<html>
<body>
Joe Campbell, <br><br>
You are becoming most predicable in your tactics.<br><br>
Gary made two statements (or perhaps only one statement), if Paul is
correct:<br><br>
Statement 1: <i><u>As if</u></i> good scientists made up their own data
in the laboratory.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
You are asserting that he meant something altogether different.
<br><br>
Statement 2: Why the very notion that data might be faked by Scientists
must be preposterous.<br><br>
Again, pure sarcasm and the same conclusion. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
For those interested in the evolution/intelligent design thread, here is
an interesting piece:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030215341.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030215341.htm</a><br><br>
Another interesting piece:<br><br>
<a href="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094-8373(198024)6%3A1%3C119%3AIANAGT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U" eudora="autourl">
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094-8373(198024)6%3A1%3C119%3AIANAGT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U<br>
<br>
</a>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.<br><br>
Now, everyone is wished a happy holiday from yours truly - yes, even you
Mr. Campbell.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Three holiday days ahead - I plan to count angels dancing on the heads of
pins, like most academicians this holiday season.<br><br>
<br>
At 09:20 PM 12/21/2007, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Jeff,<br><br>
Your post was a bit incoherent. For instance, you wrote:<br><br>
Gary Crabtree made two simple statements:<br><br>
1. "As if good scientists made up their own data in the
laboratory!"<br><br>
2. "Why the very notion that data might be faked by Scientists
must be preposterous."<br><br>
Both are instances of sarcasm, so it is not explicit what statements
Crabtree made. Maybe<br>
I’m wrong but (1) suggests:<br><br>
(1*) Good scientists make up their own data in the laboratory,<br><br>
which is incomplete. SOME good scientists or ALL? Similarly, (2)
suggests:<br><br>
(2*) Data might be faked by scientists.<br><br>
Again, SOME data or ALL? SOME scientists or ALL? You should be interested
in the <br>
claims since you’ve stated that economics is a science. Did Crabtree
say that you make <br>
up data? Are you making up the very claims in your last post, for
instance? Did he say <br>
that data is faked ALWAYS by you? Luckily you don’t think that
either logic or <br>
<br>
philosophy is a science, so I remain unscathed in your eyes and in
his!<br><br>
If Crabtree thinks that SOME scientists fudge data, then I agree! But who
cares. Some <br>
economists beat their wives but not much follows from this unfortunate
fact, nothing that <br>
I could pin on you or economists in general.<br><br>
Thus, your claim that “Neither statement could be reasonably argued
that Crabtree was <br>
asserting that all science was fudged” is false, for Crabtree’s
claims as you quote them <br>
are ambiguous and at least one interpretation suggests that ALL science
is fudged. The <br>
other interpretation is a sad but obvious and meaningless truth. Maybe
that is what <br>
Crabtree meant. Maybe your comments here are in support of the sad,
meaningless, <br>
unfortunate truth that some scientists fudge. What is even sadder is that
this Friday <br>
night which you could have spent with your family was wasted on such
an endeavor.<br>
.<br><br>
Andreas beat me to the bunch but, yes, I’m willing to bet that no more
than 5 biologist <br>
reject evolution theory. The bet is on. Name them or pay up. (And I hope
that you have <br>
enough integrity to abide by Andreas’s criteria but honestly I doubt
it!)<br>
Best, Joe<br><br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.fsr.net
</a> <br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================</blockquote>
</body>
</html>