Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Honesty
Message-ID: <4724@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Feb-85 22:52:09 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4724
Posted: Sat Feb  2 22:52:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 11:33:29 EST
References: <968@utastro.UUCP> <4565@cbscc.UUCP> <1012@utastro.UUCP> <4639@cbscc.UUCP>, <330@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 37

[From Mike Huybensz:]
}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.

Sure.  I'll do that if you will read _Betrayers of the Truth_.  (Oh, I forgot
you're one who doesn't have to read an argument to know it's unfounded).

Letters to journals hardly constitute scientific review.  In paticular they
don't do much to expose things like faked data.  A good scientific review
process involves scrutiny of work by one's peers before anything is even
published.  Do you have any idea how many scientific journals there are
published today?  The British Medical Journal noted that there are at least
8,000 in medicine alone.  Do you think they're all covered by the review
process?  90 percent of all the scientists that ever lived are alive today.
Do you think all their work gets checked?  Do yourself a favor and read the
book, Mike.

}> 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.

Your condesending attitude goes a long way toward the explanation, I think.
Why don't you give us your definition of what "best" and "worst" mean?
Some things that seem one way to you seem different to me.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd