I was going to keep quiet about this topic, but this post may give me the
chance to clear up something and then I'll shut-up on this subject again.
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Stephen Jones wrote:
> Justin
>
> 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.
There is a hidden, and false, assumption in the above statement. It
isn't alwasys the same people citing work. Usually, it isn't the same
people. It's very easy to misunderstand arguments, as I and other have
done here. In the process of writing work that's secondary, the author
might fully understand an argument or data point, the author might
misunderstand a point, or even put enough "spin" on the point to make it
appear a certain way, possibly even lie (like Kuznetsov may have done).
Of course all that didn't include the simplification required if the work
is directed toward the layman.
> 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:
>
[quote deleted]
The above statement is not what I'm trying to get across. I'm not saying
don't read secondary literature, read all you want. Indeed, I have a
great deal of such works floating about, including lots of creationist
works. If you want to attack or agree with any point anywhere, fine.
However, recognize the dangers. You may be supporting your arguments
with false or incorrect or incomplete information. That is why I wont
trust arguments that are built from secondary literature.
It's certainly worth it regardless if you agree or disagree with what is
stated.
>
> 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.*
>
But this is the most critical time to examine the primary literature if
you can do it (and if you are really interested in the subject).
Ultimately, you can do one of two things: simply accept or reject an
argument presented in secondary literature even though you don't have
the facts, or you can consider the argument and dig deeper to see what
the arguments are based on. Of course, the third option is to ignore the
arguments. I choose to dig deeper, if I'm interested, that is.
> 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.
true, which is nice. I can go right to the material which helps me pass
judgement on the argument.
> 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.
That's great. It should be encouraged. But I should also say I'm not
expecting it to change your views, but I'm mmuch more willing to listen
to you.
> 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.
>
Yes, the logical problem is obvious in the above. However, a logical
flaw in secondary doesn't impress me. The incorrect definition of
uniformitarianism posted in another message is obviously flawed. If you
present that to a layman, they also would say it's logically flawed. But
the real logical flaw is the definition presented is wrong, which the
layman is likely not to spot. That is why being willing to dive deeper
is important.
> 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
You forgot to add "creationism" in the list above ;-)
> they are "more qualified". Indeed, it is because they are *less*
> "qualified"! :-)
I wont continue this publically, and I hope I cleared up my view a bit
better. Private e-mailing me additional responses is fine.
BTW, I privately appologized to Jim for my use of rather harsh language
earlier, for some reason my buttons get pushed on this reflector (doesn't
happn to me that much elsewhere on ce topics). So, I feel I should
extend a public apology to Jim, Chuck, and to anyone else I annoyed.
Tom