> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Sunday, August 19, 2001 5:59 PM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: Landmines
> > You know, Dan, I'm getting quite sick and tired of people (like you
> > and Gautum) continuously misinterpreting my posts, and sitting on
> > their high horses believing that while their opponents must provide
> > proof for literally everything, their own claims seemingly must be
> > accepted at face value without any proof whatsoever.
> >
>
>
> Jeroen, let me quote two posts upon which I based my understanding
> of your position:
<snip>
You (plural) have mixed up two separate arguments. I made two of them:
1. Refusing to sign the Landmine Ban Treaty should be considered a crime
against humanity.
2. Using landmines is a bad idea, and here are some sources <insert URL's>
that show you why.
The sources from argument #2 have been called "not credible", but no sources
to back up that claim have been given because of argument #1.
If you disagree with argument #1, feel free to say so. If you disagree with
argument #2, feel free to say so. But don't use one argument as a reason not
to back criticism of another argument. (With "you" in this paragraph used in
its general, not person-specific, meaning.)
> What I wish to point out by this quotation is that, from the very
> start, I singled out the word debunking as a very strong word requiring
> a very high level of prooff. (I'll stop quoting now, and start
> summarizing, but I'll quote again if need be.) You then gave an
> argument for your position and repeated the debunking claim. A bit
> later, I posted a fairly long piece describing what debunking means,
> and why the standards for debunking are set high.
OK, so I used what in English is considered a very strong word. Cut me some
slack -- English isn't my native language, and I don't have my copy of The
Concise Oxford Dictionary memorized either.
> > As a scientist you know quite well that making claims without
> > providing data to back them up is bad practice. Yet in this
> > discussion you people with your fancy college educations seem to
> > think it's quite alright to make claims without proof when it suits
> > your needs. Either you think your statements must be accepted at face
> > value, or you simply don't *have* the proof.
> > If the current practice is really the best you can and will do, I can
> > only say that your scientific credibility is worth to next-to-
> > nothing.
<snip>
> Your posts make it sound as though you give no added credibility to
> the people who actually have to make their ideas work in practice. I
> do.
Credibility is something that takes a lot of time to build up, but only
takes little effort to be destroyed. No matter how much credibility a
scientist has build up, once he violates one of the basic principles of
science ("back claims with data"), his credibility is gone. Anything he has
done *before* that can still be considered good science, but after violating
this principle he'll have to start again from scratch, building up
credibility.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
