> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
<RM> > > If somebody manages to collect enough true evidence > > that the world was indeed created in 6 days, than he will > > get the nobel prize and his theory will be taught in school. > > But until than he should not speak nonsense. <SH> > What is nonsense to you and me is truth for many others. > You have to be exposed to a lot of ignorance in order to > recognize that it is perceived by many as changeless truth. Hi all, Might I raise a point of protest to the methodology of making *logical assumptions*? Ricsi makes a valid point that people who lack *true evidence* should not speak nonsense. However, I'm still waiting for the factual evidence to be presented. Sam and Ricsi have carried out an ongoing dialog about many subjects, the central essence perhaps being the various perspectives held by Americans and Europeans. I have, BTW, enjoyed the exchange. I hope others are not annoyed by the running commentary. Unfortunately, Ron, Steve, and myself (and others) have pointed out several factual inconsistencies in some of the *true evidence* offered, so much so that some issues lack any valid proofs. They are, to use Steve's phrase, merely Urban Legends. Urban legends become accepted *facts* because they remain unchallenged and become part of an accepted body of knowledge. Eventually, those who dare to challenge the *facts* are labeled *ignorant* and their own version of the truth is labeled *nonsense*. However, to those who hold an opposing view, the appearance of *intellectual superiority* among those of the majority opinion indicates (to the minority) a degree of arrogance which states, in no uncertain terms, that the majority have no real concern for the ideas or opinions of the minority. Since the minority are stupid and not worthy of serious consideration, they should just shut up and go away. Wow. That is not the path to understanding and the reconciliation of differences. And it is certainly NOT the scientific method! And, so, I will challenge the assumptions. During my undergraduate work, I once asked a PhD in Physical Anthropology (these are the guys who try to date the origin and sequence of the species) for the references of the research that outlined the repeatable experiments which demonstrated the positive results of genetic mutation. The professor taught and insisted that the *scientific method* required documented experimentation that could be repeated with identical results. So, when he taught that biological evolution required both adaptation over time AND genetic mutation, I thought it proper to ask for the research references that proved (through experimentation) the existence of positive results from genetic mutations. I didn't mean to offend, but our text books had only given examples of destructive mutations. Unfortunately, the professor had no references. I made the mistake of suggesting that he was not a very scientific scientist, which made for a most uncomfortable semester. (The professor may not always be right, but he's always the professor). As I recall, he too used words like *nonsense* and *ignorance*. And, I'm sorry to say, he did so repeatedly in public. I still insist that he failed to PROVE his position using the scientific method. And I still believe (if I'm allowed to use that word) that I was right. We should have been given proof in the form of reputable data, not the mere opinion of an individual (no matter how important his position). (Arachne, BTW, would be an excellent tool for presenting scientific evidence linked to reference material). It should be obvious that, since I still remember the incident, it was (to me) a perceived injustice that has not been quickly forgotten. I suggest that there is a principle hidden in this story that has value for the world today. In the quoted dialog above, the authors make some *logical assumptions* that their view is held in common with all others. Specifically, those who reject evolution are ignorant individuals who speak nonsense. I am not offended by Sam and Ricsi's assumptions. Their view is, after all, widely held. I actually enjoy observing the ongoing dialog and, especially, who interjects various comments on various subjects. However, I submit to all the list membership that there would be more peace and less violence in the world if we collectively tried our best to understand *the other* and actively worked to observe their right to be an individual. And that would require us first to challenge our own assumptions and opinions, and allow others to be different. Therefore, I offer the phrase "in my opinion" as a suggested option in potentially disagreeable situations. As a closing word ... A friend of mine once said, "To assume is to make an ASS of U-M-E (you and me)". I must admit that I can only *assume* he was correct, as he offered no scientific evidence. But, if it's just an urban legend, it sure sounds good. <grin> Bob - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
