Subject:
|
Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:20:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
662 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > Get past the guy, and address the issues.
>
> If you had read Tim's post, rather than leaping to disagree with mine,
> you'd have noticed that Tim asked me to consult the page in question before
> questioning Dr. Dino's credibility. I examined the page, as Tim asked, and,
> having found found the credentials to be lacking, I questioned Dr. Dino's
> credibility.
And just because I found myself thinking about it, I earned over 190 hours
credit in philosophy when in school... Wonder if I could get retroactive
credit for all these Lugnet debates? Easily a term's worth of papers--
backed with the occasional quotes from relevant philosophers even! And just
out of further utter curiosity, anyone else have any other philosophy or
religion credentials lying around?
And a potentially more relevant matter, but still off-topic... only 60 hours
of credit towards a math/science degree? How many courses is that? 2? My
terms at school (7 week terms, which are comparatively REALLY quick
college-wise) were 28 hours per course. Most college courses are what? 10
week terms? So about what? 30-40 hours per class? Anyway, that's pretty
non-relevant, as stated below, but rather odd that you'd even bother to
state something so trivial. Kinda makes me think he was really reaching to
attain credibility. But that's just my impression.
> For that matter, if you had read *my* post, rather than leaping to
> disagree with me, you'd have noticed that I stated outright that a lack of
> relevant credentials is *not* summarily enough reason to dismiss his claims.
> Beyond that, from what I've read so far, his alleged science is in fact the
> same pseudoscience often touted by creationists (and touted in the standard
> believe-or-burn style of rhetoric).
And quite true-- I doubt even if any of you lacked the credentials I have in
philosophy that it would invalidate your opinions therein. What I think
Dave! et all are after, really, is the actual experimental write-ups, etc,
stating the actual experiments, their exact methods, their expected and
perceived error, etc, to present them for critique. Hence, really, the
attack should come at the experiment's credibility. But in the lack of such
data for commentary, the person conducting the experiment's credibility is
next in line...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
