On 16 Apr 1996, Jim Bell wrote:
> That being said, there is an equal error the S can make, one Denis seems to
> lapse into from time to time. It is what I call the Priesthood Fallacy. Here,
> the S uses his hard earned knowledge to wrap himself in the raiments of
> episcopacy and pronounce all the unordained as rabble or, worse, pagans. They
> chain their Scriptures (read: primary literature) to the pulpit and say, "The
> rabble cannot understand. Listen only to us."
Well that is a bit of a cartoon. My lapses are primarily in response to
Mr. Jones. And a reading of his handling of the Darwin quotes a few weeks
ago is testimony as to why, as you say, "Often, a fumbling
non-specialist (NS) can drive a specialist (S) nuts by being flat wrong about
something and not equipped to see that error."
> Well, that's not an argument; that's pontification. Now it's understandable,
> because when you spend time and money getting an advanced degree, you want to
> be able to throw a little weight around.
Wrong. AH argument.
> You don't like to have your judgments
> called into question.
Wrong. AH argument.
> In the evolution debate, the same thing occurs. Phillip Johnson, for example,
> cannot be dismissed because he is a NS.
This is where you are dead wrong. Phil doesn't read the primary
literature. The closest he gets to it is through guys like Paul Nelson,
(who just happens to be a YEC--so go figure).
> His arguments are sound.
His arguments are indeed sound, but sound within the context of SECONDARY
LITERATURE. He is just a glorified recycler.
> The Priesthood Fallacy would say, "You can't quote anybody unless you've read
> the primary literature, like me." Nonsense. The priest CAN point out where the
> quotation is in error, or out of context or some such. But he can't fall back
> into his vestments and ignore it.
In principle I agree. But the NS has to at the very least be able to
understand what he/she is reading. And this indeed is a terrible problem
with the modern scientific literature. It is so technical that it
requires many times an advance degree in the area for one to understand.
And please understand, I am not saying the NS is not intelligent. But all
the intelligence in the world cannot overcome blantant ignorance.
As you quote later:
> Evidence or arguments based on facts can be weighed just as
> carefully by the layman as by the scientist, provided the layman has the same
> knowledge of the facts as the scientist.
And this has always been my point--the NS just doesn't have access to
these simply because much of the PRIMARY LITERATURE is inaccessible unless
you are trained.
> The average scientist has usually had very little training in the
> science of logic, or in the science of evidence.
This is going a little too far. You know, if we scientists are so dim, it
is kinda funny that we can people on the moon, transplant hearts, and
yea, even do humble proceedures like implant titanium posts in jaws to
restore dentitions.
> Let us eschew the Priesthood Fallacy and deal with the merits.
And yes, let us also, DEMAND that the NS examine him/herself as to whether
they have indeed a reasonable grasp of the PRIMARY DATA and PRIMARY
LITERATURE. And if they can't read it, let them be honest in saying so.
Further, let's make them aware that the recycling of GOBS & GOBS of
SECONDARY LITERATURE does not advance the debate, but merely clutters the
discussion.
As always, I enjoy your posts.
Blessings,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------