dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/05/85)
> [Richard Carnes] > Now some bad news: The February *Harper's* contains another article > attacking evolutionary theory by Tom Bethell. If this sort of thing is > finding its way into such publications as *Harper's*, now is not the time > for complacency among evolutionary biologists. If you guessed that Bethell > is a journalist, not a biologist, you guessed right. This is, I suppose, the converse of the argument from authority, although it ends up in the same place. Paul Dolber has well said: Bethel speaks not only for himself, but summarizes the views of others - which is, after all, a journalist's job. But Richard takes an immediate crack at Mr. Bethell. And perhaps it is justified; but we shall never know from his article, nor shall we seek to find out, for he has settled the issue for us: Bethell is not a biologist, so he has nothing to say. Citing no reference, bringing up no fact or observation for discussion, nor any logical proposition, Richard shows us that it is enough to know that Bethell is a journalist, not a biologist. Instantly we see, and agree, that his comments are thus obviously entirely out of court. Very well. I am not a biologist either. I guess anything I might propose about evolution is similarly invalid by virtue of not being proposed by a biologist. The logical extension is of course that should we desire knowledge of evolution we should bow to the keepers of the Truth, the biologists, saying "surely you are the people, and wisdom shall die with you!" Which brings us round again to authority. Or perhaps, religion? You may suppose that I am overreacting. I assure you that I am. However, I trust the point is clear. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- Vegetarian Geology: Is it a True Concept? | |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/05/85)
In article <697@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > [Richard Carnes] > > Now some bad news: The February *Harper's* contains another article > > attacking evolutionary theory by Tom Bethell. If this sort of thing is > > finding its way into such publications as *Harper's*, now is not the time > > for complacency among evolutionary biologists. If you guessed that Bethell > > is a journalist, not a biologist, you guessed right. > > This is, I suppose, the converse of the argument from authority, > although it ends up in the same place... But Richard takes an immediate > crack at Mr. Bethell. And perhaps it is justified; but we shall never > know from his article, nor shall we seek to find out, for he has settled > the issue for us: Bethell is not a biologist, so he has nothing to say. > > Citing no reference, bringing up no fact or observation for discussion, > nor any logical proposition, Richard shows us that it is enough to know > that Bethell is a journalist, not a biologist. Instantly we see, and > agree, that his comments are thus obviously entirely out of court... > > You may suppose that I am overreacting. I assure you that I am. > However, I trust the point is clear. Your point is clear, and a straw man. Clearly (see the word "news" at the beginning?), Carnes' message is meant to inform people of like opinions (evolutionary biologists) of something of concern to them. It is an informative summary, not an argument. I interpret the mention of Bethell's occupation as a reassurance that he isn't a biologist who has joined the ICR (which would be a more serious problem.) While I commend your zeal in attempting to ferret out fallacies of argument, I'd suggest that you find them in arguments. The principle of charity is a standard of courtesy in argument where when an opposing statement can have more than one interpretation, you select the one that makes the best argument. If that interpretation is wrong, you have little to lose, and your opponent has more to lose. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (02/06/85)
In article <697@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >I am not a biologist either. I guess anything I might >propose about evolution is similarly invalid by virtue of not being >proposed by a biologist. The logical extension is of course that should >we desire knowledge of evolution we should bow to the keepers of the >Truth, the biologists, saying "surely you are the people, and wisdom >shall die with you!" Which brings us round again to authority. Or >perhaps, religion? >You may suppose that I am overreacting. I assure you that I am. No, you should learn something about biology. When you are well enough informed to make rational decisions, you will be an evolutionist also.8-) -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (02/07/85)
> [Richard A. Brower] > In article <697@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >I am not a biologist either. I guess anything I might > >propose about evolution is similarly invalid by virtue of not being > >proposed by a biologist. The logical extension is of course that should > >we desire knowledge of evolution we should bow to the keepers of the > >Truth, the biologists, saying "surely you are the people, and wisdom > >shall die with you!" Which brings us round again to authority. Or > >perhaps, religion? > >You may suppose that I am overreacting. I assure you that I am. > > No, you should learn something about biology. When you are well enough > informed to make rational decisions, you will be an evolutionist also.8-) I can appreciate what you're saying (at least I can try to), but: (i) I don't know nothing about biology. (ii) You demonstrated no irrationality in my comments. I'd be more impressed with such than with your snide remarks. (iii) I am a creationist, true. But I am also a former evolutionist. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- Vegetarian Geology: Is it a True Concept? | |