Re: Ray Martinez

On Jun 4, 10:53 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 4, 2:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 3, 7:14 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c135c18e-9eaa-46e9-99c3-7bfbecb22bc9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Jun 2, 4:01 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:

snip

You really don't understand how science works, do you? The argument is
from data ("because you can go out and see it for yourself"). You are
also misusing the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority, which
describes reliance on statements of experts on matters beyond their
field of expertise (e.g., an advanced degree in, say, Educational
Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about
etymology or archaeology).

Yes it does. If they are making such statements then their higher
degree makes them qualified.

No, having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak
about an unrelated subject.

Yes it does. A doctorate qualifies said person to speak on any subject
that he cares to speak. I have listed two examples of well known
evolutionists.

That is an absurd position.  Dawkins' degree in zoology, by itself,
barely qualifies him to speak on genetics or paleontology, and
certainly does not entitle him to standing as an authority on those
subjects.  Of course, he is free to study topics beyond those needed
to get his degree, and he has acquired some qualifications beyond his
formal degrees.  Still, there are no shortage of people willing to
argue that, e.g. his studies of religion are not of sufficient depth
to qualify him to speak as an expert on the topic (of course, Dawkins
would respond that while there are many people more expert on religion
than he is, no one is or can be more expert on the subject of God).  A
doctorate, by itself, qualifies you to speak on the subject of the
doctorate.





You do not understand what "Argument from Authority" (AFA) is.

Yet he's correct, and you get it wrong.

If that were true then Richard Dawkins cannot speak about genetics or
Daniel Dennett about evolution in general.

Because Dawkins and Dennet have studied genetics and evolution, why not?

Here we see how implacable and red-faced Dana Tweedy is.

He asks "why not?" as if I disagreed. I agreed they were qualified.
Dana has made a bad error but we know he will not admit. Of course the
error was intentional showing that he is implacable. This is why I
largely ignore Dana these days. He exists in a state of defeat,
reduced to posting deliberately implacable comments.

Comments cannot be implacable, any more than they can be manic-
depressive or hypoglycemic.  And there is a difference between
studying genetics and actually getting a degree in the subject.  And
Ray, perhaps you have utterly defeated Dana on the field of argument,
but I think he is not despondent or angry over that, because he has
not noticed it.  Neither have I noticed it.  Neither has anyone on
this group except you noticed your victory.  From an epistemological
vantage point, this is a reason to suspect that your victory and his
defeat are subjective (not to say outright hallucinatory) impressions
in your mind, not objective facts on the ground.

Neither have degrees in
these fields but both are eminently qualified to speak authoritatively
in these fields.

But they have *STUDIED* those fields, even if their academic degree is in
another field.

That is what I said a little differently.

As Mark Twain once said, the difference between the right word and
almost the right word is the difference between lightning and
lightning bugs.  You asserted that an advanced degree makes you an
expert in all fields of study.  Dana says that actual study of a field
makes you an expert in it.  One can study a field without getting a
degree (there have been a number of eminent scientists who never
obtained a formal degree), but equally, one can get a degree and then
speak on some totally different field which one has never seriously
studied.  Think of Watson's remarks on race and IQ, a subject that his
extensive research in biochemistry and genetics really does not
qualify him as an automatic expert on.





I could provide even better examples but will cease
for now. AFA is when a fact is challenged and the only defense is
someones credentials.

Again, credentials mean very little, when the person is speaking about a
subject he or she is unqualified to speak.

I might add: evolutionists in general have no idea what AFA is. You
are not being singled out.

You are wrong yet again.   You are the one who is wrong about argument from
authority, and it shows.

I also might add: Daniel Dennett is the brightest evolutionary scholar
in the world (in my opinion).

And your opinion means what?

Apparently a lot to you since you make a reply to every post I make -
replies that show an implacable person.

Ray, if you post to usenet, you take the risk that someone will
respond to you.  Maybe its just because so many people ignore the
posts I make that I have trouble seeing the offense Dana's paying
close attention to your statements.  If you find his criticisms so
unbearable, I would suggest that you take them to heart and try to
correct your deficiencies in fact, logic, and diction.

Oh, and once again: you cannot treat the opponents you reply to as
contemptible and stupid, and then assume that if someone responds to
you, it must prove that your opinions are valuable and intelligent.
If you can respond to silly errors, so, obviously, can other people --
even if they're responding to you.





When Gould was alive he held that title
(in my opinion with Ernst Mayr coming in as a close second).

Again, Ray, your opinion is worth.... well.. nothing.

On the other hand, an appeal to authority is
perfectly valid when the authority in question knows what they are
talking about - for example, John Harshman knows a hell of a lot more
than you or I about the evolution of ducks, so it is perfectly valid to
take advantage of his lifetime of study in the field if we were
discussing ducks.

I agree.

John is also (in my opinion) qualified to speak about genetics, human
evolution, and the history of Darwinism.

Again, your opinion is worthless.

Implacable.

I think that word does not mean what you think it means.

It is absurd to say otherwise - a mockery of our system to establish
facts. In the old days if you were the Pastor of a Church you were the
biggest and smartest man in town - qualified to speak about
everything.

Which would be wrong then, as it is now.    My father was a pastor of
several churches, and as intelligent, and wise as he was, he was not the
"biggest and smartest man in town".     He was wise enough to know what he
didn't know about.

Then he wasn't a real Gift Minister, but a Fundamentalist hireling.

Ray, I recall no mention of "omniscience," or even "universal
expertise, within human limits," among Paul's enumeration of the gifts
of the spirit.  You have created a doctrine of "gift ministers"
resting upon absolutely nothing: it has neither scripture nor
experience to back it up.  Compared to your exegesis of Paul's
teaching on spiritual gifts, theistic evolutionists are narrow
literalists.  Does your opinion on the meaning of the Bible have any
points of contact with the actual Bible?  Or is it limited entirely to
ad hoc justifications for your idolatry of Gene Scott?

I happen to know a bit about geology and stream
systems.

Okay.

Which you will ignore soon.

snipping more things Ray avoids...

DJT

Glad my one response to every ten Dana makes to my posts is over. I
thoroughly hated the experience.

We often hate doing things we're really bad at; it's nothing to be
ashamed of.

Ray

PS to Steven J: in case you read this post tell me, is Dana
implacable? (Of course my question is rhetorical.) I just want to see
if you have an objective bone in your body. Of course I doubt that you
even know what "objective" means?

"Implacable" means impossible to appease, pacify, or assuage the wrath
of.  Since Dana does not seem to me consumed with wrath or bent on
vengeance, the question appears a bit odd.  I think you mean that he
is "obstinate," but I think you are wrong to think that.  You offer
bad arguments and invented or erroneous data against Dana's opinions,
and then seem shocked that he does not immediately back down and admit
that you are right.  But one is not obstinate (or implacable) simply
because one waits for actual evidence and sound logic before adopting
a new opinion.

And "objective" does not mean "agreeing with Ray Martinez."  I will,
of course, modify this opinion if you can cite a standard English
dictionary that actually defines "objective" as "agreeing with Ray
Martinez."

I also acknowledge that I owe you 5 or 6 replies. I have not made
these replies because they take longer to produce than the rash of
replies that I have made lately. But I will - ASAP.

Hey, why does Dana get five or six replies, and I'm lucky if you
notice me once a week?  I can be just as implacable as he is; let me
show you.



RM

-- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I choose to make about one reply to Dana every so often because his
posts amount to an endless string of one line ridiculous denials.
There is nothing to refute when this happens. I did acknowledge that I
owe you 5 or 6 replies and that they would appear ASAP.

I have ignored everything in this present post because it is self-
evident nonsense. To respond to any of it would be giving legitimacy
to nonsense.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about ... qualified to speak with my father about his craft on an equal basis. ... Daniel Dennett about evolution in general. ... authority, and it shows. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about ... having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak ... Here we see how implacable and red-faced Dana Tweedy is. ... authority, and it shows. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak ... You do not understand what "Argument from Authority" is. ... Because Dawkins and Dennet have studied genetics and evolution, ... in the world (in my opinion). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about ... having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak ... Here we see how implacable and red-faced Dana Tweedy is. ... authority, and it shows. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... are also misusing the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority, ... Educational Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative ... that qualifies one to speak authoritatively about anything is expertise. ... facts has nothing to do with credentials, but has everything to do with ...
    (talk.origins)