Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Harper's
Message-ID: <338@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 10:49:40 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.338
Posted: Tue Feb  5 10:49:40 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 02:01:31 EST
References: <697@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 38
Summary: 

In article <697@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
> > [Richard Carnes]
> > Now some bad news:  The February *Harper's* contains another article
> > attacking evolutionary theory by Tom Bethell.  If this sort of thing is
> > finding its way into such publications as *Harper's*, now is not the time
> > for complacency among evolutionary biologists.  If you guessed that Bethell
> > is a journalist, not a biologist, you guessed right.
> 
> This is, I suppose, the converse of the argument from authority,
> although it ends up in the same place...  But Richard takes an immediate
> crack at Mr. Bethell.  And perhaps it is justified; but we shall never
> know from his article, nor shall we seek to find out, for he has settled
> the issue for us:  Bethell is not a biologist, so he has nothing to say.
> 
> Citing no reference, bringing up no fact or observation for discussion,
> nor any logical proposition, Richard shows us that it is enough to know
> that Bethell is a journalist, not a biologist.  Instantly we see, and
> agree, that his comments are thus obviously entirely out of court...
> 
> You may suppose that I am overreacting.  I assure you that I am.
> However, I trust the point is clear.

Your point is clear, and a straw man.  Clearly (see the word "news" at the
beginning?), Carnes' message is meant to inform people of like opinions
(evolutionary biologists) of something of concern to them.  It is an
informative summary, not an argument.  I interpret the mention of Bethell's
occupation as a reassurance that he isn't a biologist who has joined the
ICR (which would be a more serious problem.)  While I commend your zeal in
attempting to ferret out fallacies of argument, I'd suggest that you find
them in arguments.

The principle of charity is a standard of courtesy in argument where when
an opposing statement can have more than one interpretation, you select
the one that makes the best argument.  If that interpretation is wrong, you
have little to lose, and your opponent has more to lose.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh