Hi Bob... your story about you and the professor sound familiar to me ;-( Bastiaan
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:51:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> 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
