On Wed, 31 Jan 1996 22:29:30 +1100 you wrote:
SJ>Welcome to Derek, my agnostic evolutionist sparring partner from
>the Australian fidonet Creation v Evolution echo, to whom I made the
>fatal mistake of mentioning the Reflector! :-)
DM>Thanks for the intro (I think). Apart from the "fatal mistake"
>comment! :-)
Reflectorites would not be aware that I have a backlog of fidonet
messages to you dating back to June 1995!
DM>I'm finding the content of this discussion to be of a
>generally higher quality and significantly more thought-provoking
>than that of our Fidonet echo. This might have something to with a
>shortage of YEC's and an abundance of TE's! :-)
Not to mention the odd PC, here and there? :-)
DM>I get the distinct impression that many of the contributors to
>this reflector have forgotten more about creation and evolution than
>you or I, amateurs that we are, are ever likely to know.
No doubt. Some are Professors of Biology, etc. But the debate is
usually at a philosophical level, which tends to make us all
"amateurs".
>DM>I think that you may have made an error in assuming that Dawkins
>was talking about the same "bridge" event on page 162 as he was on
>page 161.
SJ>Sorry Derek, but that won't wash. Most readers would regard "a
>perfect deal in bridge" (p161) as the same as "a perfect bridge
>hand" (p162).
DM>I don't see why? On page 161, Dawkins clearly describes "a perfect
>deal in bridge" as being "where each of the four players receives a
>complete suit of cards". On page 162, Dawkins writes, concerning his
>hypothetical long-lived aliens, "They will expect to be dealt a
>perfect bridge hand from time to time ..." For a person (or alien)
>to be dealt "a perfect bridge hand" it only requires that the cards
>*in their hand* be all of one suit. This is the common usage of the
>terms "deal" and "hand". I don't play bridge, but I have played
>enough euchre and 500 to know the difference between a deal and a
>hand.
It may be that by detailed analysis one could argue that the "perfect
deal in bridge" (p161) is different from the "perfect bridge hand"
(p162). But the average reader would not make that distinction,
especially since Dawkins introduces the idea of a "perfect bridge
hand" with no explanation.
SJ>If Dawkins has switched meanings between pages then it is just
>another example of his use of subtle "tricks of the advocate's trade"
>("The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, ppxiv).
DM>Is it? How do you know? Is it not more likely that he simply
>assumed that his readers would know the difference between a deal and
>a hand. If he is remiss, then it is because he did not explicitly
>state the probability of receiving a perfect hand in bridge (for the
>record, it is approximately 251,963,120,000 to 1), which would have
>made more evident the difference between a deal and a hand.
If he had said *anything* about "the difference between a deal and a
hand", it would have helped.
DM>And I find your adverse criticism of Dawkin's alleged "use of
>subtle 'tricks of the advocate's trade'" somewhat curious, in light
>of your admiration of Phil Johnson. What is it about Phil Johnson's
>"use of subtle 'tricks of the advocate's trade'" that is less worthy
of adverse criticism than that of Dawkins?
Is this is another one of your red-herrings, Derek? :-) Dawkins
admits that in his "explaining" of his blind watchmaker thesis he
uses "the tricks of the advocate's trade. (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, ppxiv).
DM>To be truly reasonable, it might be fairer to describe both of
>their methods as *tools* rather than *tricks* of the advocates'
>trade. After all, since both men are unashamed advocates of their
>respective, and respected, philosophical positions, it seems hardly
>fair to adversely criticise them for using the standard tools of
>advocacy in defence of those positions. And even less fair, even
>perverse, to only adversely criticise *one* of them, while admiring
the other.
No doubt Phil has argued his philosophical case energetically, but I
do not believe he uses deceptive "tricks" in the same way as Dawkins
does. But I know from experience that this is an argument I cannot
win with you, Derek, so perhaps we will just have to agree to differ?
:-)
Regards.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------