>For example, perhaps a comparison of Wexler's grasp of the
>literature with that of Johnson would yield some good
>information. From Johnson, we find this claim about
>published research:
>
>[Quote]
>
>Most of the professional scientific literature is available
>in the premier scientific journals Nature and Science, the
>most prestigious scientific organs in Britain and America
>respectively, and at a somewhat more popular level in the
>British New Scientist and the Scientific American.
>
>[End Quote - PE Johnson, Darwin On Trial (2nd ed.), p.13]
What Wesley fails to include in this snippet of text is the context of
Johnson's remarks. I do not like being put in a position of defending
Johnson, but to be fair we have to establish context for remarks we quote.
One of the most serious offenses a contributer on this listserve can do is
to fail to quote in context. You seem to start with the assumption that
Johnson is totally naive, and starting there, you could reach the
conclusion that you did. He is not. His remarks in context are couched in
the previous paragraph, which begins:
"Access to the *relevant* scientific information presents no great
difficulty. Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley wrote for the general reader,
and the same is true of the giants of the neo-Darwinist synthesis such as
Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Gaylord Simpson, and Julian Huxley. Current
authors who address the general public and who are eminent among scientists
include Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Douglas Futuyma, and a host of
other experts who are named in the research notes to each chapter.
"Most of the professional scientific literature is available in the
premier scientific journals Nature and Science, the most prestigious
scientific organs in Britain and America respectively, and at a somewhat
more popular level in the British New Scientist and the Scientific
American. Philosophers and historians have also produced wellinformed
books. In short the available literature is voluminous, and the leading
scientific figures have always assumed that nonscientist readers can
understand the essential evidence. But evidence never speaks for itself; it
has meaning only in the context of rules of reasoning which determine what
may be considered and what counts as evidence. Those rules of reasoning are
what I particularly want to examine."
>
>Perhaps when Mike emails Wexler he could also ask her whether
>she concurs that *most* of the professional scientific
>literature is to be found in the pages of Nature and Science,
>or reported popularly in New Scientist and Scientific
>American. And how much head room over 50% exists?
Now, Wesley's remarks appear ludicrous.
Art
http://geology.swau.edu