>Jim responded to my earlier post as follows:
>
>>Steve Clark writes:
>>
>><<Jim's claim that this exciting finding (if confirmed) damages evolution
>>suggests that he does not fully understand the use of hypotheses and data in
>>science. This has been a significant criticism of Phil Johnson as well.>>
>
>JB
>>It's comforting to know that Prof. Clark is around to eradicate our ignorance.
>>I was picking parasites off my body just the other day, reflecting how I wish
>>I fully understood things as well as the gatekeepers at the University of
>>Wisconsin. The term "priesthood fallacy" popped into my head, but I quickly
>>shunted it aside, realizing I probably don't fully understand what it means.
>
>SC:
>Come on, Jim. If you disagree, then feel free to explain why. Why can't I
>critique your opinion without attracting this sort of rhetoric? It is too
>easy to pick on those in my profession with labels like "priesthood" when we
>offer advice based on our expertise with which you may disagree.
>
First let me say that I thought Steve's description of the way
researchers try to go about modeling stuff was extremely good.
I particularly liked the following paragraph from his earlier
post:
"In research, we constantly uncover data that were not
included in the working model that stimulated the experiment.
Unless such data clearly disprove the model, we generally
reexamine our understanding of the phenomenon in question
and modify the model to account for the new information.
Phil has called this dishonest, but he is wrong." --Steve Clark
This is exactly the way it works, in fact you're usually hoping
to get some surprises in your data since (a) it makes work more
interesting (b) it leads to greater understanding of the phenomena
being studied and (c) it opens the possibility of having some neat
new phenomena named after you :-).
Like Steve, I too get frustrated when trying to explain something
basic like this and get met by this priesthood business. I must
say, though, that the priesthood argument is really convenient.
It allows one to remain ignorant of a subject and still have a
ready-made reply for everything.
So, if what Steve describes above really is dishonest, then I'm a
very dishonest fellow indeed since I engage in this practice all
the time, and am actually engaged in the process right now, as one
of my students has been gracious enough to provide a whole mountain
of data that doesn't fit our models. Jokingly, I told him that
the polymer we're studying needs to take my viscoelasticity course
so it knows how to behave.
===
========================
Brian Harper | "People of that kind are academics, scholars,
Associate Professor | and that is the nastiest kind of man I know."
Applied Mechanics | -- Blaise Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================