Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Honesty
Message-ID: <4639@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 14:45:28 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4639
Posted: Mon Jan 21 14:45:28 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jan-85 06:07:54 EST
References: <968@utastro.UUCP>, <4565@cbscc.UUCP>, <1012@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 53

>Ethan Vishnaiac:
>Your point seems to be that the worst of what goes on in the
>scientific community is no more honest or scientifically sound
>than what passes for creation science.  I think this point is
>slightly exagerated in the quoted book, but basically right.

>What, if anything, does this prove?  I am willing to agree tat
>the best of creationist writings are no worse than the worst of
>what passes for orthodox science.  Is that your point?

No.  My point is that orthodox science uses lower standards of honesty
to check its own work than it does that of creationists.  I know that
may scientists have very high personal standards in this regard. I'm
not trying to denigrate that.  I'm talking about the way orthodox
science's supposedly "self policing" nature.

I make no judgements as to what the "worst" of science or the
"best" of creationism is.  You just did though.  It seems to me
that you interpret any serious problems existing in the scientific
community as being the "worst" of science--as if it were beside
the point.  Anything that is wrong with "orthodox" science can
be thrown in the worst-of-science bucket so as not to impugn science's
reputation.  Creationism's flaws, however, are assumed (by you)
to be part of the "best" of creationism.  On what basis?  Maybe
you know what the "best" of creationism is and the "worst" of science
and maybe you have objective definitions of "best" and "worst" so
as to make a meaningful comparison.  I'm not sure I do.  I don't
see how you can be so sure you do, either.  It's a little self serving
to dismiss the the deceit that goes on in one's own camp as the
"worst" while elevating that in the opponent's camp as being
the "best" that they do.

To assume that the book _Betrayers of the Truth_ only points out the
"worst" of science seems to be an impertinent dismissal of the whole
point of the book.  The fact that things that bad can go on at all
points out major problems in the way science works.  It reflects on
science as a whole.  Broad and Wade's purpose was not to dig up dirt
to make science look bad, but to expose some genuine and serious
problems.  Surely the same things going on in Creationists circles
would be taken to discredit it totally.  Doesn't the same standard
that is imposed on creationists apply to orthodox science?

The point of my article was pretty clear, I think.  The standards
of honesty and critical scrutiny that are exacted of creationism
are not applied internally in the scientific community itself.
"Orthodox" science all to often covers over its "worst" in order to
avoid disrespect from the community.  All the while many members of
this orthodoxy insist on flying the dirty laundry of creationism
from the highest flagpole.  I think that, in measuring the "best"
and "worst" of each camp, you are not using the same standard.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd