[Vision2020] (no subject)
jeffh at moscow.com
Sat Dec 22 14:43:45 PST 2007
You are becoming most predicable in your tactics.
Gary made two statements (or perhaps only one statement), if Paul is correct:
Statement 1: As if good scientists made up their own data in the laboratory.
Pure sarcasm. I have confidence that if Gary
wished to assert that Some or All scientists made
up their own data, that he would have said that.
You are asserting that he meant something altogether different.
Statement 2: Why the very notion that data might
be faked by Scientists must be preposterous.
Again, pure sarcasm and the same conclusion.
You are, of course, free to attribute any meaning
you wish to either or both of the statements and
to restate the statements to whatever you wish,
but you are not free to credit him with those
altered statements. That would be a breach of academic ethics.
It does appear that you have decided to pursue
misrepresentations of my previous postings to
you. I am calling you out on this again. I did
not, ever, state that philosophy or logic was not
a science, nor did I state that economics was
more of a science than logic or philosophy. Just
as you did with Gary, you fabricated the issue
and attributed it to me. That is academic dishonesty.
The reference to my family and how I spend my
time on Friday evenings was petty and out of
line. Most readers of this post will recognize
the hypocrisy of your post. For what it is
worth, the family had a good chuckle over the matter.
For those interested in the evolution/intelligent
design thread, here is an interesting piece:
Another interesting piece:
As I understand the matter of the protocol of
betting, Andreas called the bet first - so Mr.
Campbell loses again. Andreas appears to have
conceded the five biologists - that is fine with
me. I did a quick search through Google Scholar
and found several hundred thousands hits on
evolution theory, challenges to evolution theory
and intelligent design. Since one local
biologist, Prof Scot Minnich has argued on
intelligent design and the Gould piece above
outlines some challenges to Darwin theory, I am
reasonably confident that there are three or four
more advocates of intelligent design out there
publishing in "peer review" journals. Someone
with more time feel free to continue the
investigation. As to winner or loser of the bet,
I offer two outcomes for Andreas - we could call
it a draw and move on. Or we could just say that
I only offered up two or three examples and hence
Andreas wins. Whatever you choose Andreas is fine with me.
Now, everyone is wished a happy holiday from
yours truly - yes, even you Mr. Campbell.
If any of you get a caning rod or a hickory
switch, it is probably because you deserved
it. But you will also get something nice,
because most (or is it all) of you all of the
time (or is it most of the time) have done
something that should be rewarded. So, enjoy the good with the bad.
Three holiday days ahead - I plan to count angels
dancing on the heads of pins, like most academicians this holiday season.
At 09:20 PM 12/21/2007, you wrote:
>Your post was a bit incoherent. For instance, you wrote:
>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."
>Both are instances of sarcasm, so it is not
>explicit what statements Crabtree made. Maybe
>Iâm wrong but (1) suggests:
>(1*) Good scientists make up their own data in the laboratory,
>which is incomplete. SOME good scientists or ALL? Similarly, (2) suggests:
>(2*) Data might be faked by scientists.
>Again, SOME data or ALL? SOME scientists or ALL?
>You should be interested in the
>claims since youâve stated that economics is a
>science. Did Crabtree say that you make
>up data? Are you making up the very claims in
>your last post, for instance? Did he say
>that data is faked ALWAYS by you? Luckily
>you donât think that either logic or
>philosophy is a science, so I remain unscathed in your eyes and in his!
>If Crabtree thinks that SOME scientists fudge
>data, then I agree! But who cares. Some
>economists beat their wives but not much follows
>from this unfortunate fact, nothing that
>I could pin on you or economists in general.
>Thus, your claim that âNeither statement could
>be reasonably argued that Crabtree was
>asserting that all science was fudgedâ is
>false, for Crabtreeâs claims as you quote them
> are ambiguous and at least one interpretation
>suggests that ALL science is fudged. The
>other interpretation is a sad but obvious and
>meaningless truth. Maybe that is what
>Crabtree meant. Maybe your comments here are in
>support of the sad, meaningless,
>unfortunate truth that some scientists fudge.
>What is even sadder is that this Friday
>night which you could have spent with your
>family was wasted on such an endeavor.
>Andreas beat me to the bunch but, yes, Iâm
>willing to bet that no more than 5 biologist
>reject evolution theory. The bet is on. Name
>them or pay up. (And I hope that you have
>enough integrity to abide by Andreasâs criteria but honestly I doubt it!)
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020