Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Integrated Circuits. Part I. Message-ID: <577@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Dec-84 13:49:01 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.577 Posted: Mon Dec 17 13:49:01 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 03:35:36 EST References: <501@uwmacc.UUCP> <868@utastro.UUCP> Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 109 >>> [Bill Jefferys] >>> This is just the old "Argument from Design" -- "Look, how wonderful and >>> complex life is, it must have had a Designer. Such things just could >>> not have come about in any other way". The argument from design >>> has been completely discredited, and is not taken seriously by anyone >>> but Creationists anymore. It is bad theology and even worse science. >> >>(ii) Perhaps Bill is right about the status of the argument for >>design (completely discredited). But the basis on which it is >>declared to be so is certainly specious. For the most part, the >>statements above are simply a form of appeal to authority, ... >> >>Even if appeals to authority or majority opinion were a valid basis >>for making a point, it may be observed that one group of people >>which consistently *rejects* such appeals is the group of >>evolutionary contributors to this newsgroup. More specifically, one >>particular member of that group is a Mr. Bill Jefferys. .... >> >>> [article 596@utastro] >>> How impressed Ray is with academic degrees! Unfortunately, possession >>> of a Ph.D. does not necessarily mean that what one says can be believed, >>> even when speaking on your own or a related field. >> >>In other words, academic degrees (a form of scholarly authority) >>count for very little. I certainly agree with Bill here. An >>argument should be judged on its own merits. It was therefore a >>disappointment to find him arguing against himself. But one simply >>cannot expect to reject arguments made on the basis of authority and >>then turn around and use the same basis for one's own argument. > Paul has oversimplified my position. I agree that relative to > other arguments, the Appeal to Authority is relatively weak. Ok. We have some common ground here. > Ultimately > a case must stand or fall on its own merits, as Paul says. However, > it is no more valid to reject expert opinion automatically than it is > to accept it uncritically. Well ... I didn't say to just "reject it". "Examine it and reject it if it's flawed" would be more accurate. > The point of my statement in 596@utastro is > that the weight conferred upon an individual's opinions by the mere > possession of a degree is small. I believe that in the same article > I also made the point (perhaps not in these words) that the weight > that an individual's opinions have in a given field depend primarily on > his/her record of research and publication in that field. That's correct. Bill did say this. > Furthermore, > if (as is the case with many Creationists, particularly Dr. Gish) the > individual in question consistently makes statements relating to > a field in which he/she is claiming expertise that are known to be > false, or uses invalid methodologies in his/her research, then the > weight given to that individual's opinion *by the scientific community* > will inevitably be very low. The weight given to a particular opinion > may also depend upon the degree to which it is a consensus among > similarly weighty experts in the field. Rightly or wrongly, this is > a burden that Creationism has to bear since the assertions of Creationism > are, in fact, contrary to the findings of a very broad spectrum of > scientific research. It is a fact that in the realm of science, > "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". It is true > that weighty individuals can be wrong, and that the consensus can > be wrong. Exactly! > But it is legitimate to consider weighty opinion and consensus, > provided it is used with caution and is supported by other evidence. That is true. However, any given argument is still not proven false by its association with someone considered to be a charlatan, nor proven true by its association with someone having a good record, but by being weighed in the balance and found wanting or sufficient. The weight given to an argument may have a degree of correlation to the reputation of those espousing it (hopefully a positive correlation!), but that still, ultimately, says nothing about the argument itself. Summary: I believe that Bill and myself are in fairly substantial agreement that in general a person's established accomplishments give us a reasonable clue or heuristic as to the potential validity of that person's arguments, yet in the case of each specific argument, the argument ultimately must be accepted by being found valid, not because of who makes it. ---------- > As for the quote from my recent article, I was merely stating a fact. > If Paul wants to present reasons why scientists and theologians should > take the argument from design seriously, he is welcome to do so. > That is another issue altogether. Fact, pshaw. This is an attempt to rule inadmissible, by fiat, discussion of an issue that is far from settled. Currently it is in disfavor in certain circles, but one can hardly imply that it has been settled forever without drawing to oneself charges of the kind of dogmatic certainty often levelled at, e.g., creationists. But Bill is right: it's an issue best discussed elsewhere. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33