dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/23/85)
> [Padraig Houlahan] > Here are some quotes that I asked Paul to clarify: > [DuBois] >>>> (ii) I've already alluded to the notion that I do not definitely ascribe >>>> to very much. In many cases I'm not sure that I accept ANY view, >>>> either those of creationists or of evolutionists. (Technically, this >>>> is known as suspension of judgment.) This ambivalence, unfortunately, >>>> doesn't help me very much in formulating a definite statement of >>>> (scientific) belief. But I don't wish to use that for an excuse - >>>> it's just an explanation. >>> ... >>> [concerning the CRS, creation theory statement..] >>>> >>>>I'd sign it. > I made the observation that >>> The first states that he definately does not ascribe to very much, >>> while the second indicates unconditional agreement with the CRS. >>> This seems to be self contradictory. Is there something that I'm >>> overlooking? > Prompting the following "clarification" >>Sorry for the lack of specificity. There is no doubt that I believe >>in creation. Of that, even I am sure. My ambivalence comes from >>consideration of the proposed *mechanisms* of (get this) non-evolution. >>A similar phenomenon sometimes occurs in the minds of evolutionists. >>Evolution as an *occurrence* is accepted, but great trepidation arises >>when the mechanisms through which it is supposed to have occurred are >>to be specified. > This is just not good enough, unless your articles are just a facade and > pretense at trying to engage in meaningful discussion, and, you are > only paying lip-service to that ideal. Thanks a lot. > The problem with the quotations is that they are self contradictory. > When you say: >>>> In many cases I'm not sure that I accept ANY view, >>>> either those of creationists or of evolutionists. > and then state you are willing to sign the CRS statement, then that > is a contradiction in your position. It is not a problem in > "lack of specificity". One of those statements has to be retracted. > There are other serious problems in addition to the one just mentioned > in your 'clarification'. You state >>A similar phenomenon sometimes occurs in the minds of evolutionists. >>Evolution as an *occurrence* is accepted, but great trepidation arises >>when the mechanisms through which it is supposed to have occurred are >>to be specified. > First ,you were asked to clarify your statement, not those of > evolutionists. Second, the issue at hand had nothing to do with mechanisms, > it only dealt with your stated position (If an evolutionist jumped off a > cliff, would you do the same?.) Introducing another topic in > an attempt to distract attention from your apparently contradictory > position, indicates a reluctance on your part to accept the outcome > of sincere, meaningful discussion. If you want to discuss this then > submit your comment for evaluation in a separate article. First, my situation has an exact analog in the practices of evolutionists on this net (which is not a condemnation - how could it be? - I would be condemning myself - just an observation). Analogies sometimes facilitate understanding. In your case it did not. Second, the issue at hand had everything to do with mechanisms, for the resolution of the alleged contradiction in my position depends on the recognition of the distinction bewtween belief in "what" and belief in "how". If you won't recognize that distinction, then you shall not understand the resolution. Apparently you do not. Third, I'm not trying to distract attention. I could hardly do that by CALLING ATTENTION TO my ambivalence and pointing it out, could I? By offering an analogy, I'm trying to help you understand my position. There is no "reluctance on my part to accept the outcome of sincere, meaningful discussion." I welcome the necessity to examine what I think (assuming, of course, that I think). Suggesting that my articles are a facade and a pretense does not inspire in me a lot of confidence in your own desire for meaningful discussion. Anyway, here it is again. "I'd sign it" - I believe that it happened. "I don't accept any view" - that is, I don't accept (wholeheartedly, or even halfheartedly) any view of mechanism. I understand why you say there's a contradiction in my position, when I fail to supply the context in which my two statements should be taken. When I supply the context, though, and you continue to allege a contradiction, when there is none, it suggests to me that either my writing is completely opaque (certainly a possibility) or that you're trying, not to understand, but to deliberately misunderstand. I don't like to come to the latter conclusion, but as you yourself said I was articulate, I must rule out the former and conclude that in fact you are being obstreperous. Or, as you have also said, "is there something I'm overlooking?" -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (03/25/85)
Paul DuBois, Your initial response with the 'lack of specificity' comment was unclear (see below) but you have now clarified the situation to my satisfaction, and indeed there is no contradiction when your qualifications are taken into acount. > > [DuBois] > >>>> (ii) I've already alluded to the notion that I do not definitely ascribe > >>>> to very much. In many cases I'm not sure that I accept ANY view, > >>>> either those of creationists or of evolutionists. (Technically, this > >>>> is known as suspension of judgment.) This ambivalence, unfortunately, > >>>> doesn't help me very much in formulating a definite statement of > >>>> (scientific) belief. But I don't wish to use that for an excuse - > >>>> it's just an explanation. > >>> ... > >>> [concerning the CRS, creation theory statement..] > >>>> > >>>>I'd sign it. > > > I made the observation that > > >>> The first states that he definately does not ascribe to very much, > >>> while the second indicates unconditional agreement with the CRS. > >>> This seems to be self contradictory. Is there something that I'm > >>> overlooking? > > >>Sorry for the lack of specificity. There is no doubt that I believe > >>in creation. Of that, even I am sure. My ambivalence comes from > >>consideration of the proposed *mechanisms* of (get this) non-evolution. > >>A similar phenomenon sometimes occurs in the minds of evolutionists. > >>Evolution as an *occurrence* is accepted, but great trepidation arises > >>when the mechanisms through which it is supposed to have occurred are > >>to be specified. > First, my situation has an exact analog in the practices of > evolutionists on this net (which is not a condemnation - how could it > be? - I would be condemning myself - just an observation). Analogies > sometimes facilitate understanding. In your case it did not. > > "I'd sign it" - I believe that it happened. > "I don't accept any view" - that is, I don't accept (wholeheartedly, > or even halfheartedly) any view of mechanism. > > When I supply the context, though, and you continue to allege > a contradiction, when there is none, it suggests to me that either my > writing is completely opaque (certainly a possibility) or that you're > trying, not to understand, but to deliberately misunderstand. I don't > like to come to the latter conclusion, but as you yourself said I was > articulate, I must rule out the former and conclude that in fact you > are being obstreperous. Or, as you have also said, "is there > something I'm overlooking?" Your analogy was not good to begin with. (The one thing that evolutionists are in agreement on is the mechanism i.e. mutants arising in a population that can take advantage of some resource that the rest of the population is unable to tap into, causing the mutants to thrive and perhaps come to dominate the population. There is no trepidation amongst evolutionists on this issue that I am aware of). Resolving the contradiction requires you to state that the first statement of the apparent contradiction referred to 'views' of mechanisms, rather than a total view on evolution/creationism. An explanation of your ambivalence, (which is what your initial response contained), with context, does not do this. However, your last article makes this clear when you say, > "I'd sign it" - I believe that it happened. > "I don't accept any view" - that is, I don't accept (wholeheartedly, > or even halfheartedly) any view of mechanism. This interpretation was not obvious to me when I requested the clarification. Padraig Houlahan.