Ah, that explains why you didn't mention their names or explain their
circumstances in any great detail; you were afraid I would corrupt them with
my "anti-moralist" ways. Or maybe you were just guessing, and now are
trying to bluff your way free of my revelation of yet another of your
fantasies?
In any event, you conveniently left off the part that followed the statement
you quoted, where I explained that you had accidentally described in general
terms the kinds of things that can happen in science. And as usual you
ignore the whole of my essay to concentrate on one minor rhetorical jab, so
as to avoid having to deal with the facts. Are these actions moral, Joseph?
"An undergraduate might start with a model not found in nature,..."
On the contrary, an undergraduate is more likely to be conservative, being
unsure of his knowledge and not yet having completed his education. But
tell me, how do you know, before you start any research, whether a model
will be found in nature or not? Is there some mystical way of knowing,
passed down to you from the priests of ancient Egypt? Fortunately, science
doesn't care for mysticism; it cares for facts. The only way you can find
out scientifically whether a model will be found in nature is to test it
against nature. Unfortunately, by the time you find out for sure it will be
too late to change your intentions. But as Pim pointed out, science doesn't
advance unless a scientist is willing to take a chance and propose models
that might turn out to be wrong.
"...but not a senior scientist."
On the contrary, a senior scientist is far more likely to propose daring new
innovative models, and he is far more likely to be right in the end, because
he has greater experience, confidence and information.
"He should have moved on to the realistic experiments and not taken the
easy, unrealistic route to ultimate disgrace."
First of all, his discovery that his model was not a disgrace, or even a
failure, since what he learned and published along the way helped him and
his colleagues learn things that had never been known before. And now that
he knows what the truth is, he can go on to produce even more successful
results. Secondly, according to your story, he never found out that his
model was false until years after he had adopted it. How was he to know
before then that it was "unrealistic", especially if his own results
suggested otherwise? Playing it safe is easy, but no one ever won the Nobel
Prize by playing it safe. You only win by proposing innovative models and
then proving them true. The scientists who won the Nobel Prize had no way
of knowing that their models were even right, but they had the confidence
and courage to put them to the test and find out. Had they been wrong they
would have started over again. What if your hypothetical scientist had been
right? Are you saying he shouldn't have gambled and instead should have
just stayed with doing what other people had already done already? How does
science advance if everyone simply copies everyone else?
"The second scientist was the first one who thought he had identified a star
with wobble that inferred an orbiting planet."
You must have searched the web or television for hours looking for that
example. My congratulations on finding it.
"His insight at the last minute proved that it was the Earth's wobble. It
was an honest error and in keeping with his scrupulous honesty, unlike
Haeckel, he reported his error."
According to Pim's "university court" story, Haeckel also admitted his
error, when it was pointed out to him. Yet you label Haeckel a fraud. If
this scientist you admire so much had also not noticed his error, but had
had it pointed out to him during his talk, at which time he then admitted
it, would you label him a fraud as well?
"The standing ovation from his colleagues proved how much they valued
honesty and conversely how they would have hated him had he acted like
Haeckel."
Haeckel was greatly admired and respected by his colleagues, even his
critics. Even today, those who criticize his drawings still admire him for
his gifted insight. You insist upon labeling Haeckel a fraud even though
you have not produced one shred of evidence to support your claim, whereas I
have shown that even his harshest modern critics do not deny that he was
right in his conclusions. It seems to me you are the fraud, not Haeckel.
"That's the point. I did not expect you to see it."
Then why even bother to mention it?
"The basic difference between us is that you put yourself, as do so many
others on this list, above morality and try to make it conform to your
wishes."
Actually, the difference between us is that I am a Christian, a gentleman
and a man of science, whereas you are a pagan, a bully and a man of
ignorance. You seem pretty confident you can describe my morality even
though you know precious little about. Morality appears to govern my life
more fully than it does yours, considering that you have used every
opportunity to insult me while I have tried to remain civil.
"That was why you could not put the $100,000, or even $10, in escrow where
you would be forced to submit to the law, which is based on morality."
I did not agree to your demand for escrow because I had given you my word of
honor as a Christian and a gentleman that I would pay you the money if you
won, and I was willing to accept your word as well. However, you refused to
accept my word. The bottom line is that I was ready to trust you, but you
refused to trust me. And modern jurisprudence like escrow is hardly based
on morality, though I will agree that the concept of justice -- which the
law is supposed to uphold -- is. But before there can be morality there
must be trust. Honor is the very basis of morality; without honor, no one
can be sure what is right and what is wrong.
"You were forced to stand up for Haeckel, the anti-moralist, because he wore
your insignia."
No, I stood up for Haeckel because you were spreading lies about him. I
would have done the same if you had labeled Henry Morris a racist bigot or
Ken Ham a pedophile. Unlike you, I stand for truth, no matter who it
involves or where it leads. You, on the other hand, twist and distort the
truth to suit your own goals. Is that moral?
"And that is why you don't give a damn about the planet,..."
You can't read my heart; why are you saying things you have no idea of
whether they are true, simply to hurt me? Is that moral?
"You are committed to the biggest lie and crime in recorded history. The
planet is dying and there is no stopping it."
Again, you have no knowledge that this is true about me or anyone on this
list. This is called "bearing false witness against your neighbor"; it is
also libel. Are either of these moral?
"Kill the Earth fast versus protect it, planetslaughterer versus planet
defender, anti-moralist versus moralist. Those are the irreconcilable
differences."
The only irreconcilable difference is between knowledge and certainty. Have
you ever read Jacob Bronowski? He said that it won't be science that
dehumanizes us, it will be people who are certain that they alone have
perfect knowledge. You sound exactly like one of those people. That's why
you never address an opponent's facts or offer any of your own; since you
are certain that you know the sole truth, all you need do is make
declarative statements. People will either believe or they won't; the
believers will not dispute you whereas the unbelievers can go to hell. Were
you in fact the scientist you claim to be, you would know, as every
scientist does including evolutionists, that in fact you don't know. That
is, you would know that there is no perfect knowledge, and you would
understand that the more you learned the less you would actually know,
because the more you learn, the more you realize what still needs to be
learned.
Kevin L. O'Brien