dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/30/84)
> > [Ray Miller] > > Evolutionists believe that these amazingly intricate living sys- > > tems developed solely through time, chance, and natural processes. > > Creationists, on the other hand, believe the design and organization > > found in living organisms could only result from the acts of an intel- > > ligent Creator. What scientific evidence leads the creationist to > > this conclusion?..[Ray then proceeds to amaze us with the complexity > > of life] > > [Bill Jefferys] > This is just the old "Argument from Design" -- "Look, how wonderful and > complex life is, it must have had a Designer. Such things just could > not have come about in any other way". The argument from design > has been completely discredited, and is not taken seriously by anyone > but Creationists anymore. It is bad theology and even worse science. (i) The age of an argument has nothing to do with its validity. (ii) Perhaps Bill is right about the status of the argument for design (completely discredited). But the basis on which it is declared to be so is certainly specious. For the most part, the statements above are simply a form of appeal to authority, though Bill does attempt to bolster his point a bit with some additional comments (which I have discussed in an accompanying posting). The number of people holding a point of view, and the credentials of those people are irrelevant to the validity of the argument. Even if appeals to authority or majority opinion were a valid basis for making a point, it may be observed that one group of people which consistently *rejects* such appeals is the group of evolutionary contributors to this newsgroup. More specifically, one particular member of that group is a Mr. Bill Jefferys. It may be objected that I am attempting to establish a case of guilt by association. This is not so. Some time back, Ray Miller submitted an article dealing with the academic credentials of certain well- known creationists. Bill submitted the following response: > [article 596@utastro] > How impressed Ray is with academic degrees! Unfortunately, possession > of a Ph.D. does not necessarily mean that what one says can be believed, > even when speaking on your own or a related field. In other words, academic degrees (a form of scholarly authority) count for very little. I certainly agree with Bill here. An argument should be judged on its own merits. It was therefore a disappointment to find him arguing against himself. But one simply cannot expect to reject arguments made on the basis of authority and then turn around and use the same basis for one's own argument. I am not trying to make a scapegoat of Bill Jefferys. A broader point needs to be made, especially in light of a recent trend in this newsgroup, the tendency to append to one's argument one's qualifications to make that argument. This seems to be true particularly of some of our newer contributors. A B.S. in biology, senior status in biology and a degree in biostatistics are three examples that come to mind. I have no wish to be contemptuous of these achievements. But an argument is no better, or worse, as a result of stated qualifications. It stands or falls independently of the poster's credentials, and may (i.e., *will*) so be judged. For concreteness, I will give an example, using myself as the party in error. An article was posted containing the following: > > I think the concept that everyone is trying to get at here is this: > > > > If an event has a probability of occuring that is greater than zero, > > and there are an infinite number of attempts at it, then the probability > > that it will eventually occur is indeed 1, no matter how small the > > probability that it will happen on a given attempt. The only assumption > > needed here is that time goes on forever (and I'm not going to debate > > that here, I take that as a given). I replied: > This argument is an example of the gambler's fallacy: if I lose > *this* time, then it's more likely I'll win *next* time. The outcome > of event i does not affect the outcome of event j in any way, for > independent events. (If the events are not independent, then the > above argument doesn't apply anyway.) My response prompted a number of replies stating (correctly) that I had misinterpreted the argument and that my own argument therefore was invalid. (there were other problems in the argument to which I was responding, but what I said was one of them, wasn't.) One person went so far as to imply that he was qualified to point this out by virtue of master's in biostatistics. Now what can be the point of this? Certainly in such an action inheres no power to convince me of the correctness of the argument. I had already seen the error, even before any of the replies hit the newsgroup, since one reader did me the courtesy of a mail message pointing it out. Even if I had not realized my error, a degree waved in my face is not going to increase my understading, is it? It's not that I mind being wrong and having it pointed out. How could I mind that? After all, I'm a creationist! :-) I've been wrong in this group before, and no doubt will be several times in the future, and I expect to see my errors pointed out. But, like Bill, I fail to be impressed when someone tosses a degree at me. The qualifications may as well not be posted, unless they are simply given for the purpose of sharing a bit of personal information or background (which is fine by me; I think, however, that such has not been the case). The last point I would like to make is that these comments apply equally well to myself and other creationists. If I try to make an argument such as those I have discussed above, I fully expect someone to point it out. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (12/04/84)
>> [Bill Jefferys] >> This is just the old "Argument from Design" -- "Look, how wonderful and >> complex life is, it must have had a Designer. Such things just could >> not have come about in any other way". The argument from design >> has been completely discredited, and is not taken seriously by anyone >> but Creationists anymore. It is bad theology and even worse science. > >(ii) Perhaps Bill is right about the status of the argument for >design (completely discredited). But the basis on which it is >declared to be so is certainly specious. For the most part, the >statements above are simply a form of appeal to authority, ... > >Even if appeals to authority or majority opinion were a valid basis >for making a point, it may be observed that one group of people >which consistently *rejects* such appeals is the group of >evolutionary contributors to this newsgroup. More specifically, one >particular member of that group is a Mr. Bill Jefferys. .... > >> [article 596@utastro] >> How impressed Ray is with academic degrees! Unfortunately, possession >> of a Ph.D. does not necessarily mean that what one says can be believed, >> even when speaking on your own or a related field. > >In other words, academic degrees (a form of scholarly authority) >count for very little. I certainly agree with Bill here. An >argument should be judged on its own merits. It was therefore a >disappointment to find him arguing against himself. But one simply >cannot expect to reject arguments made on the basis of authority and >then turn around and use the same basis for one's own argument. Paul has oversimplified my position. I agree that relative to other arguments, the Appeal to Authority is relatively weak. Ultimately a case must stand or fall on its own merits, as Paul says. However, it is no more valid to reject expert opinion automatically than it is to accept it uncritically. The point of my statement in 596@utastro is that the weight conferred upon an individual's opinions by the mere possession of a degree is small. I believe that in the same article I also made the point (perhaps not in these words) that the weight that an individual's opinions have in a given field depend primarily on his/her record of research and publication in that field. Furthermore, if (as is the case with many Creationists, particularly Dr. Gish) the individual in question consistently makes statements relating to a field in which he/she is claiming expertise that are known to be false, or uses invalid methodologies in his/her research, then the weight given to that individual's opinion *by the scientific community* will inevitably be very low. The weight given to a particular opinion may also depend upon the degree to which it is a consensus among similarly weighty experts in the field. Rightly or wrongly, this is a burden that Creationism has to bear since the assertions of Creationism are, in fact, contrary to the findings of a very broad spectrum of scientific research. It is a fact that in the realm of science, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". It is true that weighty individuals can be wrong, and that the consensus can be wrong. But it is legitimate to consider weighty opinion and consensus, provided it is used with caution and is supported by other evidence. As for the quote from my recent article, I was merely stating a fact. If Paul wants to present reasons why scientists and theologians should take the argument from design seriously, he is welcome to do so. That is another issue altogether. -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (12/17/84)
>>> [Bill Jefferys] >>> This is just the old "Argument from Design" -- "Look, how wonderful and >>> complex life is, it must have had a Designer. Such things just could >>> not have come about in any other way". The argument from design >>> has been completely discredited, and is not taken seriously by anyone >>> but Creationists anymore. It is bad theology and even worse science. >> >>(ii) Perhaps Bill is right about the status of the argument for >>design (completely discredited). But the basis on which it is >>declared to be so is certainly specious. For the most part, the >>statements above are simply a form of appeal to authority, ... >> >>Even if appeals to authority or majority opinion were a valid basis >>for making a point, it may be observed that one group of people >>which consistently *rejects* such appeals is the group of >>evolutionary contributors to this newsgroup. More specifically, one >>particular member of that group is a Mr. Bill Jefferys. .... >> >>> [article 596@utastro] >>> How impressed Ray is with academic degrees! Unfortunately, possession >>> of a Ph.D. does not necessarily mean that what one says can be believed, >>> even when speaking on your own or a related field. >> >>In other words, academic degrees (a form of scholarly authority) >>count for very little. I certainly agree with Bill here. An >>argument should be judged on its own merits. It was therefore a >>disappointment to find him arguing against himself. But one simply >>cannot expect to reject arguments made on the basis of authority and >>then turn around and use the same basis for one's own argument. > Paul has oversimplified my position. I agree that relative to > other arguments, the Appeal to Authority is relatively weak. Ok. We have some common ground here. > Ultimately > a case must stand or fall on its own merits, as Paul says. However, > it is no more valid to reject expert opinion automatically than it is > to accept it uncritically. Well ... I didn't say to just "reject it". "Examine it and reject it if it's flawed" would be more accurate. > The point of my statement in 596@utastro is > that the weight conferred upon an individual's opinions by the mere > possession of a degree is small. I believe that in the same article > I also made the point (perhaps not in these words) that the weight > that an individual's opinions have in a given field depend primarily on > his/her record of research and publication in that field. That's correct. Bill did say this. > Furthermore, > if (as is the case with many Creationists, particularly Dr. Gish) the > individual in question consistently makes statements relating to > a field in which he/she is claiming expertise that are known to be > false, or uses invalid methodologies in his/her research, then the > weight given to that individual's opinion *by the scientific community* > will inevitably be very low. The weight given to a particular opinion > may also depend upon the degree to which it is a consensus among > similarly weighty experts in the field. Rightly or wrongly, this is > a burden that Creationism has to bear since the assertions of Creationism > are, in fact, contrary to the findings of a very broad spectrum of > scientific research. It is a fact that in the realm of science, > "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". It is true > that weighty individuals can be wrong, and that the consensus can > be wrong. Exactly! > But it is legitimate to consider weighty opinion and consensus, > provided it is used with caution and is supported by other evidence. That is true. However, any given argument is still not proven false by its association with someone considered to be a charlatan, nor proven true by its association with someone having a good record, but by being weighed in the balance and found wanting or sufficient. The weight given to an argument may have a degree of correlation to the reputation of those espousing it (hopefully a positive correlation!), but that still, ultimately, says nothing about the argument itself. Summary: I believe that Bill and myself are in fairly substantial agreement that in general a person's established accomplishments give us a reasonable clue or heuristic as to the potential validity of that person's arguments, yet in the case of each specific argument, the argument ultimately must be accepted by being found valid, not because of who makes it. ---------- > As for the quote from my recent article, I was merely stating a fact. > If Paul wants to present reasons why scientists and theologians should > take the argument from design seriously, he is welcome to do so. > That is another issue altogether. Fact, pshaw. This is an attempt to rule inadmissible, by fiat, discussion of an issue that is far from settled. Currently it is in disfavor in certain circles, but one can hardly imply that it has been settled forever without drawing to oneself charges of the kind of dogmatic certainty often levelled at, e.g., creationists. But Bill is right: it's an issue best discussed elsewhere. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33
bill@utastro.UUCP (12/18/84)
>> As for the quote from my recent article, I was merely stating a fact. >> If Paul wants to present reasons why scientists and theologians should >> take the argument from design seriously, he is welcome to do so. >> That is another issue altogether. > >Fact, pshaw. This is an attempt to rule inadmissible, by fiat, >discussion of an issue that is far from settled. Currently it >is in disfavor in certain circles, but one can hardly imply that >it has been settled forever without drawing to oneself charges of >the kind of dogmatic certainty often levelled at, e.g., creationists. > >But Bill is right: it's an issue best discussed elsewhere. Sorry, I wasn't clear. It is a *fact* that most theologians and philosophers do not accept the argument from design, for what I consider to be good and valid reasons. I agree with Paul that this fact does not make the position true. But by the same token one is going to have to come up with some pretty weighty thinking of ones own to have a hope of convincing others (read: Me!) that the argument from design is valid. -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)