Quetzal,
You comment,
Well, Stephen, I find it difficult to credence that a published scientist like yourself would cling to such utter nonsense like bible codes and ELS as proof of the inerrancy of your religious books. I also find it difficult to see how someone versed in the peer-review process can accept work like Carpenter's self-published magnum opus without corroboration.
First, that you find it difficult is the main point of my last post, where I alerted you to the danger you were in from the pressure of your subjectivity. This is what makes understanding and objective evaluation difficult.
Second, that I am published is irrelevant. That my publications have had such a resounding impact on ecological thought is relevant. Especially when I make claims such as authoring the "Central Theory of Ecology."
Third, you see me "clinging" to certain ideas, when I am on record throughout these discussions here, and in all my publications, as renouncing clinging to any ideas at all. I call it dogmatic opinionation, and became a H-D scientist to protect myself from clinging. That methodology means that I will ultimately be forced to change my mind about everything I think, but not gullibly or in unproductive ways. I will ultimately be forced to admit that Newton was sort of wrong, while retaining the usefulness of his thinking. Normally, to accuse someone of something that they are trying very hard not to do, and have a plan to protect themselves from doing, suggests strongly that you are projecting. You know it is wrong to cling to ideas, and so feel guilty because that is what you are doing. That guilt causes you to project that guilt onto others, rather than endure the discomfort of admitting you are doing it yourself. Theologians call this the "logs and splinters" problem, where you have a log in your eye, but judge others for the splinter in their eye. (I am human, and so am strongly tempted as all humans to cling to my opininons.) Beware.
Fourth, to call the research of such eminent and successful scientists such as Doron Witztum, Elihu Rips, and Rosenburg (sp?), Harold Ganz, and others "utter nonsense" virtually proves my point. Your mind is swamped in subjectivity, and is not serving any choice you have made for life and truth.
Fifth, the expression "proof of the inerrancy" refers to an agenda that I have also renounced and denounced, explicitly. In H-D science, there is no proof, since every idea is slated to need modification sooner or later. Some are more plausible than others, but none have a plausibility of p=1, are proved. Moreover, I have read the bible. In what amounts to its preface, it basically states a purpose that renounces the concept of "inerrancy." In fact, the scriptures warn there will be those, who will lie and call themselves believers, who will lie about the bible. This, to me clearly includes those who advocate inerrant biblical interpretation. They exist to confuse and deceive others regarding the self-stated purpose of the Bible. The question for truth seekers is, "Is the self-stated purpose of the bible "true" in the sense that it accomplishes that purpose, if used as it directs." This the Bible Code studies confirm, whether you like it or not. That's the way scientific data are. They force you to either change your mind, or turn away from your scientific profession.
Sixth, why do you hold up peer review as an honorable scientific practise? True, it is traditional, but Thomas Kuhn has shown that traditional science has nothing to do with truth, only the maintainence of "accepted paradigms." Tenure in scientific professions was instituted because it was understood that "peer review" was unreliable in the judgement of scientific debates. I personally call it "sneer" review, and in my career, my greatest successes were all accomplished in spite of peer review rejections.
Seventh, I specifically stated that Carpenter's work was corroborated by MacDougal's, unless Carpenter was lying. But, your subjectivity blinded you to that fact.
I have no interest in debating the issue of souls OR the issue of the bible codes. It holds little or no relevance for science, or for me for that matter. However, in the interests of fairness, let me reference a few of those critics you so cavalierly dismiss for those who may not be aware of the rebuttals.
Then stop calling yourself a scientist. A scientist has no right to the title if they do not pursue epsitemological issues that determine or significantly affect the way they go about seeking knowledge and truth. "It holds little or no relevance for science"? How can that be? Don't tell me you are one of those "The PhD is just a union card for a pretty cush job." frauds. The soul, if it exists as an dark-matter entity independent of the electro-magnetic body, is what is doing the science! Your comment is like a lichen biologist saying that they have no interest in whether lichens really have algae or cyano whatevers growing within them! Buck up, Quetzal. If you are going to call yourself by such a glorious expression of life, you need to set a higher standard for yourself.
As to rebuttals, the most cursory review of the history of science proves beyond reasonable doubt that anyone giving credence to rebuttals to new ideas, basing doubt upon them, is unworthy of our attention. Way too many ideas that proved useful were "successfully rebutted" when they first appeared. Why would you post the rebuttals, and not comment on the replications? Who taught you how to do science? I need to write them a complaint!
Underhanded methods? All of these authors have utterly eviscerated the entire subject, using the exact same statistical methodologies used by the originators. They've successfully called into question methodology, experimental design, and developed falsifications for each of the key premises in both ELS and theomatics.
This statement is simply not true, and if you had read the original works (as an honest scientist would have done), and compared their methods to those of their critics, you would have known this. But, I agree, they did successfully call the whole thing into question, it the minds of the gullible, anyway.
I share your disappointment. My fate compares to that of Diogenes, looking, looking, looking, for an honest man. Is this the way you have really chosen, to use truth to enhance your life?
Stephen
[This message has been edited by Stephen ben Yeshua, 01-09-2004]
As for lichens breaking down waste, I wouldn't expect it as much as a simple fungus. Lichens are typically a "colonizing" species. They grow incredibly slowly, and tend to get their energy from the algae, not the environment.
™ Version 4.2
