Re: Of PhDs, priests and logic

Brian D. Harper (bharper@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Mon, 29 Apr 1996 09:14:09 -0400

At 08:44 PM 4/28/96 EDT, Steve wrote:
>Group
>
>On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:47:35 -0400 Brian Harper wrote:
>
>CW>Very good. It's really "Catch-22" logic:
>>
>>1. Only scientific experts can evaluate evolutionary theory.
>
>BH>Here's my $ 0.02 worth. Anyone who wants to can evaluate or
>>criticize any theory they want and they can do so using any
>>methods or sources they want. This reflector and talk.origins
>>are ample evidence of this :-). But if you're not knowledgeable
>>in the field and your sources of information are bad and your
>>research is sloppy then you definitely will be shot down in
>>flames.
>
>I have no problem with this. But no one has yet substantiated that:
>1. I am not knowledgeable in the field"; 2. my "sources of information
>are bad"; and 3. my "research is sloppy". Of course with Brian as
>judge, jury and executioner, all 3 are proven before I even begin! :-)
>

On the contrary, all three of these have been substantiated.

[...]

>BH>I think this is what it usually boils down to. People get
>>shot down and they don't like it (understandably :). Rather
>>than own up, they want to blame someone else. This is the
>>"its not my fault" generation.
>
>Again, perhaps Brian can let me know who is the "someone else" I am
>supposed to be blaming?
>

I spent a great deal of time and effort trying to show you
that your either intelligent design or chance argument
was faulty. When you finally became aware of this what
did you do? Rather than admit your error you tried to
blame me for putting words in your mouth.

>BH>The issue of origins is obviously an emotional one and its
>>understandable that so many laymen want to get involved in
>>the discussion. I should know, although I try to do my
>>homework I'm still a layman when it comes to practically
>>every topic discussed here.
>
>I am glad Brian has now realised it. His previous posts seemed to
>imply that he was the expert and I was just a layman.
>

I have realised it all along Steve and have never pretended to
be an expert in a field that I'm not an expert in. Perhaps you
became confused because I know more about abiogenesis than your
average layman. The reason I know more about it is that I spent
a great deal of time studying it, going beyond secondary sources
and looking at the primary literature.

A year or so ago I spent a great amount of time and effort
debating the origin of life on talk.origins. At the time I
was a progressive creationist with views very much like
yours. Its odd, but for some reason it never occurred to me
to debate the subject on the basis of secondary and popular
level sources. This approach payed off as I won quite a
few debates simply on the virtue of having a superior
knowledge of the subject than my opponents (who were also
amateurs BTW, this all occurred during one of Deaddog's
extended absences).

========================
Brian Harper | "I can't take my guesses back
Associate Professor | That I based on almost facts
Applied Mechanics | That ain't necessarily so"
Ohio State University | -- Willie Nelson
========================