[Vision2020] NSA's accrediting agency is not recognized in Texas

[david sarff]

Hi Jeff,
  Gary has adjusted the context of a comment by Nick Gier, referencing a quote made by Henry Morris.  
 Morris: "It is better to believe in the revealed World of God than any science or philosophy devised by man."
Gier: " As if good scientists made up their own data in the laboratory!" 
 
 Would you defend Morris, or Gier here? 
 
 Next we have the two statements you attribute to Gary:
 
1. "As if good scientists made up their own data in the laboratory!"2. "Why the very notion that data might be faked  by Scientists must be preposterous."
As it happens, to be accurate, Nick made the first statement and Gary the second. And, what's purposely left out of a debate can create an interesting distraction.
 Gary has left out the word "good". This renders his response not wholly accurate with regard to the original debate. Its misleading or simply missing a reasonably important point, from my perspective. Would you indicate otherwise?
 We could debate that good scientists can produce bad data, though not likely to do so intentionally. Even that conversation doesn't seem relative to this debate. Were the links that Gary put forward representing " good scientists".  No.  
 It's a simple fake, like any boxer or street fighter might use.
 Joe indicates that Gary is misleading. This indeed seems an accurate assessment.
 
 
Dave
 
 

Joe Campbell leaps to the fringe again - thin ice for sure.Gary Crabtree made two simple statements:1. "As if good scientists made up their own data in the laboratory!"2. "Why the very notion that data might be faked  by Scientists must be preposterous."Neither statement could be reasonably argued that Crabtree was asserting that all science was fudged.  Nor can he be accused, legitimately, of arguing for the hypothesis that given the 10 links provided as examples of false science, he is making a claim that all science is fudged.  Cynical - yes; sarcastic - absolutely; skeptical - right on.Another example of Joe Campbell arguing the straw man.Gary Crabtree is right in the context of his post.  Science can be trusted, as long as it is verified.  Replication upon replication is essential - and the more a scientific result challenges a paradigm, the more necessary is the verification.An interesting point - note that Joe Campbell states: 

The history of science is extensive and glorious. The case for evolution theory is great, also, which is 
why the number of biologists working in the area who reject it can be counted on one hand. It would take a billion examples to prove Gary Crabtree's point, and I don't see that coming any time soon. Anyone want to bet that more than 5 scientists (biologists) can be found that reject evolution theory?  I would have thought that Joe Campbell would be more careful with his unfounded assertions.Happy holidays to all ......At 06:39 PM 12/21/2007, you wrote:
Crabtree's comments and links are misleading. He notes 10 links. Suppose there were 100 instances in which scientists fudged data. Should we conclude that ALL scientists fudge data or that SOME do?I could come up with countless instances in which Pastors have made things up in order to convince their followers -- for nothing more than economic gain. Does that mean that ALL religion is hogwash? That all Pastors are out for nothing other than selfish financial gain? That Christianity is built upon a thrown of lies? Of course not.On the whole, science offers the best model of objective knowledge that we have. It is not perfect and scientists are not perfect. But to think that ALL scientists who endorse evolution theory are biased -- or, more to the point, to think that Crabtree's 10 links support this claim -- is absurd.If Crabtree was trying to establish the claim that scientists are biased on the basis of his 10 links, then he is guilty of the fallacy of small sample. I would say the same for anyone who tried to make a similar claim about religion based on 10 links -- which is easy enough to do. The history of science is extensive and glorious. The case for evolution theory is great, also, which is why the number of biologists working in the area who reject it can be counted on one hand. It would take a billion examples to prove Crabtree's point, and I don't see that coming any time soon.I'd contribute to this forum a bit more if I found ONE conservative who was willing to call Crabtree on the crap that he continually throws out.--Joe Campbell======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.                  http://www.fsr.net                                mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
_________________________________________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_122007
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071222/7256c752/attachment.html