Reflectorites
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:58:57 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Now for Wells' report. I particularly like this bit:
>>
>>"My debate partner objected that design is not scientific because it
>>is not published in peer-reviewed literature. I pointed out that Mike
>>Behe and others have attempted to publish articles on the subject,
>>but they have been rebuffed on the grounds that design is not
>>scientific. Catch-22: Design is not scientific because it's not
>>published in peer-reviewed journals, but it's not published in peer-
>>reviewed journals because it's not scientific."
RW>If Wells' debate partner really made this objection (and one should take
>anything an ID proponent says with a big pinch of salt),
As I have commented before, Richard, like most evolutionists, seems to
have a need to convict his opponents not only of intellectual error (i.e.
mistakes) but also of *moral* error (i.e. dishonesty).
This indicates to me that deep down, they know their case is inadequate.
RW>then I would
>strongly disagree with him/her. I'm sure that valid scientific papers have
>sometimes been rejected by peer-reviewed journals.
Is Richard saying that there can be a "valid scientific paper" in support of
ID? If that is the case, is he saying that ID is, after all, science?
RW>Nevertheless, I would say that, for the average scientist, who doesn't want
>to waste time reading every piece of pseudoscientific nonsense,
Richard contradicts himself. He needs to make up his mind whether ID
scientific papers are "valid" or "pseudoscientific nonsense".
If the latter, he agrees with what Wells said above.
RW>and who
>trusts the peer-review process, it's reasonable to assume that, if a paper
>has consistently been rejected by peer-reviewed journals, it is probably
>lacking in scientific merit.
Is Richard saying that ID scientific papers are: 1) "valid"; 2) "lacking in
scientific merit"; or 3) "pseudoscientific nonsense"?
RW>The ID work that I've read is unscientific because its arguments are not
>logically sound.
Now they are: 4) "unscientific" and 5) "not logically sound"!
RW>Of course, I haven't seen the papers that Behe submitted to
>journals. But, on the basis of the ID literature that I have seen, I would
>assume that they were rejected for lack of scientific merit.
Here Richard rejects Behe's papers sight unseen on the basis of *other* ID
literature that he has seen. Now that's what I call an open, scientific mind!
:-)
Thanks to Richard for confirming my (and Wells') point!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Multiple hypotheses should be proposed whenever possible. Proposing
alternative explanations that can answer a question is good science. If we
operate with a single hypothesis, especially one we favor, we may direct
our investigation toward a hunt for evidence in support of this hypothesis."
(Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology," [1987],
Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, p.14)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 20:17:36 EST