Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Honesty
Message-ID: <4@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 18:04:29 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.4
Posted: Tue Jan 22 18:04:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 05:25:30 EST
References: <692@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 52

[]
I have been very busy recently and have not been following this newsgroup
particularly closely.  My apologies in advance if I am covering ground
someone has already addressed.

The following is a brief response to Paul Dubois' article in which
he quotes a letter from Von Neumann to Claude Shannon.  I will repeat
the quote here

    'In the first
    place, your uncertainty function has been used in statistical
    mechanics under that name, so it already has a name.  In the
    second place, and more important, _no one knows what entropy
    really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage_'
    
Now Paul goes on to accuse Patterson of hypocrisy for condemming creationists
for making mystical appeals to the 2nd law while regarding the above advice
as merely humorous.  Is this reasonable?

    As the quote clearly shows, the subject under discussion is what to call
a well-defined quantity.  Presumably Shannon was all set to call it 
Grebzorkitude instead :-).  There is no question here about drawing bogus
conclusions from well known physics.  It is a question of nomenclature.
The first point raised by Von Neumann is reasonable and helpful.  The second
is clearly meant to be joke.  In exactly what context would calling it entropy
lead to giving Shannon an advantage in a debate? and with whom?  In fact, 
calling it entropy gives nonspecialists some idea of what the function is
before they become well-versed in the field.  Calling it Grebzorkitude would
merely add jargon to the field.

    Creationists are not being accused of misusing the concept of entropy
by calling something entropy which actually is entirely different.  They
stand accused by taking the usual physical concept of entropy and 
misapplying it, and of drawing erroneous conclusions from the same second law 
we all know and love.  If they understand it, then those that attempt to 
bolster their position with its use, in ways we have seen here, *are* being 
dishonest.  Of course, if they are merely mistaken then it is unfair to impugn
their moral characters on that account.  Whether or not calling someone a liar
who is merely wrong is a good debating tactic is an interesting question, but
not relevant to merits (or lack thereof) of creationism.

*****************************************************************
This is a generic disclaimer.  As such it may contain unsightly impurities.
However, these impurities are guaranteed to be purely cosmetic.  They
should have no effect on the functioning of the disclaimer.
*****************************************************************

"Don't argue with a fool.      Ethan Vishniac
 Borrow his money."            {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas
                               Austin, Texas 78712