____________SNIP_______________________
You mean for pointing out how lazy the critics of science can be?
___________BIG_SNIP____________________
<Sigh> No, Tom, for the umpteenth time, I mean that it's unfair for
scientists to demand that non-scientists be conversant in the primary
scientific literature in order to criticize their *LOGIC*, NOT their
scientific expertise. If a statement is a tautology, or is
self-referential, or just generally doesn't make LOGICAL sense, having read
or not having read the primary literature is, in most cases, irrelevant.
Nowhere in any of my posts have I questioned anyone's scientific expertise.
But one can be able to quote all the primary literature in his field and
still be, patently, a fool (I have no one in mind here!). There are two
issues (at least) involved in this debate - science and philosophy. You're
addressing one, I'm addressing the other. I just don't know how else to say
it. I'll ignore the rest of your post since it simply repeats the same
argument at a higher decibel level.
Chuck