Answering More of the Same: A Reply to Nahm

Abstract

Irony seems lost on Michael Nahm in his preceding commentary on this summer’s adversarial exchange on the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS) essay contest. For his commentary admonishes authors for misrepresenting others even while it engages in misrepresentation frequently and intentionally. Although Nahm characterizes my initial critique of the BICS essays unfavorably, in fact is it his preceding commentary that demonstrably falls short of “the standards of objectivity, impartiality and scientific responsibility required in academic debates” by repeatedly engaging in the very tactics that he rails against. The seven misrepresentations that Nahm accuses me of, on the other hand, amount to one minor mistake and six verifiably accurate characterizations of his BICS essay conclusions.
 Where it’s relevant to his commentary now, I will also occasionally address “what Augustine kept silent about” on Nahm’s contribution to the BICS competition. What I could’ve earlier exposed about his reasoning is not flattering, so Nahm should be careful what he wishes for. But he should take some solace in the fact that I lack the space to address the vast majority of his non sequiturs, sparing him further embarrassment.