On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:03:22 -0500 you wrote to Tom Moore:
TM>You mean for pointing out how lazy the critics of science can be?
[...]
><Sigh> No, Tom, for the umpteenth time, I mean that it's unfair for
>scientists to demand that non-scientists be conversant in the primary
>scientific literature in order to criticize their *LOGIC*, NOT their
>scientific expertise. If a statement is a tautology, or is
>self-referential, or just generally doesn't make LOGICAL sense, having read
>or not having read the primary literature is, in most cases, irrelevant.
>Nowhere in any of my posts have I questioned anyone's scientific expertise.
>But one can be able to quote all the primary literature in his field and
>still be, patently, a fool (I have no one in mind here!). There are two
>issues (at least) involved in this debate - science and philosophy. You're
>addressing one, I'm addressing the other. I just don't know how else to say
>it. I'll ignore the rest of your post since it simply repeats the same
>argument at a higher decibel level.
You are making a good point. This is largely where Johnson is coming
from. His speciality is analysing the logic of arguments:
"Before undertaking this task I should say something about my
qualifications and purpose. I am not a scientist but an academic
lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of
arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those
arguments. This background is more appropriate than one might think,
because what people believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very
heavily on the kind of logic they employ and the kind of assumptions
they make." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press:
Illinois, Second Edition, 1993, p13)
Gould, in reviewiing "Darwin on Trial" acknowledged that this is a
valid approach:
"Clearly, I believe in this interdisciplinary exercise, and I accept
the enlightenment that intelligent outsiders can bring to the puzzles
of a discipline. The differences in approach are so fascinating- and
each valid in its own realm. Philosophers will dissect the logic of an
argument, an exercise devoid of empirical content, well past the point
of glaze over scientific eyes (and HERE I BLAME SCIENTISTS FOR
THEIR PAROCHIALITY, FOR ALL THE WORLD'S EMPIRICS CANNOT
SAVE AN ARGUMENT FALSELY FORMULATED)." (Gould S.J. "Impeaching a
Self-Appointed Judge". Book Review of "Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E.
Johnson, Regnery Gateway: Washington, D.C., 1991, Scientific
American, July 1992, p92. emphasis mine)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------