From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 13:25:08 EDT
Ted,
I find the opening paragraph quite fascinating.
> I first became aware of the importance that many non-elite scientists place
> on ³peer-reviewed²
> or ³refereed² journals when Howard Van Till, a theistic evolutionist, said my
book
> The Physics of Immortality was not worth taking seriously because the ideas
> it presented had
> never appeared in refereed journals. Actually, the ideas in that book had
> already appeared in
> refereed journals. The papers and the refereed journals wherein they
> appeared were listed at the
> beginning of my book. My key predictions of the top quark mass (confirmed)
> and the Higgs
> boson mass (still unknown) even appeared in the pages of Nature, the most
> prestigious refereed
> science journal in the world. But suppose Van Till had been correct and
> that my ideas had never
> been published in referred journals. Would he have been correct in saying
> that, in this case, the
> ideas need not be taken seriously?
I do not recall making an issue out of Tipler's ideas about physics per se
(top quark mass & Higgs boson mass, the sort of things that are likely to be
found in physics journals) but I think I did complain about the manner in
which he used familiar theological terms but gave them radically new (and
physics oriented) meanings. I found that highly confusing.
Unfortunately, however, I cannot find the text of that review. If anyone
else has it, or can find it somewhere, please let me know. My curiosity is
aroused.
Howard (the non-elite scientist) :) Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 13:57:50 EDT