Reflectorites
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 01:29:28 -0400, David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu
wrote:
DB>There is little for me to comment on regarding Stephen Jones' last long
>message of 1 APR 2000 on this thread because he has chosen not to answer
>my request for a straightforward explanation of his position on the
>matter of the relationship of evolution and the 2nd law of thermodynamics
>(for either the cosmic or earth-based arguments).
This is a complex issue and there is no such thing as a "straightforward
explanation of" my "position on the matter of the relationship of evolution
and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (for either the cosmic or earth-based
arguments)".
David has made a serious charge that I have posted "bogus" arguments
and likened those arguments to "counterfeit money" (see below), so I am not
going to be hustled into posting some hasty one-liner so that David can shoot
it down in flames, terminate the debate, and forever claim that I am making
"bogus" claims.
As I said previously, "for the benefit of newcomers I am obliged to answer
David's points once again, point-by-point. This will need to be over several
posts, and maybe over a number of weeks as time permits."
DB>Instead, he has mostly
>complained about how unfair it is for me to expect him to explain himself
>without a barage of quotes from others,
I gave my reasons why it is unfair for David to demand that I, a layman,
have to explain my position without quotes from others:
"The reason why I find it difficult to agree with David is that he usually just
brushes aside the authorities I quote and then demands that I accept his
word, or else answer him back in my own words without quotes. Because
David is a physicist, under those conditions he would always win, even if
he was wrong."
If David thinks it is fair that I, a layman, debate with him, a physicist, with
me being unable to provide quotes from other qualified authorities (including
physicists) to back up what I am saying, then David is even more "unfair"
than I thought!
Under those conditions, David could just reply to whatever I said: "Well
I'm a qualified physicist, and you're just a layman, and I'm telling you that
you are wrong and I am right"!
DB>accused me of posting without
>permission the private message I wrote to him back in Aug 96 which
>pointed out to him why the earth-based argument contra the 2nd law is
>bogus and why no "energy conversion mechanism" needs to be supplied,
The fact is that David did post the *whole* private message, without
seeking my permission (see below).
DB>accused me of "using intimidatory tactics" (and language), accused me of
>trying to "bully his (my) opponent into submission", accused me of ad
>hominem argumentation,
I note that David does not mention at this point the dictionary meaning of
"bogus" that I supplied. But later on in David admits he meant "bogus" in
the sense of "not genuine", "counterfeit", and "sham"!
That is how David's posts come across to me. My posts on the SLoT are
fairly modest (I don't claim that "evolution violates the SLoT" for
example), and they don't IMHO warrant David's `over-the-top' responses.
DB>and has introduced a new batch of obfuscations
>and unexplained contradictions in his apparent positions on the matter.
If David took the trouble to actually read what I said (see below) and to try
to empathically understand why I, a layman, am saying it, then maybe he
would not think it "obfuscations and unexplained contradictions".
I must say that David falls far short of the standards that Richard Feynman
advocated for physicists talking to laymen:
"I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but
something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman
when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do
about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like
that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an
ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your
rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying,
out bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you
ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."(Feynman
R.P., "`Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!'," 1990, p.343)
DB>Most of this post can be seen for what it is by any knowlegable and
>quasi-objective reader reading it, and any further comment by me would
>be just adding to the noise therein.
I note David's qualifications that those who are "knowlegable" (sic) and
'quasi-objective" could understand his post. In other words, someone who
agrees with David!
DB>One such April Fools post is (more than) enough.
I rest my case! Surely You're Joking, Mr Bowman!
DB>However, there are a few loose ends that ought to be
>addressed anyway because the errors in the relevant statements might not
>be so blatantly obvious to the reader as most of the others probably are.
I take this "blatantly obvious" "errors" to be yet another example of David's
bullying and intimidatory style. I also assume that David is bluffing. In his
frame of mind, David is IMHO a sitting duck for what Feynman warned his
graduating physicists: "The first principle is that you must not fool
yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool." (Feynman R.P., 1990,
p.343).
DB>Concerning the issue of my posting to the reflector the reply message of
>20 AUG 96 that I had I sent to Stephen reponding to a post he made to the
>reflector:
>I understood Stephen to have *already granted* me permission to do this
>in his message to me of 27 MAR 00 acknowledging the message I sent to him
>which reminded him of that earlier private reply. In his message Stephen
>thanked me for bringing the earlier message to his attention, granted me
>permission to bring this up to the reflector, and said that if I did
>so he would acknowlege his error in the matter.
Granting permission to mention an error I made does not mean posting the
entire post!
DB>In my reply to him of
>28 MAR 00 I thanked Stephen for granting me this permission and said that
>I expected that he would do the right thing in this matter regardless of
>whether or not I chose to respond publically to the reflector about this
>earlier message. In his reply to me about this Stephen then said that he
>decided that the matter wasn't important enough to bother making a such a
>post acknowledging his error. But he then did assure me that should I
>bring the issue up to the reflector he would "prominently and publicly"
>acknowledge his error. Why am I not surprised that he hasn't actually
>followed through on his promise?
I *did* "do the right thing" and "prominently and publicly" acknowledge
my error, when David next brought "the issue up to the reflector". What
did David think this was, chopped liver?:
=======================================================
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 07:50:50 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>Reflectorites
>
>On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:44:50 -0500,
David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu wrote:
>
>First, a bit of housekeeping. On 22 Mar 2000 I wrote:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[...]
>
>AFAIK it has *never* been pointed out to me, by David or anyone else,
>that "*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are completely
>bogus".
>
>[...]
>
>2. I am unaware that anyone on this Reflector, including David, has ever
>pointed out to me that "*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based
>arguments are completely bogus".
>
>3. Even if I had brought it up before, and David had pointed out to me that
>"*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are completely
>bogus", there are continually new people arriving on this Reflector who
>would not have heard David's `refutation'!
>
>[...]
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Now David has written to me privately that he has managed to find where
>in *1996*, in a private message, he used the term "bogus" in relation to
>one of my posts on the Second Law. This was just before I went on a
>3 months overseas trip and in fact I had unsubscribed to the Reflector.
>I did not have the time then to answer David and I may not have even read
>it. If I did, I forgot all about it. I would also point out that it was not
>about "the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments" but about only one aspect
>of the the latter, the origin of life only.
>
>I thanked David for bringing this to my attention and I promised him that I
>would "publicly acknowledge my error." But re-looking at what I said
>above I cannot in all honesty say that it *was* an error. I prefaced my
>comments with "AFAIK" and I left open the possibility that David might in
>fact find such a post. So all I can do is acknowledge that David did in fact
>use "bogus" in relation to one of my posts on the SLoT in 1996 and that I
>had either not read it or forgotten about it.
[...]
=======================================================
If ever proof was needed that David does not actually read what I write,
but works from his own prejudice of what he thinks I would have written,
this is it!
DB>Instead, he has tried to suggest that
>I pulled some breach of internet ethics by posting the 20 AUG 96 message
>without seeking his prior permission--in spite of his having already
>granted such permission without my ever asking.
See above. The permission was only to mention my error, not to post the
entire private message! If David disputes this, I request his permission to
post my reply to him about this.
DB>Along these lines
>Stephen wrote (1 APR 00) to this forum:
>
>SJ>David here just posts to the Reflector a private post he sent me in 1996,
>>without seeking my permission. The problem is that my reply to David was
>>private also and Internet ethics forbid me from posting it to the Reflector
>>without seeking David's permission. Before I can proceed to answer the
>>points in this post, I therefore ask David's permission for me to quote
>>from that private reply to him either wholly or in part.
DB>Stephen, I do not know what you are talking about here. I cannot give my
>permission for you to post a message that I have never seen. I believe I
>have never received any private response from you responding to my
>message of 20 AUG 96.
I have checked again and the message does have an "undeliverable"
attachment to it which I had overlooked. It does say that it was only a
warning and I did not need to resend it. There is no final undeliverable
message in my archives, so at the time I probably assumed it eventually got
through to David.
DB>I do remember waiting for such a response from you
>after I sent the message to you, but no response ever came to me. I
>should mention that our campus email server here was down for upgrading
>and repairs from 28 AUG 96 until 06 SEP 96. So if you had tried to
>respond to me during that interval I suspect that your message would have
>been returned to you as undeliverable.
See above.
DB>So since I haven't seen such a
>message, and think I may like to know what response you have to the
>arguments of my message, I invite you to post whatever information you
>want concerning the arguments in my message. However, I would hope and
>ask that any quoting of any other outside sources would be pared down to
>a reasonable level though.
I thank David for his permission for me to post this message, which I will
do in its entirety, with additional comments where my position may have
changed since 1996.
Regarding David's request that I keep my "quoting of any other outside
sources" down to a level that *he* considers "reasonable" I will quote what
*I* think necessary to support *my* argument!
I would remind David that all my posts are addressed to *the Reflector*,
and not to him personally. He is not obliged to read what I post, or reply to
it. But if he does reply I expect him to deal fairly and squarely with my
arguments, including my quotes, rather than just dismiss them out of hand.
Otherwise we will just go around in circles forever.
DB>Regarding my choice of the word 'bogus' as characterizing the earth-based
>and cosmic arguments against the 2nd Law, I believe the characterization
>*is* apt. Let's just use the definition provided by Stephen:
>
>SJ>Moreover "bogus" has a specific meaning of "not genuine" in the
>>sense of a "counterfeit" or "sham"
>>(http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bogus)
DB>Both the earth-based and cosmic arguments are incorrect. And not only
>that they can and do deceive many people because their errors are
>*subtle*. These arguments are not obviously false. They are *subtly*
>false. These arguments are not genuine, and are counterfeit, and are
>shams in the sense that they actually do not demonstrate what they seem
>to demonstrate on a first glance based on a superficial
>(mis)understanding of entropy and the 2nd Law.
If they are "subtly false" I suspect that it will all turn on how each of us
David define the terms "evolution" and "the second law of
thermodynamics". There are multiple meanings of "evolution" and also of
"the second law of thermodynamics". I state in advance that I do not grant
David the unilateral power to define these terms. If I did, David would
automatically win the debate. I have already quoted from physics and
biology textbooks which define "the second law of thermodynamics"
different from David, and he just rejects them out of hand. While he does
this, I will *never* accept that he has shown my arguments to be "bogus".
I do not even accept that what David calls generically "the earth-based and
cosmic arguments", are necessarily the same as what I am arguing. For
example, David still seems to perceive that I am arguing that "evolution
violates the second law of thermodynamics" when from the beginning I
have never said that.
Indeed, I would ask David to state his understanding of what exactly *are*
these "earth-based and cosmic arguments" which are "bogus" in the sense
of "*subtly* false". And I don't ask David just to regurgitate my arguments
back to me. David is making a general claim that *all* the "earth-based and
cosmic arguments" regarding the SLoT that creationists post are "bogus".
So what exactly *are* these "earth-based and cosmic arguments" that
David is characterising as "bogus" and "*subtly* false"?
But even if David is right, that "the earth-based and cosmic arguments" are
"*subtly* false" it does not mean they are "bogus". One could argue that
Newton's Laws were "subtly false" but that does not mean they were
"bogus". They are true under most conditions, but start to break down
under special conditions. Indeed, since no scientific theory is absolutely
true, one could argue that *all* science is "bogus" in the sense of "subtly
false"!
But David only says that of *creationist* arguments, so I suspect that there
is a not-so-hidden agenda behind David's choice of terminology. I would
not mind so much if David said that my arguments regarding the SLoT
were "subtly false" and carefully explained where they were incorrect. But
his claim that my arguments on the SLoT are "bogus" is emotional and
counterproductive.
DB>These arguments are not
>what they may seem to be on a superficial level. I certainly did not
>choose the word to impune anyone's morals or to accuse anyone of fraud.
I am afraid I regard this as `damage control' on David's part. Others would
have understood him in this "moral" sense. I certainly did. His posts from
the beginning were angry sounding. His post of 1996 where he called what
I said "bogus" was the *first* post I ever received from David. I wonder
what David would think if the first post he ever got from me charged that
something he said was "bogus"?
DB>I chose the word because the arguments are deceptive to the unsuspecting
>layman regardless of any motives of anyone who might happen use the
>deceptive arguments.
See above. It will be interesting to see what David says these "deceptive
arguments" that I am supposed to be "duped" by, without circularly
reposting what I said. David needs to demonstrate the existence of generic
"cosmic and* the Earth-based arguments" *already existing* when I came
on the scene and which I, a layman, am supposed to have been "duped" by
and passed on.
DB>It is entirely possible for a person to be duped by
>the bogus arguments and innocently pass them on to others just as much as
>it is possible for one to innocently pass counterfeit money on to others
>if the person doesn't notice that the bogus bills are indeed counterfeit.
Unfortunately the rest of David's behaviour (i.e. belittling what I say and
deleting my quotes) does not bear out the innocent sounding spin that he is
now trying to put on this.
And he is assuming that I just picked up "counterfeit" arguments and
"innocently" passed them on to others without realising they were
counterfeit. Well, I want to know: 1) what these counterfeit arguments
actually were *before* I came on the scene; and 2) David's evidence that I
just passed these arguments on uncritically.
And again, it won't do for David to post my earliest arguments back to me.
I know what I wrote and it would be too easy for David to say that what I
wrote were simply a mindless repetition of these generic "cosmic and earth-
based" evolution and the SLoT arguments. What David needs to do is post
what these generic "counterfeit" arguments were exactly *before* I came
on the scene.
Otherwise David's claim that I was "duped" and passed these arguments
on innocently like "counterfeit money" would fail because he has not
identified non-circularly what exactly this "counterfeit money" was in the
first place.
>SJ>I suspect that David's real target is the YECs, ....
DB>No. My target (when I happen to choose to criticize someone's claims on
>some issue) is anyone who uses incorrect physics arguments no matter who
>they happen to be or what the issue is. This assumes, of course, that I
>would have the time, expertise, and motivation to actually say something
>useful in a particular instance. I think my record on this reflector
>bears out this claim.
David's disclaimer that he is not targeting me as a surrogate YEC does not
explain why he keeps repeating that I am claiming what the YECs are
alleged to claim, namely that "evolution violates the second law of
thermodynamics".
And if the physics is "incorrect", then David can always try explain why,
*in terms that a layman like me can understand*, and not dismiss out of
hand counter-arguments from authorities who may not agree with him.
BTW does David actually read all the posts looking for "incorrect physics
arguments"? Or does he have a filter set up so that whenever
"thermodynamics" is mentioned he is alerted? Either way it suggests he is
acting like a kind of vigilante and he might be motivated to find fault where
there was none.
DB>Again, instead of continuing to repeat the refrain:
More belittling language from David! I suggest that David re-read what
Feynman said abou the way physicists should talk to laymen. While David
keeps up *his* "refrain" I will never accept that he is not strongly
prejudiced and so likely to pass on biased and incomplete information.
>SJ>Second, David has simply not understood my "cosmic argument". His
>>explanation of why he thinks it is incorrect therefore simply misses the
>>point.
DB>I would again ask Stephen to explain *himself* better if he thinks I
>have misunderstood any argument of his and missed his point(s). I also
>want to know any points that I may have missed. Simply repeating the
>claim that I have misunderstood an argument does not make it magically
>understood, nor does it make any missed points become points taken.
I have already said that I am going to do this, whether David wants it or
not. Frankly I don't expect to convince David, but others might think there
is something in what I say. If not, at least I will have attempted to clarify
this in my own mind.
DB>BTW, I'm both surprised and sorry if Stephen thinks I have abused him
>in my responses to his posts. I would try to be more circumspect and
>polite in the future. I'm just not sure that I could find a way to do
>so. I actually thought that I had shown a great restraint in my posts.
>In any event the readers of this reflector can judge for themselves
>just who has been abusive and out of line in this matter.
I appreciate David's apology. I look forward to him being "more
circumspect and polite in the future". But I don't know though what David
means by "just who has been abusive...in this matter". I have not abused
David but have simply tried to defend myself against his attacks.
BTW I don't even know what David's qualifications are. I gather from the
following website that he is probably an astrophysicist:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.skypub.org/resources/directory/ky.html
Sky & Telescope
The Essential Magazine of Astronomy
S&T's Astronomical Directory
KENTUCKY
Museums and Planetariums
Golden Pond Planetarium and Obs.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Land Between the Lakes, Golden Pond, KY
42211;
fax: 502-924-1297. Seats 82.
Georgetown College Planetarium
David Bowman, 400 E. College Ave., Georgetown, KY 40324-1628; 502-
863-8436.
E-mail: dbowman@georgetowncollege.edu.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate David's clarification of this, so I can give due weight
(or otherwise) to his claims to "speak with authority and not as the
scribes" on the SLoT. Is David a Professor of Physics at Georgetown (or any)
University? Has David written physics textbooks? Has David any special
expertise on the SLoT? I also would also appreciate David stating
(or restating) what his position is on the creation/evolution spectrum, and
what his personal `religious' position is, i.e. is David and atheist or
an agnostic, or even a Christian? I must say that I don't know much about
David, although others seem to.
I will await David's response to these preliminaries (especially re the
permission to post my email of 28 Mar 2000 authorising David to correct
my "error"), before I answer the next section of the first part of David's
large, two-part post on the SLoT.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Neither, secondly, would it invalidate our conclusion, that the watch
sometimes went wrong, or that it seldom went exactly right. The purpose
of the machinery, the design, and the designer, might be evident, and in
the case supposed would be evident, in whatever way we accounted for the
irregularity of the movement, or whether we could account for it or not. It
is not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order to shew with what
design it was made: still less necessary, where the only question is, whether
it were made with any design at all." (Paley W., "Natural Theology: or,
Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the
Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston, TX, 1972,
reprint, pp.3-4)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 06 2000 - 18:07:34 EDT