Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Honesty
Message-ID: <330@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Jan-85 10:24:11 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.330
Posted: Fri Jan 25 10:24:11 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 05:12:46 EST
References: <968@utastro.UUCP> <4565@cbscc.UUCP> <1012@utastro.UUCP> <4639@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 32
Summary: 

In article <4639@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes:
> ... The point of my article was pretty clear, I think.  The standards
> of honesty and critical scrutiny that are exacted of creationism
> are not applied internally in the scientific community itself.
> "Orthodox" science all to often covers over its "worst" in order to
> avoid disrespect from the community.  All the while many members of
> this orthodoxy insist on flying the dirty laundry of creationism
> from the highest flagpole.  I think that, in measuring the "best"
> and "worst" of each camp, you are not using the same standard.

I am reminded of the accusation (from The Odd Couple) "He HAS no white
things."  (Implying his underwear is gray at best.... :-)

If you think standards of honesty and critical scrutiny are not applied
by scientists to eachother, I invite you to read the letters sections of
journals such as Scientific American, Nature, Science, and a host of
others.  The scrutiny can be so intense as to be flamelike.  Or read
"Not In Our Genes", an attempt by several Harvard scientists to rebut
some of the claims of sociobiologists.

> I make no judgements as to what the "worst" of science or the
> "best" of creationism is.

Oh, but please do.  I really want to see what the best of creationism is.
Everything I've seen is little better than the pamphlets whatshisname is
putting out.  There is a qualitative difference involved: creationist
publications seem (to me) always to depend heavily upon fallacies of
argument, while scientific works seldom do.  Perhaps that is sufficient
to explain the differences in criticism you perceive.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh