Re: religion, peer review and science (fwd) ... Frivolous comment

From: Joel Cannon (jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 18:09:48 EDT

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "the struggle for gay rights"

    CAUTION: THIS POST CONTAINS ADULT LANGUAGE!

    It is interesting seeing someone from outside the evangelical community
    taking exception to Howard's criticism.

    Meaning the make no judgment on Howard's criticisms, I believe some
    people may be happy to see Howard's criticism pointed elsewhere. Their
    feelings might parallel Lyndon Johnson's comments about
    FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (I believe about the wisdom of not firing
    him despite some valid reasons for doing so).

    Said Johnson about Hoover, "It is better to have him inside the tent
    pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."

    Frivolously yours,

    Joel

    > From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
    >
    > 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
    >

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
    Physics Department | jcannon@washjeff.edu
    Washington and Jefferson College |
    Washington, PA 15301 |
                                         
                        



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 17:55:33 EDT