From: Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>
>>>Considering the petty, childish bickering in which academics at
universities
>>>indulge, if Baylor and this board are typical, why shouldn't the public
take
>>>everything they say with a grain of salt? I'll accept the technical
stuff,
>>>provisionally, but will view their interpretations as no more astute than
>>>anyone else's version.
>>>
>>>Bertvan
>>>http://members.aol.com/bertvan
>
>Susan
>>Argument and debate is the way science is done. It's the only way to get
>>closer and closer to the truth.
>
>Chris
>To be fair to Bertvan, I think she's talking about the political
>shenanigans at Baylor, not any alleged "science" that may be involved.
No, I think Bertvan was trying to cast aspersions on the value of the
scientific work of academics generally. All scientific work involves
interpretations. If the public accepts Bertvan's assertion that the
interpretations of scientists cannot be trusted, then public understanding
of science will become a free-for-all, where people pick and choose whatever
bits of science or pseudoscience suit their personal prejudices. This what
Bertvan does, and she wants others to do the same.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 25 2000 - 19:50:07 EDT