<<Invoking that someone has a Nobel Prize in
_NO WAY_ qualifies a person as a expert on the subject _BEING
DISCUSSED_. If his Nobel is on AIDS research or AIDS related research,
say so. Stop being lazy and show me that this person really is qualified.>>
What does a guy have to do to be considered an expert? Gain immortality? If a
Nobel Prize winner in CHEMISTRY can't talk about CHEMISTRY and have a
presumption of expertise, then there is no pleasing you. But you've
contributed exactly nothing to the debate.
That's why I just can't take this objection seriously.
<<Your argument before was the Johnson knew something because
he associated himself with who you assumed as "expert.">>
Right.
<< Now you've
switched to showing whether or not he was in error, which really is the
issue. You did not defend Johnson on the basis of good arguments either,
you defended him via argument from authority. If you have a problem with
the "priesthood," don't invoke it as a defense.>>
You're mixing two different arguments here. To the charge that Johnson has "no
grasp" of the science, his association with experts speaks for itself (unless
you can produce specific evidence to the contrary). Re: Johnson's arguments,
his logic and reasoning, he stands alone, and ably. If there is a particular
example of his reasoning you have trouble with, that can be discussed.
But discussed in a civil manner. You have erupted lately in several posts with
things like: "Lazy duff." "Crying." "Intellectual dishonesty," etc. I and some
others have noted this as getting a little out of hand on the rhetoric side.
Let's all calm down and deal with the merits. To start, see Terry Gray's fine
post on Phil Johnson.
Jim