From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Aug 09 2001 - 20:39:08 MDT
Harvey writes
> [Lee Corbin wrote]
>> Therefore, I will re-phrase Mike Lorrey's original question to you:
>>
>> >> Why do [often] start off your denunciation of any post you
>> >> disagree with by claiming that the website that is hosting the
>> >> information is owned by [someone of a certain stripe]?
>>
>> I will also ask, why don't you just begin by quoting parts of the
>> article that offended you, and criticize them instead? (Honestly,
>> it does give the impression that you cannot.)
> Sources of information are important. Scientific methodology to determine
> "facts" are important. It is fair to point out that statistics were
> specifically funded by an organization to counter more established
> statistics that they don't like.
I certainly concede that!
> It is fair to point out that someone's "scientific" method involves
> mystical methods or beliefs that are not scientifically repeatable.
> It is fair to point out faith-based components that are not
> falsifiable or testable.
Indeed it is. No disagreement. But surely you agree that it would
have been wrong of me to respond to a Creationist's scientific paper
by merely pointing out that he is a Creationist, or was funded by
a Religious institution; doesn't it surely seem to you that it would
be more proper for me to address the *contents* of the paper?
> It is not fair to demand that I go through and refute every single fact
> without checking the sources for myself.
Oh, for sure! I don't even demand that you refute every single
fact :-)
> To ask me to determine the validity of results without reviewing
> the experimental method is unfair and time-wasting.
I was not. I applaud your extra efforts to learn as much as you
can before responding. I only object that you didn't really
address the *content* of the paper before, in effect, dismissing
it.
> If you still think I have not answered, try rephrasing the
> question.
Sure. Why don't you, instead, start your analysis by quoting parts
of the article that you found problematic, and criticize them instead,
and only later fit your explanations into the wider context of what
the background of the writer is, or where he's getting his funding?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:40 MST