>At 04:04 PM 2/9/99 -0500, Steve wrote:
>
>> The problem I have with people like you or Austin bringing this stuff up
>is that
>>you NEVER mention the negative evidence! You guys selectively report the
>data in
>>order to bolster your case -- a tactic which is definitely frowned upon in
>science
>>(but not, evidently, among young-earth or flood geologists). I think I
>clearly
>>documented that Austin did indeed do that in my last post and I think you
>were
>>trying to get away with it now.
>
>Look at your last publication, and tell me how much paper you devoted to
>attempting to disprove your thesis. I am sorry, but science doesn't work
>like that, and you ought to know it. We are attempting to present a case
>which has 1000 detractors for every supporter. Why should you expect me to
>do your homework for you. What keeps science advancing is the interactions
>of the community, not the individual scientists, each of which labors under
>some paradigm or other. Every scientist is attempting to advance some
>thesis, not to shoot one of his or her own down. Be realistic, Steve, quit
>grousing and name-calling, and expecting me to do your homework for you!
>
Actually, in all the papers I have written I spend half the discussion
talking about the problems of my paradigm (my PIs insist on it!). This is
partially to admit that there are problems, partially to beat my detractors
to the punch. However, I will admit that in every case I tried to put the
best possible spin on the situation: I either explained that the problems
were not serious or described what experiments I planned to do next to
resolve those problems. Most of the biochemical papers I read do much the
same. Is geology different?
Kevin L. O'Brien