dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
>>> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] >>> So you still insist on playing cheap debating games?! >> [DuBois] >> I thought maybe you needed some company! > [Mike Huybensz] > It seems obvious to me that Paul is gratified by pulling our tails. > Instead of focusing the debate on the subject, he is trying to defocus > as much as possible onto trechnique of argument. And he's not even doing > that well. No, Mike. I may not be doing it very well, but that's because that's not what I'm trying to do. We can't debate until we can communicate. Mr. Keebler and I are still trying to establish a connection (we're getting there, though!). I guess I should have used ":-)" above, though. >>> [Keebler] >>> Why are you excusing your vagueness/ambiguity by saying that >>> evolutionists do it too? Is this valid? Really, Mr. Dubois! >> [DuBois] >> I'm not excusing myself, I'm saying that while such might be true for >> me, it is also true of you. The inference that I'm making an excuse >> is incorrect. > [Huybensz] > Denial of the tu quoque fallacy of argument doesn't make it any less so. > You are merely evading admitting that your argument was wrong. Let's get one thing straight. My argument, responding to charges of vagueness, was this: "Yes, you're right, of course. By the way, do you realize that the evolutionary side of things is unclear in the same way?" Now, this seems to have generated a lot of heat, needlessly. The responses have been several: (1) That I am making "accusations". Not so. This (the unclarity) is exactly how things seem to me regarding the evolutionary position. I simply made that observation explicit. Clearly, if this observation is an "accusation" it applies to myself as well. I realize this. I have always realized it. IN FACT, I SAID IT IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. It is one thing to say "I'm in this boat. And so are you." It is quite another to say "you're an idiot to be sitting in that boat" while one is sitting in it oneself. I said the former, not the latter. (2) That I am saying, "oh yeah?! Well, you do, too!! So there! Nyah, nyah!" Not so. It is true that this bears a resemblance to what I actually said, but only if one leaves out the "oh, yeah", the "so there", the "nyah, nyah"s and the exclamation points. And that leaves, I think, scant resemblance. (3) That I think pointing out evolutionary unclarity makes my position more correct. I don't think this, and I never said I did. So my argument was not "wrong", because my argument was not that "you too" makes my position any more correct. (4) That I think pointing out evolutionary unclarity supports creationism. It doesn't, and I never said it did. I explicitly said in my article that it gives no such support. Some of the other creationists on this net seem to this it does. I don't. Note as well, that even if the pot calls the kettle black, it does not help the kettle's case any to say "you're a pot calling the kettle black", i.e., that response does not make the kettle not black. As you yourself said, in another article: > As has been pointed out repeatedly, evidence that something else is wrong > is not evidence that your theory is correct. You are using the fallacy of > argument called the false dilemma. Rephrasing this: asserting that I am vague is not evidence that the evolutionary position on this net has been any more well specified. I'm still waiting to hear what *in particular* you people propose and stand behind, besides "evolution". >> [DuBois] >> Well, from the glee with which some evolutionary writers (J. Huxley, for >> example) heralded the "liberation" of science from its religious >> framework, one would get the idea that science was at one time done >> from within that framework. And what did that framework have to say >> about creation? It was accepted. > [Huybensz] > Oh, was it accepted? Yes, it was. > Science (as we now think of it) is fairly recent. Of course. Science and theology are defined as mutally exclusive now. Not always was it so. > I think a pretty fair argument can be made that science was done in spite > of that obstructing framework. Great advances were almost always made by > rejecting applicable parts of the framework. Nor were the Galileos and > Darwins the only scientists who rejected the religious framework. Of course you can make an argument for it; "Every viewpoint has an advocate", as Gould says. Newton, for example, did very good science, but his theological works (Principia Mathematica?) were, I recall reading somewhere, utter trash theologically. On the other hand, investigators such as Cuvier and Linnaeus were explicitly motivated by their creationist convictions and made significant contributions because of, and not in spite of, their interpretive framework. From such we get the foundations of paleontology and taxonomy (which, ironically, are now in many respects evolutionary disciplines). I'm not sure that we can say that such investigators gave any "proof of" creation; rather, they assumed it, and proceeded from there. Sometimes with very good results. >> [DuBois] >> Your argument also contains within itself the seeds of its own >> destruction. Leaving creationism vague doesn't make it difficult to >> challenge. You demonstrate that, by asserting the vagueness, and >> attacking creationism on that ground. Your refute yourself! > [Huybensz] > So eager to goad, you leap into erroneous arguments. Difficult is not > impossible. No self refutation occurred there. Sheesh. "Eager to goad"? Speak for yourself, Mike. The argument was that it wasn't *difficult*, not that it wasn't impossible. So eager to tell me I'm eager to goad, you don't read what I wrote first... Mike, you once scolded me for lack of charity in argumentation. I think this instance is an example of where you have failed to apply your own standard to yourself. > [Huybensz] > I think, Paul, you'd enjoy reading about the Forteans. They operate in much > the same vein as you do. You can get a start in Martin Gardiner's > "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science". Fort, from what Gardner says about him, may not have been serious about what he wrote. If you wish to question my sincerity, do me a favor and do so explicitly. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/23/85)
In article <943@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >> [DuBois] > >> Well, from the glee with which some evolutionary writers (J. Huxley, for > >> example) heralded the "liberation" of science from its religious > >> framework, one would get the idea that science was at one time done > >> from within that framework. And what did that framework have to say > >> about creation? It was accepted. > > [Huybensz] > > Oh, was it accepted? > Yes, it was. Ooops. Misreading on my part. Yes, creation was accepted by the framework of religion. > > Science (as we now think of it) is fairly recent. > Of course. Science and theology are defined as mutally exclusive now. > Not always was it so. No. They were not defined so: it was observed that they were so. Theories based on theology were evanescent and proliferated like weeds. Lasting theories of merit could be pruned of theological excrescences and still retain all their explanatory and predictive power. > > I think a pretty fair argument can be made that science was done in spite > > of that obstructing framework. Great advances were almost always made by > > rejecting applicable parts of the framework. Nor were the Galileos and > > Darwins the only scientists who rejected the religious framework. > > Of course you can make an argument for it; "Every viewpoint has an > advocate", as Gould says. Newton, for example, did very good science, > but his theological works (Principia Mathematica?) were, I recall > reading somewhere, utter trash theologically. I hope you intended a smiley after the Principia: it was one of the foundations of modern calculus. That Newton attempted his own theological explanations which others called trash hardly implies that he accepted the entire religious framework of his time. What applicable parts of the religious framework of his time did he retain in constructing his Laws of Motion? Or did he simply sidestep it entirely? > On the other hand, investigators such as Cuvier and Linnaeus were > explicitly motivated by their creationist convictions and made > significant contributions because of, and not in spite of, their > interpretive framework. From such we get the foundations of > paleontology and taxonomy (which, ironically, are now in many > respects evolutionary disciplines). I'd like some examples of the above. Their contributions are independant of creationism and evolution. What applicable parts of the religious framework of their time did their work need to retain? Or did they simply sidestep it entirely? (Actually, there is one perverse [but reputable] group calling themselves pattern cladists who claim evolution is entirely unnecessary to taxonomy: that they can discern the characters upon which taxonomy is based without evolutionary assumptions. Most cladists [including some friends of mine] think it a crock.) > I'm not sure that we can say that such investigators gave any "proof > of" creation; rather, they assumed it, and proceeded from there. > Sometimes with very good results. Creation may have been one of their assumptions: but that assumption was not necessary to their results. > >> [DuBois] > >> Your argument also contains within itself the seeds of its own > >> destruction. Leaving creationism vague doesn't make it difficult to > >> challenge. You demonstrate that, by asserting the vagueness, and > >> attacking creationism on that ground. Your refute yourself! > > > [Huybensz] > > So eager to goad, you leap into erroneous arguments. Difficult is not > > impossible. No self refutation occurred there. Sheesh. > > "Eager to goad"? Speak for yourself, Mike. The argument was that it > wasn't *difficult*, not that it wasn't impossible. So eager to tell me > I'm eager to goad, you don't read what I wrote first... I'll spell out your syllogism to you. "Mike says X is difficult." "Mike does X." "Therefore it was not difficult, and Mike has contradicted himself." But what measure of difficulty have you selected? > Mike, you once scolded me for lack of charity in argumentation. I > think this instance is an example of where you have failed to apply > your own standard to yourself. Actually, the substitution of the word impossible into your syllogism is charitable, because it makes the syllogism true. (But the basis false.) The only lack of charity I can spot is my accusation of goading. > > [Huybensz] > > I think, Paul, you'd enjoy reading about the Forteans. They operate in much > > the same vein as you do. You can get a start in Martin Gardiner's > > "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science". > > Fort, from what Gardner says about him, may not have been serious about > what he wrote. If you wish to question my sincerity, do me a favor and > do so explicitly. Many of them are quite sincere. It's the style of argument (noncommittal) that is reminiscent. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh