>I have the feeling I'm going to be sorry I asked,
Sorry if I come on too strong. It's a bad habit of mine.
>but what is the genetic fallacy?
I'll quote from _Come_Let_Us_Reason_, by Norman Geisler & Ronald Brooks
(Baker, 1990) - a layman's introduction to formal logic from a Christian
perspective.
(I *highly* recommend this book.)
"[The genetic fallacy] is a special type of reductive fallacy in which the
single issue focused on is the source or origin of an idea. The argument
demands, 'Something (or someone) should be rejected because it (or he)
comes from a bad source.' "
A Biblical example: "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"
My point is simply that, while a non-scientist may not be qualified to
criticize scientific arguments as to their scientific validity, she most
assuredly does have the right to point out logical errors or internal
inconsistencies. Further, IMO, pointing out these types of errors does not
place the critic under any obligation to propose a "better" solution.
>You are quite welcome to criticize any field you choose to. However, if
you >criticize a field that is not your own, you had better do your
homework.
Agreed. But I would add that philosophy of science is a different field
from science, a field in which scientists, as a group, have no special
expertise. In fact, I would argue that questions of philosophy of science
must be settled externally to science itself. And since, IMO, most of the
creation - evolution debate (but *not* the young earth - old earth debate)
turns on questions of philosophy of science, there are many more qualified
players than the Eldredges and Goulds of the world would care to admit.
BTW, I appreciate your comments, Burgy.
In Him,
Chuck
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Warman
cwarman@sol.wf.net
"The abdication of Belief / Makes the Behavior small."
--- Emily Dickinson