gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (05/01/84)
Newsgroups: net.religion, net.origins Subject: Re: Some numbers for the Creation (long reply) References: <111@ssc-vax.UUCP>, <1350@uw-june> This response will be much shorter! David's calculations were a marvelous bit of good mathematics (though I cannot speak for the ins and outs of correlation. I am merely a generalist). I have just recently done a lot of typing on the net about the presence of informal fallacy in the course of argument (last time around, you'll recall it was a set 'em up-knock 'em down invective against Humanists). You can imagine that my ears pricked up at the closing of David's posting: "If you can't trust Boa and Moody on simple calculations, you can't trust them on the origin of life." As a cautionary statement, he is absolutely correct in saying this. That statement functions in the course of his argument as the informal fallacy of diversion. THis is the defense of a proposition by stating another proposition which is not necessarily a refutation of theargument, but one which diverts the discussion to another question, generally to one which the person who makes the diversion feels more certain. In the class of diversion one also finds the slightly more subtle tactic of fastening on some point of an opponent's argument, defeating that, and then leaving it supposed that he has been defeated on the main issue. The incorrectness of that fact may not be enough to entirely undermine the conclusion ITSELF, but the impression is left that this is so. Given David's level of mathematical rigour, I do not believe that he is knowingly engaging in a crooked argument. Diversion is OMNIPRESENT in the modern Post-Advertising universe, and we must all watch out for it, especially as it looks unbecoming next to clear reasoning. g(a specialist in Herpetological Epistemology)taylor@cornell