[Vision2020] (no subject)

[g. crabtree]

" The only person I truly hate is Crabtree."

Dude, you really need to check the old holiday attitude. If the playful
prodding you receive here
is adequate to invoke hate I really have to wonder how well you might be
able to deal
with situations that truly are trying. What level will you take it to in the
unlikely event you should
ever manage to find the courage and meet me face to face? For the record
you've got miles to go
before you're even in the same zip code as people I hate. You have, however
secured yourself top billing
on the people I think are pompous, egotistical, unpleasant, and frankly not
a little bit silly roster.

g

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 10:56 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] re: (no subject)


> This will be my last response to you, Jeff. Apparently you’ve read the 
> Gary Crabtree
> manual on how to make friends and influence people and I don’t have much 
> time or use
> for insult laden rants this holiday season.
>
> First, the suggestions that I committed a “breach of academic ethics” in 
> my comments on
> Crabtree’s post and “academic dishonesty” in my report of your views about 
> logic and
> philosophy are over the top and just plain irresponsible on your part. If 
> I thought that
> anyone of significance took the time to read your posts, I’d demand an 
> apology.
> This isn’t the academy; it is a public forum. Also, you’re wrong on a 
> number of points.
>
> You admit that Crabtree’s statements (one of which turns out not to be his 
> statement) are
> “Pure sarcasm.” In sarcasm one means the opposite of what one says. If I 
> were to say:
>
> (3) AS IF economists had no sense of humor
>
> you would be entitled to think that I intended to convey that economists 
> had no sense of
> humor. If I were to say, sarcastically:
>
> (4) Why the very notion that Harkins would tell a lie is preposterous
>
> you would be right to feel offended.
>
> By uttering (4) I wouldn’t have said that you were a liar – but I would 
> have implied it.
> Or are you willing to allow me the privilege of making claims like (4) and 
> calling it a
> “breach of academic ethics” should you accuse me of insulting you?
>
> The only other things I said were that (1) and (2) were ambiguous as to 
> whether
> Crabtree meant to make a claim about ALL scientists – which is absurd – or 
> SOME –
> which is trivially true and not worth mentioning. If you look at the posts 
> other than mine,
> you’ll see that the conclusion that I arrived at is a reasonable one.
>
> Second, you are right. You did not SAY that logic was not a science. Nor 
> did you SAY
> that economics was more of a science than logic. You merely IMPLIED both. 
> Let me
> quote what you wrote (Sat Oct 27 17:00:55 PDT 2007) and we’ll let the 
> readers decide:
>
> I think the economists at the University of
> Washington (my alma mater) would have a good
> chuckle over your statement that "...Economics is
> not a SCIENCE like lgic oand (sp) math and
> physics are sciences.  Yes, they would say - you
> are right - it is much more difficult!  The
> science of choice is much more rigorous.
>
> I am curious though - were you inferring that
> "logic" is a science like math and physics. Is
> there a branch of logic that goes beyond the
> study of correct reasoning, valid induction and
> deduction?  Is there more to the discipline than
> describing relationships among propositions in
> terms of implication, contradiction, contrariety and conversion?
>
> In a later post (Sun Oct 28 19:36:55 PDT 2007), you first quoted my 
> response to the
> above and then followed it with some other comments.
>
>>Third, logic is the mother of all sciences. It
>>is not an empirical science -- but
>>neither is math! Logic, like math, is a formal
>>science upon which all empirical sciences,
>>like economics, are dependent. Logic is the
>>science of correct reasoning and without
>>correct reasoning all sciences are reduced to
>>collections of data; they have no theoretical
>>or predictive or explanatory significance.
>
> You may face a validation problem with your
> declarations about logic and science. This issue
> is not worth pursuing in a general public forum -
> an angels on heads of pins debate that is best
> reflected in some academic journal.  If it makes
> you happy, I will concede that logic is a formal
> science.  Ratiocination has intrigued me over the years.
>
> Of course, the “angels on heads of pins” comment is in reference to an 
> old, common
> criticism of philosophy – one that you repeat at the end of your last 
> post.
>
> Again, people can think what they want but besides you and Crabtree, it is 
> doubtful that
> anyone would find it unreasonable for me to assume that (a) you don’t 
> think that logic is
> a science and (b) even if you did concede that it was, you think that 
> economics is more rigorous and thus more of a science than logic. I’d be 
> surprised if, after reading the
> above, one went away with the idea that you thought that philosophy was a 
> science on
> par with economics. (Personally, I don’t think that philosophy is a 
> science but that is
> another issue.) Though I’m not particularly interested in your Wilson-like 
> rhetorical
> maneuvers, if you want to set the record straight, tell me what you think 
> about logic and
> philosophy and then explain how one should be able to get to that idea 
> from the words
> given above. That would be fun to watch!
>
> Lastly, I have a few comments about the evolution/creation debate. To 
> begin, I find it
> interesting that in a recent post you lectured people on the importance of 
> reputable, peer-
> reviewed journals and in your last post you provide a link to Science 
> Daily.
>
> Also, the challenge was not to find a biologist who BELIEVED in 
> creationism, as Prof.
> Minnich does, but to find one who has PUBLISHED an article in support of 
> creationism
> in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. With that in mind, the following is 
> interesting:
>
> In 2004 Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer presented a paper to an engineering 
> conference,
> the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, entitled "Genetic 
> Analysis of
> Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits". The Discovery 
> Institute lists this
> as one of its "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications 
> Supporting the
> Theory of Intelligent Design". However, in his testimony for Kitzmiller v. 
> Dover,
> Minnich admitted that the paper was minimally peer reviewed:
>
> Q: And the paper that you published was only minimally peer reviewed, 
> isn't that true?

> A. For any conference proceeding, yeah. You don't go through the same 
> rigor. I
> mentioned that yesterday. But it was reviewed by people in the Wessex 
> Institute, and I
> don't know who they were.
>
> Thus, as Nick has already pointed out, there is no evidence that Minnich 
> has published an
> article in support of creationism in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. 
> You know and I
> know that the standards for conference proceedings and reputable, 
> peer-reviewed journals
> are quite different. So far you don’t even have one example. You note that 
> you don’t have
> the time to continue looking but how is this anything more than an 
> admission that finding
> 5 instances of scientific support for creationism in reputable, 
> peer-reviewed journals is
> difficult if not impossible to do?
>
> Happy Holidays to you, too! I don’t want you to think that I despise you 
> because I don’t.
> In spite of it all I like you. The only person I truly hate is Crabtree. 
> What I despise is your
> adoption of the Wilson/Crabtree method of discourse. I note that you 
> continue to refer to
> me as “Mr.” yet you don’t even have the convenience of Crabtree’s way out 
> since you
> used the label “Prof.” for Minnich. Calling someone by a name that he 
> dislikes is cheap
> and I’m sure you’ll feel a slight jolt at the awareness of just how low 
> your rhetoric has
> gotten once you read this. I hope that, during this Christmas season, you’ll 
> find the way
> of love and get away from the religion and politics of hate that Wilson 
> and Crabtree
> represent. That is my Christmas wish for you!
>
> Best, Joe
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================