>Chuck writes: "but isn't this a classic case of the genetic
>fallacy? Seems to me that time would be better spent responding to content,
>rather than arguing that the critic has no right to criticize. Besides,
>much of the criticism has to do not with science, but with *logic*, which,
>I assume, is available equally to all.
>
>I'm a CPA; can I therefore point out only those logical errors or
>inconsistencies attributable to other CPA's?"
>
>Chuck's point is well taken. Being a "scientist," after all, is
>more a matter of degree than anything else. And I don't mean "Ph-D" here!
>We all use the methods of science (& logic) sometimes, and not other times.
>
>To claim only "scientists" are qualified to speak is to establish an elite
>group of "experts" who will find, in time, they are speaking only to
>themselves.
>
I was not intending to claim that only scientists had the right to speak.
And Chuck is quite right that there are numerous logical (as well as
philosophical) issues to be debated. What I mainly ask for is a polite,
reasoned debate in which each side carefully considers what the other side
says and reads the references they suggest. All too often that doesn't
happen. The debate gets shrill and becomes a contest in rhetoric, no one
reads the other side's suggested references, and no one learns anything
useful.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)