints the evolved neurophysiological mechanism that links olfactory/pheromonal input to genes in hormone-secreting cells of tissue in a specific area of the brain that is primarily involved in the sensory integration of olfactory and visual input, and in the development of human sexual preferences. His award-winning 2007 article/book chapter on multisensory integration: The Mind’s Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences followed an award winning 2001 publication: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology, which was coauthored by disinguished researchers from Vienna. Rarely do researchers win awards in multiple disciplines, but Kohl’s 2001 award was for neuroscience, and his 2007 “Reiss Theory” award was for social science. Kohl has worked as a medical laboratory scientist since 1974, and he has devoted more than twenty-five years to researching the relationship between the sense of smell and the development of human sexual preferences. Unlike many researchers who work with non-human subjects, medical laboratory scientists use the latest technology from many scientific disciplines to perform a variety of specialized diagnostic medical testing on people. James V. Kohl is certified with: * American Society for Clinical Pathology * American Medical Technologists James V. Kohl is a member of: * Society for Neuroscience * Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology * Association for Chemoreception Sciences * Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality * International Society for Human Ethology * American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science * Mensa, the international high IQ society