RE: "Primary literature"
Justin Keller (jkeller@merle.acns.nwu.edu)
Fri, 19 Apr 1996 02:22:34 -0500 Hello, all. A brief introduction before I comment on the current
thread. My name is Justin Keller, and I'm a philosophy/political science
student at Northwestern. If folks like Jim Bell and Steve Jones aren't
experts, I'm not sure what that makes me--I don't receive my degree till
June. :)
Tom wrote earlier:
>Ah, but my point is how can you be sure that something isn't logical
>without reading the primary literature? My point elsewhere with
>radiometric dating is a prime example. YECs run around claiming it's
>illogical and that the method is completely flawed when the do not
>examine what radiometric dating is in detail because their objections
>were taken care of in the primary literature, and they intentionally
>ignore the primary literature.
First, good point about YECs making flawed in their criticisms.
Even as a "non-expert" reading "dumbed-down" ICR literature, I have a hard
time swallowing much of what I've read.
Second, I'm going to have to agree with Jim here. We can be sure
something isn't logical without reading the primary literature--we can know
if it is invalid or not. But we do need the primary literature to test for
soundness. An argument is valid if, given the truth of the premises, the
conclusion necessarily follows. An argument is sound if it is both valid
and has true premises.
I think one point Jim is trying to make (I hope I'm not putting
words in your mouth) is that non-scientists can determine whether something
is valid or not. Soundness is a separate issue for which familiarity with
primary sources is probably helpful.
This shouldn't even really be a debate, because neither side is
really wrong. The examples Jim, Denis, Tom, et al., are using simply
illustrate tests for soundness or validity. Understanding the nature of
logic clears this up. For example, let's take the syllogism:
P1 Kant thought that space and time are forms of intution.
P2 If one is neo-Kantian, he always agrees with Kant on this.
P3 Hegel was a neo-Kantian.
QED, Hegel agreed with Kant.
QED, Hegel thought that space and time are forms of intution.
(Sorry about the German philosophy, but it's my field) This syllogism is
valid, but the conclusion is false. A certain familiarity with Kant's and
Hegel's thought is necessary to know this. But examine this syllogism:
P1 Nietzsche believed that the world is redeemed through art.
P2 If one is Nietzschean, he agrees with Nietzsche on this.
P3 I believe the world is redeemed through art.
QED, I am Nietzschean.
You don't have to know anything about Nietzsche, redemption, or me to know
that this is illogical. It is invalid, an example of the fallacy of
affirming the antecedent. All you have to know is logic.
I am not saying that modern science makes any logical fallacies,
but rather that non-scientists are just as qualified, and sometimes more
qualified, to find logical fallacies. The failure of those on this
reflector to make this basic distinction between soundness and validity
proves my point.
If you've read this far, thanks for humoring me. Be merciful on a
mere college undergraduate. :)
Justin Keller
==============================================================================
Justin Keller
650 Emerson #310
Evanston IL 60201
847/332-8478
jkeller@merle.acns.nwu.edu
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~jkeller/index.html
Jesus, my all in all thou art:
My rest in toil, my ease in pain,
The medicine of my broken heart,
In war my peace, in loss my gain,
My smile beneath the tyrant's frown,
In shame my glory and my crown.
--Charles Wesley