On Fri, 19 Apr 1996 02:22:34 -0500 you wrote:
JK>Hello, all. A brief introduction before I comment on the current
>thread. My name is Justin Keller, and I'm a philosophy/political science
>student at Northwestern. If folks like Jim Bell and Steve Jones aren't
>experts, I'm not sure what that makes me--I don't receive my degree till
>June. :)
Welcome aboard Justin. Turn back before it's too late! :-)
JK>Tom wrote earlier:
TM>Ah, but my point is how can you be sure that something isn't
>logical without reading the primary literature?
[...]
JK>Second, I'm going to have to agree with Jim here. We can be sure
>something isn't logical without reading the primary literature--we can know
>if it is invalid or not. But we do need the primary literature to test for
>soundness. An argument is valid if, given the truth of the premises, the
>conclusion necessarily follows. An argument is sound if it is both valid
>and has true premises.
Agreed about logical. But I do not necessarily agree about "primary
literature". Firstly, implicit in this assumption is that the experts
say one thing in the primary literature and another in the secondary
literature. Secondly, it is in the *secondary* literature that the
real issues of Creation versus Evolution mainly arise, due to the
philosophical interpretations in the latter. Disallowing creationists
rebuttals to evolutionist claims in the secondary literature on the
grounds that creationists may only respond to the primary literature,
is just one more example of evolutionists use of demarcation
arguments to eliminate competitors:
"The deployment of flawed or metaphysically tendentious demarcation
arguments against legitimate theoretical contenders has produced an
unjustified confidence in the epistemic standing of much evolutionary
dogma, including "the fact of evolution" defined as common descent.
If competing hypotheses are eliminated before they are evaluated,
remaining theories may acquire an undeserved dominance." (Meyer S.C.,
"The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There be a
Scientific `Theory of Creation'?" in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", InterVarsity Press: Illinois, 1994, p100)
JK>I think one point Jim is trying to make (I hope I'm not putting
>words in your mouth) is that non-scientists can determine whether
>something is valid or not. Soundness is a separate issue for which
>familiarity with primary sources is probably helpful.
One cannot make sweeping statements that "familiarity with primary
sources is probably helpful" unless one can show that there is some
essential difference between the primary and secondary scientific
literature, *on the subjects that creationists and evolutionists
disagree.*
However, I agree that if a creationist wishes to make a point on an
*technicality* that is not covered in the secondary literature, or if
he/she wishes to criticise the secondary literature itself on a
technical point, then the creationist should go to the primary
literature.
Some of this primary v secondary literature is a bit of a furphy. In
the case of YEC Creation-Science arguments, because they are often
more technical, they often do go to the technical literature.
For example, Gish's books have abundant references to the technical
literature. Non-YEC creationists, eg. Johnson, tend to pitch their
debate more at the philosophical level, but in his books there are
references to primary literature.
BTW, lest my more strident evolutionist critics jump to the other
extreme and portray me as an ignoramus who denies the value of
primary literature per se, let me say that I have ordered and received
several primary literature articles and I plan to dig deeper
as time goes on. Ironically, yesterday I received and today I read
Yockey H.P., "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous
Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology 67
(1977): 377-398, and another Yockey article is on order.
JK>This shouldn't even really be a debate, because neither side is
>really wrong. The examples Jim, Denis, Tom, et al., are using simply
>illustrate tests for soundness or validity. Understanding the nature of
>logic clears this up. For example, let's take the syllogism:
> P1 Kant thought that space and time are forms of intution.
> P2 If one is neo-Kantian, he always agrees with Kant on this.
> P3 Hegel was a neo-Kantian.
> QED, Hegel agreed with Kant.
JK>QED, Hegel thought that space and time are forms of intution.
>(Sorry about the German philosophy, but it's my field) This syllogism is
>valid, but the conclusion is false. A certain familiarity with Kant's and
>Hegel's thought is necessary to know this. But examine this syllogism:
> P1 Nietzsche believed that the world is redeemed through art.
> P2 If one is Nietzschean, he agrees with Nietzsche on this.
> P3 I believe the world is redeemed through art.
> QED, I am Nietzschean.
>You don't have to know anything about Nietzsche, redemption, or me to know
>that this is illogical. It is invalid, an example of the fallacy of
>affirming the antecedent. All you have to know is logic.
One does not even have to have studied formal logic to see this. It is
obviously false. Laymen may spot the flaw, even if they don't know the
name of the fallacy.
JK>I am not saying that modern science makes any logical fallacies,
>but rather that non-scientists are just as qualified, and sometimes more
>qualified, to find logical fallacies. The failure of those on this
>reflector to make this basic distinction between soundness and validity
>proves my point.
I agree that "non-scientists are just as qualified" "to find logical
fallacies" but I cannot see how they could be "more qualified". A
layman may spot a fallacy because he/she may not share a faulty
paradigm (eg. naturalism, evolution, etc), but this is not because
they are "more qualified". Indeed, it is because they are *less*
"qualified"! :-)
JK>If you've read this far, thanks for humoring me. Be merciful on a
>mere college undergraduate. :)
>....
> Jesus, my all in all thou art:
> My rest in toil, my ease in pain,
> The medicine of my broken heart,
> In war my peace, in loss my gain,
> My smile beneath the tyrant's frown,
> In shame my glory and my crown.
> --Charles Wesley
>
With a tagline like that, who can fail to be "merciful". I
particularly like the "smile beneath the tyrant's frown" line! :-)
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------