Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion


"Malcolm" regniztar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> M:-
> My discussions with John haven't gone nowhere. His points are
original, so
> they force an original response, or at least a conventional response
with
> some re-presentation.

JE:-
Nothing I have written here is original IMO. It most certainly isn't
unconventional. All my arguments remain deductive from Darwinian theory
but only after Darwin's most basic assumptions have become _explicit_.
If I think anything at all that I have proposed here can be claimed as
"original" it is the correct identification of Darwin's most basic
assumptions as explicit concepts which together, allow Darwin's theory
of evolution by natural selection to be tested to refutation as Karl
Popper quite properly required of it.

> M:-
> I agree that there is a problem with tone. It is always a difficult
> situation when some members of the ng hold philosophical posts of
great
> worldly honour whilst others cannot even get work published in
academic
> journals.

JE:-
I have no problem with just a zero status position. In fact, I argue can
be bonus because it removes the overpowering stresses of tribal
conformity. I choose to remain independent because I argue tribal
affiliations almost always replace scientific objectivity with the
politics of spin. I certainly do not wish to appear to anybody as self
righteous but unfortunately, in the face of consistent and blatant
evasion I may sometimes appear to be so simply because I will always
attack such using whatever means (emotional or otherwise) to attempt to
root it out. Evasion remains the no 1 enemy of any rational discourse
and therefore, the sciences.


> M:-
> In monasteries or armies or similar institutions where members come
from a
> wide variety of backgrounds harmony is usually achieved by having many
> rules
> of etiquette. That's maybe what we need, if we are to create a
cultured
> and
> civilised group in which ideas thrive and which is a credit to
observers
> like Walter ReMine, who seems to have been here on a scouting mission.

JE:-
While evasion is allowed to thrive in sbe the "tone" of any debate must
degenerate. I have made two concrete proposals which I continue to argue
may improve the tone of any debate. However, both were rejected. I
remain a 100% democrat. I argue that science is a democratic process
within which anybody at all can and should be encouraged to contribute
irrespective of their status but only if everybody agrees that nature is
the one and only authority that can rule on the truth/untruth of any
proposition. IMHO any so called "science" that attempts to exist without
rigorous empirical testing, i.e. testing against nature must end up
becoming the hopeless dictate of some tribal norm.

I have proposed that any sbe poster should be able to appeal to the
moderator to require a poster to answer a question they have previously
refused to answer but only as a last resort and only as long as the
question asked has been logically structured. The status of any accused
evader should have absolutely no bearing on the matter. If no response
is provided the moderator should have the right to name the poster as an
evader. This tag should only be able to be removed at the behest of the
moderator after he/she has judged that the poster in question has
provided an answer to the stated question no matter if that answer is
judged to be correct or incorrect. Of course any poster tagged to be an
evader can simply ignore the tag and carry on regardless but because
their personal integrity is now _publicly_ compromised continued efforts
may now, not be worth their while.

My second proposition was to allow sbe posters to submit a more formal
paper to be democratically vetted by sbe readers and hopefully
electronically published as an sbe paper after being accepted by some as
yet unnamed formal sbe vetting process. What this process may be I
propose should be debated and voted on within sbe. I do not argue that
sbe papers would provide some sort of equal alternative to conventional
publication but for some sbe posters it may provide a useful "purgatory"
for people to redistil their ideas in a more formal way. Also, it would
provide the casual reader with a life example of the sort of scrutiny
that any paper must undergo within the sciences before it can be
published. Maybe Walter ReMine would have considered publishing his
rejected paper here if such a system was in place? Perhaps Tom other
enthusiastic posters who have something to say may wish to attempt to
publish an sbe paper where their attempts to do can only help all of us
btter understand their arguments? IMHO nothing but good could from sbe
vetted papers.

> M:-
> We
> wouldn't want him to report back to his friends that evolutionists
> consider
> each other stupid and illogical kooks who evade arguments, would we?

JE:-
IMO, ReMine would be quite correct to report back such a negative
finding. Evolutionary theory has a lot of dirty washing to do before it
re-establishes the confidence of the public. Has nobody here noticed
just how much evolutionary theory has lost the public trust particularly
in the USA where public opinion can more swiftly act?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@xxxxxxxxxx





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
    ... do have to be sensitive to the pressures on another poster. ... > While evasion is allowed to thrive in sbe the "tone" of any debate must ... I have made two concrete proposals which I continue to argue ... whilst questioning the evolution of the body is ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
    ... In fact, I argue ... The fact that non professionals risk less than ... I argue that sbe type discourse is invaluable to the sciences because ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Publisher cant load wizard, publication may have been?
    ... Publisher cannot load a wizard needed for this publication. ... I get this error on business cards I upgraded from SBE ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher)