Reflectorites
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:44:50 -0500, David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu wrote:
First, a bit of housekeeping. On 22 Mar 2000 I wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
AFAIK it has *never* been pointed out to me, by David or anyone else,
that "*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are completely
bogus".
[...]
2. I am unaware that anyone on this Reflector, including David, has ever
pointed out to me that "*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based
arguments are completely bogus".
3. Even if I had brought it up before, and David had pointed out to me that
"*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are completely
bogus", there are continually new people arriving on this Reflector who
would not have heard David's `refutation'!
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now David has written to me privately that he has managed to find where
in *1996*, in a private message, he used the term "bogus" in relation to
one of my posts on the Second Law. This was just before I went on a
3 months overseas trip and in fact I had unsubscribed to the Reflector.
I did not have the time then to answer David and I may not have even read
it. If I did, I forgot all about it. I would also point out that it was not
about "the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments" but about only one aspect
of the the latter, the origin of life only.
I thanked David for bringing this to my attention and I promised him that I
would "publicly acknowledge my error." But re-looking at what I said
above I cannot in all honesty say that it *was* an error. I prefaced my
comments with "AFAIK" and I left open the possibility that David might in
fact find such a post. So all I can do is acknowledge that David did in fact
use "bogus" in relation to one of my posts on the SLoT in 1996 and that I
had either not read it or forgotten about it.
DB>This post is a response to Stephen Jones' long post of 27 MAR 00. Even
>though much material has been excised it has still ballooned to such a
>size that it has been divided into 2 posts. I hope very much that such
>extensive responses will not be necessary in any subsequent discussion
>with Stephen about this issue. If so, I will not have the time or
>stamina to do it.
I don't really have the time either. But I feel that for the benefit of
newcomers I am obliged to answer David's points once again, point-by-
point. This will need to be over several posts, and maybe over a number of
weeks as time permits.
Once having done that, and knowing that David probably won't agree with me
and will probably just post the same things back that he has been posting
to me since 1996 (without really bothering to understand what I am saying),
I will terminate the thread. That is, unless there is something new in
David's replies, I will not respond to them.
I would state at the outset that the SLoT is not a major issue for me - I
would be surprised if it comprised as much as 1% of my total posts on
this Reflector over the last 5-6 years.
In fact I would not be overly worried if it turned out that I was wrong and
David was right. I believe evolution fails as a general explanation of the
origin and development of life, irrespective of whether it is in conflict with
the SLoT.
OTOH the SLoT appears to be a major issue to David and it comprises a much
greater percentage of his posts on this Reflector. Indeed there is a violence
about David's posts on the SLoT which are out of all proportion to the
fairly moderate things I say about it. This is a real `hot-button'
issue with him for some reason, but it is not for me.
I suspect that David's real target is the YECs, who do make the SLoT a major
part of their argument against evolution. This shows in his repeated claims
that I am saying that "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics"
when AFAIK I have never said that, and in fact have said the exact opposite.
However, since there haven't been many YECs around to debate the SLoT with
David, I am apparently the next best thing?
DB><snip preliminary discussion of my post of 14 AUG 97 explaining why the
>cosmic argument mentioned by Ratzsch is invalid>
David seems to think that because he *thinks* he has explained that
something is "invalid" then it *is* invalid!
Besides, "invalid" is not the same as "bogus" (see below).
>SJ>Thanks to David for this. But *1996* and *1997* (below) hardly qualifies
>>for me "repeatedly bringing the quote up"!
DB>Huh? What does the date of the correction have to do with it?
It is answers like this that cause me to have no confidence in what David
says. A reasonable person would agree that last bringing something up in
1996 and 1997 would not qualify as *repeatedly* bringing it up.
That David cannot even acknowledge even such a simple thing causes me to
doubt the validity of his technical arguments. How do I know that David is not
(even unconsciously) slanting his arguments and not mentioning contrary
evidence (see Feynman's quote below)?
[...]
>SJ>And reading David's 1997 post now, it does not say that the "*both* the cosmic
>>*and* the Earth-based arguments are completely bogus".
DB>It doesn't have to. The phrase was my characterization of those
>arguments that they were completely bogus. That characterization was not
>intended as a quote from 3 year old posts.
David's actual words were:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:57:06 -0500, David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu wrote:
[...]
DB>...It also seems that often when this comes up Stephen Jones quotes his
>favorite passage from Del Ratsch about some evolutionists mistaking some
>anti-evolution arguments by some creationists that invoke the 2nd law in
>a cosmic context for anti-evolution arguments that invoke the 2nd law in
>a specific context related to biological evolution on Earth. He keeps
>bringing up the quote even though it has long ago been pointed out to
>him that *both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are
>completely bogus anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now if David has not in fact "long ago pointed out to" me "that *both* the
cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are completely bogus" then his claim
is simply false.
DB>The characterization is
>correct. Both arguments *are* completely bogus.
Moreover "bogus" has a specific meaning of "not genuine" in the sense of a
"counterfeit" or "sham" (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bogus)
and unless David had argued that specific meaning in his earlier posts
(apart from the private one in 1996), then again David's claim that "it has
long ago been pointed out to" me "that *both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-
based arguments are completely bogus" is false.
I would here state that one of the major problems I have found in debating
with David is his use of intimidatory language to try bully his opponent into
submission. An example is his use of this word "bogus". It has a moral
connotation of not only intellectually wrong (i.e. mistaken), but also
morally wrong (i.e. knowingly deceptive, fraudulent, etc.).
Since David is usually a stickler for detail, I assume that he deliberately
chose the word "bogus" to carry the latter meaning. It is therefore an
ad hominem argument designed to discredit me personally so that others
wont listen to what I say.
Apparently not enough for David to try to demonstrate that my arguments about
the SLoT are incorrect, but he also has to try to give the impression that
they are not even genuine, and in fact immoral. I have always assumed that
when my oponents stoop to such ad hominem tactics they must have a problem
somewhere with their argument.
DB>The message I referred
>to explained why the cosmic argument was incorrect.
First, again one of David's problems is that he assumes that just because he
*thinks* something is "incorrect" that it *is* incorrect. Science is supposed
to be fallibilistic but David comes across as *in*-fallibilistic!
Second, David has simply not understood my "cosmic argument". His
explanation of why he thinks it is incorrect therefore simply misses the
point.
Third, even if my argument was "incorrect", that would not make it
"bogus".
DB>The fact that the
>earth-based argument was, too, incorrect was already settled, I presumed,
>because its refutation is so widespread, because it was previously
>pointed out to you on an at least one other occasion, and because you
>brought up the Ratzsch quote in the first place it seemed that you were
>conceding the earth-based argument but were standing behind the cosmic
>one.
This demonstrates why it is a waste of time arguing with David on the
SLoT. He takes no notice of what I am saying and just makes up his own mind
of what he *thinks* I have said!
I have *not* conceded that either my "earth-based argument" or my
"cosmic one" were incorrect. Indeed, I still believe they are *both*
correct.
DB>Regarding this invalidity of the earth-based argument and the invalidity
>of your previous claim that "an energy conversion mechanism" needs to be
>supplied for the growth of macroscopic order in an open subsystem I wish
>to point out that these things had cetainly already been previously
>pointed out to you before my post of 14 AUG 97.
David seems to think that just because he points something out to me, I
must therefore agree with him!
The reason why I find it difficult to agree with David is that he usually just
brushes aside the authorities I quote and then demands that I accept his
word, or else answer him back in my own words without quotes. Because
David is a physicist, under those conditions he would always win, even if
he was wrong.
Under those conditions I do not (indeed *cannot*) accept David's
unsubstantiated assertions as absolutely true. I know he is a physicist of
some sort, but that does not mean he must be right. Even Einstein was
wrong on some things!
For David to convince me, he would need to: 1) stop using intimidatory
tactics; 2. accept the authorities I quote as valid; 3) show that he *really*
understands what I am saying (not what he *thinks* I am saying; and 4)
deal with each of my points fairly and squarely.
Unfortunately, it is probably far too late for that. The damage has been
done in that any trust I had in David as a reliable authority has been
almost completely eroded.
DB>In a private reply I
>sent to you dated 20 AUG 96 17:42:51 -5:00 in response to comments you
>made to the reflector on the thread whose subject was "Re: TE is an
>oxymoron 1/2" I explained why both claims (need for "energy conversion
>mechanism", and earth-based 2nd law argument) are wrong.
Note again how David just assumes that because he *thinks* he has explained
that something is wrong, then it *is* wrong.
DB>A copy of that
>message is given below (on the outside chance that someone on the list
>might be interested in the arguments). Even though I never intended that
>my characterizing phrase "completely bogus" has to explicitly appear in
>these old messages it is interesting anyway to note the concluding
>paragraph and the last sentence where I even happened to characterize the
>2nd law argument (earth-based) as "thoroughly bogus" back in 96 (before
>anyone started talking on the reflector about the Ratzsch quote about the
>cosmic argument which also has a 96 copyright).
See my opening statement. David did indeed *once* in 1996 use the word
"bogus" in repect of only *one part* of the "earth-based" argument. He
never used it of the "cosmic argument". David's claim that "it has long
ago been pointed out to" me "that *both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based
arguments are completely bogus" is therefore false.
DB>====================insert old 11k message==========================
>>Subject: Re: TE is an oxymoron 1/2
>>Creator: dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetowncollege.edu
>>Original Msg Id: 199608182112.VAA198151(a)smtp-gw01.ny.us.ibm.net
>>Create Date: 08/20/96 17:42:51
>>FROM: dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetowncollege.edu
>>TO: sejones@ibm.net
David here just posts to the Reflector a private post he sent me in 1996,
without seeking my permission. The problem is that my reply to David was
private also and Internet ethics forbid me from posting it to the Reflector
without seeking David's permission. Before I can proceed to answer the
points in this post, I therefore ask David's permission for me to quote
from that private reply to him either wholly or in part.
[...]
In the meantime, here for David to think about is something that Phil Johnson
wrote, based on what that great physicist, Richard Feynman, said to his
graduating physics students about (amongst other things) physicists not
bluffing and intimidating laymen:
"...we need now to consider a fundamental problem with the whole project
of critical thinking. We can't possibly think out everything for ourselves all
the time. Much of the time we have no alternative but to trust the experts.
But how do we know whether we can trust them? The experts know more
than we do, but they may also have an interest in persuading us to believe
something that is in their own interests rather than our interests. They may
give us what is popularly known as a "snow job." Trustworthy experts are
ones who understand their responsibility to give us their expertise without
claiming to know more than they really do. Really trustworthy experts
don't try to evade our baloney detectors, and even warn us to watch out
for their own expert bias.
The best description I know of the qualities that make an expert
trustworthy comes from the late great physicist Richard Feynman, one of
the unquestioned heroes of modern science. If a teenager with a passion for
science wanted to take one twentieth-century scientist as a model, he or
she couldn't do much better than to pick Feynman. In his 1974
commencement speech at the California Institute of Technology, Feynman
told the graduating students to cultivate
`a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that
corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over
backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should
report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only
what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly
explain your results; and things you thought of that you've
eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to
make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. ... In
summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others
to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that
leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. The first
principle is that you must not fool yourself- and you are the easiest
person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After
you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists.
You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. I would
like to add something that's not essential to the science, but
something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the
laymen when you're talking as a scientist. ... I'm talking about a
specific, extra type of integrity that is [more than] not lying, but
bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that
you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our
responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think
to laymen.'
I would like to think that when the graduating students of Caltech heard
those inspiring words, they all stood up and shouted "Amen!" Maybe the
students really did react that way, but (alas!) scientists who are not as
scrupulous as Richard Feynman often employ very different principles
when they deal with the public. They are afraid we will come to the wrong
answers if we do our own thinking, and so they try to bluff and intimidate
us."
(Johnson P.E., "Tuning Up Your Baloney Detector: How to Get a Good
Grasp on Logical Reasoning and Investigative Procedure," Cornerstone,
Vol. 26, Issue 112 (1997), p. 12-16, 18.
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss112/baloney.htm)
Now that's the mark of a *true* scientist in my book!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from
tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not
strictly universally true. " (Popper K., "Natural Selection and the
Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355,
p.346)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 01 2000 - 19:06:10 EST