>*** Still more to-and-fro' on Popper's recantation --
[...]
BH:===
>>I have never used Popper's recantation as an argument from authority.
>
WR:===
>Yes and no. Plenty of evolutionists do use Popper's recantation as an
>argument from authority, like this: "Mr. Testability himself now says that
>evolution is testable". Brian, to his credit, has been more careful than
>that. But it's still an argument from authority ... and getting moreso with
>each post. Brian cares not about the undeniable inadequacies of Popper's
>statements. He just keeps repeating, "Popper recanted! Popper recanted!"
>and dodging the issue of testability.
Compare this with Walter's statement that prompted my reply above.
WR:===
It is *Brian* (and other evolutionists) who are making an argument
from authority. In practice they do not simply say "Popper
changed his mind". They're not that coy. In practice they say
"Mr. Testability himself now says that evolution is testable"
-- an argument from authority. [emphasis added]
Make up your mind.
WR:========
>Use Popper to lend an air of
>legitimacy to evolutionary theory, then skip town about defending it -- It's
>an argument from authority.
>
This is a lie. I have never used Popper's recantation to "lend an air
of legitimacy to evolutionary theory"
[...]
>>WR:==============
>>>What is the ultimate way to escape the charge of untestability?
>>>Answer:
>>>
>>>>Walter, I'm just a lowly mechanician. I have no theory of evolution.
>>>
>>>Nice dodge: 'Who me? What theory of evolution?'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>
>>Your quotation is not what I said, nor does it even resemble what I
>>said. Is this an example of how you quote evolutionists in your
>>book?
>>
>>Really, Walter, is your position so weak that it requires distortions
>>and _ad hominem_ to defend it?
>>
>>I found your reply disgusting. This will most likely be
>>my last reply to you.
>
>Brian claims my post mis-quoted and distorted him. He is completely
>mistaken -- I quoted him accurately and exhaustively. Then I appropriately
>lampooned his position. It is OBVIOUSLY a lampoon of his position. And to
>make that point extra clear I didn't use quote marks (" ").
>It is all fair, funny, and accurate.
>
True, Walter did not use quote marks (" "), he used quote marks (' ').
Whether or not quote marks are used is irrelevant, though. Walter
OBVIOUSLY distorted what I wrote.
Then again, maybe the quote marks aren't irrelevant. Following is
part of the definition of quotation mark from -- Websters New
International Dictonary (2nd Ed., unabridged):
<Quotation mark.> One of the marks used in printing and writing
to indicate the beginning and the end of a quotation in which
the exact phraseology of anotber or of a text is directly
cited. Other than for marking citations, quotation marks are
often used to enclose (1) technical or slang terms, nicknames,
expressions of doubtful propriety or with special meanings,
or **other expressions for which a writer wishes to apologize**
or disavow responsibilty; .....[emphasis added]
Walter, I didn't think you had it in you. Apology accepted.
[...]
WR:===
>Brian takes the ultimate dodge on the testability issue. He comes on citing
>Popper's authority, and ducks out the back door with the final words "I have
>no theory of evolution".
Too bad you had to spoil your apology by ending your post with another
lie.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================