[Vision2020] Dogmatically forwarded at Tom Drake's request

[hayman@moscow.com]

Mr. Courtney:

Please refrain from further public ad hominems leveled against my name 
on the Vision 2020 forum or elsewhere. While you are certainly and 
obviously welcome and free to address the content of my letter, I ask that 
you do not insinuate that I am a fool.  Such attacks neither further the 
discussion nor foster healthy communities, which, I believe, are the 
purposes of such public forums.

As you noted, Webster’s lists at least two uses or senses of the word 
"dogma". Since my letter explicitly defines my own sense as the second 
definition – "neither theory tells one how to live or attempts to address 
moral issues" (my letter) or "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning 
faith or morals" (your Webster’s definition, purposefully paraphrased in 
my letter) -- how could you possibly mistake it for the first definition: 
"something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite 
authoritative tenet"? 

In fact, allow me to explain to you how a dictionary works and how multiple 
definitions of a single word are placed under definitional categories for 
that word.  This is technically  called "sense".

I have a number of dictionaries here in front of me, but as you’ve shown a 
fondness for Webster’s, I will quote from Webster’s: "The order of senses 
within an entry is historical: the sense known to have been first used in 
English is entered first." Note Webster’s does not state or even imply that 
the first sense is always, only, usually or even often the most "correct" but 
rather the order is historical, in the etymological sense.

This actually infers that although historically the first meaning predates 
the second, the second may in fact be more common, as it is more 
historically recent. 

Of course not all dictionary senses are ordered this way, and many place 
the most common sense first. This does not exclude, however, the 
accuracy of the following senses in any given context. As most dictionary 
users know, context – not etymology or order -- defines any given word 
and tells one which of many possible definitions is correct or intended 
within the referenced text (in this case my letter). Were order the method, 
dictionaries would not include contextual references.

Were we standing before a train (a locomotive)  and I said "look, Dale, one 
of the trucks is broken" would you expect to see "an exchange or barter", 
"a small wooden cap at the end of a flag staff", "a strong horse drawn or 
automotive vehicle for hauling", or "a swiveling carriage consisting of a 
frame with one of more pairs of wheels and springs to carry and guide 
one end (as of a railroad car)…"?

Similarly, my DN letter to the editor is clearly contextualized my use of the 
word through references to Wilson’s discussion of *morality* and cultural 
values related directly to racism and religion. I can understand if you were 
confused by the title "Theory not dogma", but I assure that I did not offer 
that title; the DN editor placed it there. While that title taken alone may be 
misleading, I still hold that the letter clarifies the point in adequate 
multiple ways.

Finally, Webster’s clarifies the different senses of a given word by 
separating them numerically explicitly to keep readers from confusing a 
word’s specific meaning (in this case, how both I and Wilson used 
"dogma" in its given context) with the other possible senses.  That is, a 
word normally, specifically means one sense or the other, and one sense 
does not imply the other. To imply otherwise constitutes the categorical 
non sequitur  fallacy "affirming the consequent"; the second definition 
certainly constitutes a "tenet" or "accepted principle", but only of a certain 
type or kind. All hounds may be dogs, but not all dogs are hounds.

Please refrain from further future attacks against me or my name, and 
please more carefully and accurately summarize my points before 
suggesting to others I intend x when I have clearly stated y.

Sincerely,

Tom Drake

Dale Courtney wrote:

   I am saying that the word dogma has two meanings. The meaning of 
"an established public opinion" clearly fits the understanding of 
evolutionary science.

Absolutely. We are in complete agreement on this.

    
   Was Wilson drawing moral inferences from that presupposition? 
Clearly. But the that doesn't mean that he was using the word dogma 
incorrectly; nor does it
   mean that evolutionary science isn't a dogma (as you castigated him 
for).

If he used the term in the first sense, as above, I agree and am thus 
wrong. I believe, however, that this was neither my point or the point you 
upon which you
and I disagree. I think my letter's pretty clear (maybe not clear enough; I'll 
certainly concede that: 300 words ain't much space to discuss epistemes 
and
ontology) that evolutionary science cannot possibly infer moral 
conclusions. Attempts to do so will lead one, anyone and any culture, into 
a moral vacuum. 
Wilson and I, I sincerely believe, are on the same page in reference to 
this. Perhaps you and I are, as well; I don't know.  In my letter, however, I 
address the
fact that scientists do not, in fact, attempt to use such theories for such 
purposes. 

    
   An ad hominem would be for me to attack you as opposed to attacking 
your argument. I attacked the argument and drew conclusions from your
   misunderstanding the broadness of the word dogma (or that it was 
used incorrectly when in fact it wasn't).

Sorry, but I believe you misunderstand the term: you cannot possibly say 
that my reasoning or argument make me a fool without that being an ad 
hominem.
A fool is a person, not an argument or position. The person you referred to 
was me, and I have taken insult. Further, look at the logic: if something I 
said
"made me a fool", the only possible outcome is that I am thus "a fool", just 
as if I "made a cake" the outcome would be "a cake"; one cannot make 
something
into another thing without said thing "being" that thing.

Take care, bud.

td

    
   Best,
   Dale
    


         From: Tom Drake [mailto:tdrake@uidaho.edu] 
         Sent: Friday, 31 October, 2003 10:41
         To: Dale Courtney
         Subject: Re: RE Does Anyone Know Who Tom Drake Is?

         Are you saying that when Wilson used repeatedly used the word 
"dogma" in reference to morality, racism and religion, he was using the
         term in the first sense and not the second? Are you sayng you 
misunderstood both my lengthy explanation (just sent to you) of both my
         intent and, in my opinion, clearly expressed use of the word?

         As you note below, and as we've both already noted, yes, there are 
multiple meanings of the word; this categorically excludes your point
         that only one definition is "correct". You can reread my letter to you for 
clarification on that point if necessary.

         To state that a man's reasoning makes him a fool is, in fact, an ad 
hominem. Better keep those logic books and put them to use.

         Take care of yourself, brother, and good luck to you as well!

         td

         Dale Courtney wrote:

              Please read and consider my comments in the attached letter 
              in response to your Vision 2020 post.
                  

           Mr. Drake,

           Here is your quote in the Daily News: 

           "First, Wilson repeatedly misrepresented evolutionary theory as a 
"dogma,"
           "ideology" or "worldview." Evolutionary theory is no more a dogma, 
ideology
           or a worldview than is Newtonian physics. Neither theory tells one 
how to
           live or attempts to address moral issues. Scientific theories attempt 
to
           explain past and present natural phenomena based on existing 
physical
           evidence."

           Since one of the meanings (and the *primary* meaning, according 
to Webster)
           is "something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite
           authoritative tenet."

           How you can castigate someone for using the *correct* definition of 
a word
           is beyond me. 

           As far as being an *ad hominem* -- you made a fool of yourself for 
your
           misuse of the word. Pointing that out to the public isn't an *ad 
hominem*. 

           I can refer you to some good logic textbooks if need be. Attacking an
           argument isn't attacking the person. 

           Also, if you are going to put your thoughts in print, be ready for 
people to
           quickly point out the inconsistency and wrong-headedness of it. 

           Better luck next time. 

          
Dale

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.net/