> Thomas Moore writes, calmly:
>
> <<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.
Yet another dodge. I might be a geologist, but I'm certainly _not_ an
expert at everything related to geology - NOR IS ANY CHEMIST OR
BIOCHEMIST! As I said, you defense was a defense of authority, which is
donning the priestly robes you detest so much.
>
> <<Your argument before was the Johnson knew something because
> he associated himself with who you assumed as "expert.">>
>
> Right.
>
which is a false argument.
> << 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.
>
Which is my point. If you are going to defend him, defend him on his
arguments. If you defend him by using authority arguments, you have
donned the priestly robes.
> 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.
DId you miss your own usage of the ad hominem of "preistly" and
"priesthood"????? I take GREAT OFFENSE to that accusation, and I will
respond in kind. I will not use those terms when you stop with the
rhetoric yourself.
Tom