WRE>For example, perhaps a comparison of Wexler's grasp of the
WRE>literature with that of Johnson would yield some good
WRE>information. From Johnson, we find this claim about
WRE>published research:
WRE>[Quote]
PEJ>Most of the professional scientific literature is available
PEJ>in the premier scientific journals Nature and Science, the
PEJ>most prestigious scientific organs in Britain and America
PEJ>respectively, and at a somewhat more popular level in the
PEJ>British New Scientist and the Scientific American.
WRE>[End Quote - PE Johnson, Darwin On Trial (2nd ed.), p.13]
AC>What Wesley fails to include in this snippet of text is the
AC>context of Johnson's remarks. I do not like being put in a
AC>position of defending Johnson, but to be fair we have to
AC>establish context for remarks we quote. One of the most
AC>serious offenses a contributer on this listserve can do is to
AC>fail to quote in context. You seem to start with the
AC>assumption that Johnson is totally naive, and starting there,
AC>you could reach the conclusion that you did. He is not. His
AC>remarks in context are couched in the previous paragraph,
AC>which begins:
AC> "Access to the *relevant* scientific information presents no
AC>great difficulty. Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley wrote for
AC>the general reader, and the same is true of the giants of the
AC>neo-Darwinist synthesis such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, George
AC>Gaylord Simpson, and Julian Huxley. Current authors who
AC>address the general public and who are eminent among
AC>scientists include Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Douglas
AC>Futuyma, and a host of other experts who are named in the
AC>research notes to each chapter.
AC> "Most of the professional scientific literature is
AC>available in the premier scientific journals Nature and
AC>Science, the most prestigious scientific organs in Britain and
AC>America respectively, and at a somewhat more popular level in
AC>the British New Scientist and the Scientific
AC>American. Philosophers and historians have also produced
AC>wellinformed books. In short the available literature is
AC>voluminous, and the leading scientific figures have always
AC>assumed that nonscientist readers can understand the essential
AC>evidence. But evidence never speaks for itself; it has meaning
AC>only in the context of rules of reasoning which determine what
AC>may be considered and what counts as evidence. Those rules of
AC>reasoning are what I particularly want to examine."
WRE>Perhaps when Mike emails Wexler he could also ask her whether
WRE>she concurs that *most* of the professional scientific
WRE>literature is to be found in the pages of Nature and Science,
WRE>or reported popularly in New Scientist and Scientific
WRE>American. And how much head room over 50% exists?
AC>Now, Wesley's remarks appear ludicrous.
Not now or at any time past present or future does it look
ludicrous. I guess a bad defense is better than none at all.
I fear that I have to admit to entrapment on this one. I
was hoping that someone would bring up the "relevant" caveat.
Context is good. But Johnson's assertion looks no better with
the above extended quote. Johnson's case is even worse off
with the extended quote, given that proportional
representation of evolutionary theory papers in the cited
journals is hardly likely. Do Nature and Science dole out
proportional space in their content depending upon numbers of
papers published in journals on a per-field basis? I don't
think so. My questions stand, and become even more pointed
with the addition of the one word Art concerns himself with
above:
Does Wexler concur that *most* of the relevant 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
in the relevant literature?
If no one broached "relevant", I was willing to let slide the
proportionality problem. But Art's stance will now require
that a Johnson defender must not only show the main claim, but
also support minimally proportional or supra-proportional
representation of evolutionary theory papers in those cited
outlets as compared to the remainder of the field and in
reference to all other fields of published research. It isn't
often that I see someone shoot themselves in the foot like
that. Way to go, Art!
Wesley