My speciality is criminal law (hold your raspberries, please), so I have
endured my share of boobs who don't understand things like the Fourth
Amendment, yet who insist they know how to run a decent justice system, etc.
That being said, there is an equal error the S can make, one Denis seems to
lapse into from time to time. It is what I call the Priesthood Fallacy. Here,
the S uses his hard earned knowledge to wrap himself in the raiments of
episcopacy and pronounce all the unordained as rabble or, worse, pagans. They
chain their Scriptures (read: primary literature) to the pulpit and say, "The
rabble cannot understand. Listen only to us."
Well, that's not an argument; that's pontification. Now it's understandable,
because when you spend time and money getting an advanced degree, you want to
be able to throw a little weight around. You don't like to have your judgments
called into question. But it happens. And every now and then the criticisms
are on the money.
Want to know who knows more about the Fourth Amendment than most lawyers?
That's right, prisoners. They've never been to law school, but they are
interested (man, are they interested) in the subject. And so they
read--primary, secondary, tertiary literature. And they figure out what's
going on.
In the evolution debate, the same thing occurs. Phillip Johnson, for example,
cannot be dismissed because he is a NS. His arguments are sound. They should
be dealt with on their merits, not by the Priesthood Fallacy. Interested
laymen are perfectly capable of assessing evidence, argumentation and calling
"experts" to account for lapses in same.
Nor are secondary sources an evil thing. They are like expert testimony in a
court of law. You don't hear a judge throw out the expert's views because the
lawyer didn't think of them. Similarly, when an expert (even one with a PhD!)
writes on a subject, and his view happens to correlate with your own, it is
perfectly permissible to quote him.
The Priesthood Fallacy would say, "You can't quote anybody unless you've read
the primary literature, like me." Nonsense. The priest CAN point out where the
quotation is in error, or out of context or some such. But he can't fall back
into his vestments and ignore it.
I received the following via another avenue, but it is so highly relevant I
have to pass it along. It's from a 1931 book, but it's argument is timely and
sound.
From: THE BASIS OF EVOLUTIONARY FAITH, Floyd E. Hamilton, James Clarke &
Company, Limited, London, 1931
"At this point in our discussion we are faced with a serious difficulty.
Scientists in general claim only scientists have a right to criticize
scientists. They implicitly or explicitly assume that no one can criticize
either their evidence or arguments unless he is a scientist of recognized
standing. They refuse to reply to the arguments or criticisms of a layman,
or, as was the case when the late William Jennings Bryan attacked evolution,
they make an ad hominem argument and descend to abuse of the person who
attacks their position. If the man who attacks evolution happens to be a
clergymen he is called a religious bigot, or an ignoramus. If he holds a
position as a teacher of science, he is called a scientific charlatan and
impostor. Few are the scientists who would so lower their professional
dignity as to reply publicly to the arguments in an article or book written by
a person who was not a professional scientist. They rightly feel that only a
person who has examined the evidence for evolution has a right to speak on the
subject, but they at the same time assume that a person who does not believe
in evolution has never examined the evidence, or at least that he has not
examined enough of the evidence to make his opinion worth considering. The
very fact that a person does not believe in evolution is to them proof
positive that such a man is prejudiced or that he has never examined the
evidence...But if an otherwise uneducated layman were to study the literature
on evolution in the standard books and articles on the subject...why should
not those arguments and proofs be treated seriously ...Of course scientific
men do not treat them that way, but why should they not? The minds of
scientific men are of the same kind as the minds of the laity. THE MERE
DIPLOMA FROM A TECHNICAL SCHOOL OR DOCTORS DEGREE FROM SOME UNIVERSITY DOES
NOT BESTOW A DIFFERENT KIND OF WISDOM UPON THE RECIPIENT, NOR DOES PROFICIENCY
IN THE LABORATORY IN THE USE OF THE MICROSCOPE PLACE THE BIOLOGIST ABOUT THE
LAWS OF LOGIC. Evidence or arguments based on facts can be weighed just as
carefully by the layman as by the scientist, provided the layman has the same
knowledge of the facts as the scientist. At least the layman can weigh
arguments and evidence as carefully as a scientist who is not a specialist in
that particular line...
The average scientist has usually had very little training in the
science of logic, or in the science of evidence. The layman who has had a
training in logic and the laws of evidence is thus in a far better position to
criticize accurately the theories and reasoning of the scientist, than is the
fellow scientist himself. When one reads some of the books on scientific
subjects that have been published by scientists, one is led to believe that
courses in logic and evidence should be required in every scientific school!
In conclusion one more fact must be noted. It is not always the man who is
the closest to the facts who can perceive the inner meaning of the facts.
Prejudice, professional pride, and zeal for a particular theory may
lead a scientist innocently into an erroneous interpretation of the
discoveries he has made. It is as true to-day as it was in the time of
Caesar, that people are always ready to believe what they want to believe, and
oftentimes even scientists are led into error in this way. A layman who
approaches the subject from another point of view, may sometimes be able to
discover errors in the deductions of the scientist that have escaped his
notice. The scientist who is investigating lines connected with evolution is
prejudiced in favour of it, so that his eyes may be easily blinded to the
facts. The mere fact that a layman may be prejudiced against evolution, will
make him all the more quick to detect errors of reasoning or deficiencies of
evidence in the evolutionists arguments. The mere fact of prejudice against
evolution does not necessarily disqualify him as a critic. His very prejudice
itself may enable him to see facts the others have missed." (pp. 37-47)
Let us eschew the Priesthood Fallacy and deal with the merits.
Jim