>
>
> On 19 Apr 1996, Jim Bell wrote:
>
> > 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.
I forgot to mention attacking someone for their qualifications is just as
bad. However, that doesn't change the fact that argument from authority
is a fallacy. Indeed, I frankly don't care about a person's
qualifications unless someone uses an argument from authority. Since you
brought it up, it's up to you to show that these people are qualified to
discuss the subject, which you still have not done. If these people are
qualified in the subject at hand, then post the references to their AIDS
research. Otherwise, admit you used an argument from authority and a
logical fallacy.
Now, admitting that you used a false argument does not mean that the
points presented in the article are not valid. However, clinging to the
argument will lead me to believe the arguments presented in their paper are
not valid.
> > 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.
I took a moment and thought about this some more. I used those terms
because both you and Chuck have been making every possible twist and turn
to justify not looking at primary literature, even to the point of
redefining what primary literature is. Yes, Jim, primary literature is
in regard to the material contained, not authors. As such, if an author
uses an argument which he originally proposed elsewhere, it is secondary
(unless he adds to it). So, I asked Chuck, and I'll ask you. What
exactly is your problem? I pointed out high school students are can
certainly read primary scientific literature, so can you and Chuck, or
even Johnson. So, why is it you are fighting so hard against it? We
wouldn't be having this argument at all if you just have said, "Gee,
you're right, we should make more of an effort to do the research
required." What exactly is the problem Jim?
Tom