Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Honesty Message-ID: <725@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 13:09:16 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.725 Posted: Thu Feb 21 13:09:16 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 20:15:29 EST Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 179 Two responses to my "Honesty" article: > [Ethan Vishniac] > 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. Before going on, I would like to interject that I agree wholeheartedly with Ethan's remarks regarding Von Neumann's first suggestion. > [Greg Kuperberg] > Firstly, in my article, I was not talking about "some creationists" or > even "a creationist". I was talking about Mr. Alan Ray Miller himself. > My posting was no guilt by association. It was a direct accusation. What > John Von Neumann, Claude Shannon, or Patterson said is irrelevant. > Secondly, every physicist I've talked to (that's worth his salt) knows damn > well what entropy means; Von Neumann was clearly being facetious. If > you're thinking of the layman, then I point out that Von Neumann couldn't > care less about laymen. Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, does care > about laymen, and I think (although I could be wrong on this count) that he > is careful to explain what entropy means before using it in his essays. > This invalidates most of the rest of your argument. I was concerned in my article neither to excuse creationist mystical appeals to the second law, nor to discuss Greg's charges of dishonesty against Ray, so I would say that the intent of my article has been misperceived. My points were two: (i) Patterson accepted a dishonest tactic when not practiced by creationists. (ii) Patterson attempted to trace creationist misuse of the second law to the VN/S anecdote. Regarding the first of these points, Von Neumann's second suggestion was seen as a joke by both Ethan ("clearly meant to be a joke") and Greg ("clearly ... facetious"), because entropy is a clearly understood concept ("well-known physics", "every physicist I've talked to (that's worth his salt) knows ... what entropy is"). I can see that I may grant one or the other of Greg and Ethan's points, but not both. If on the one hand entropy is so crystal clear and unambiguous, the joke becomes very dull indeed, something on the order of "no one knows what water really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage". So it's no joke. On the other hand, if the suggestion was a joke, it is only funny if entropy *is* susceptible to misinterpretation. So then entropy cannot be as unambiguous as you seem to say. Patterson himself does not seem to share your estimate as to the status of entropy, taking pains as he does to point this out, particularly as he does so in the context of talking about "educated persons": > [Patterson] > Shrouded in mystique, entropy's potential for misinterpretation is well > known even to students and practitioners of thermodynamics. So which is it? It can't be both. My second point (that Patterson was clearly in error in tracing creationist use of the second law to this anecdote, or even to this time period) remains the same: >> [DuBois] >> In addition, his implication is provably false. One need only >> demonstrate references to use of entropy by creationists prior to >> 1971, and this is hardly difficult. One example is a book by Henry >> Morris (The Twilight of Evolution, 1963). This was referenced by >> Patterson himself, but evidently he did not read it very carefully >> aside from using it to find a few suitably ridiculous-sounding >> quotes (a charge sometimes levelled at creationists, no?). >> Davidheiser (Evolution and Christian Faith, 1969) is another example >> of such language prior to 1971. > [Greg] > This is unsubstantiated. I've read Gish's blurb on thermodynamics and I > found it to be garbage. Please state the argument clearly and then we'll > see if it's valid. Gish? I never mentioned Gish. Why do you? Besides, the point was not to assert that creationists use the second law correctly, but that Patterson didn't know what he was talking about. My argument had nothing to do with the meaning of the second law, but rather whether creationists have done what Patterson implies. They did not, and this can be (i.e., was) demonstrated. Creationists didn't just pick up and twist the concept of entropy in 1971 as a result of seeing the Von Neumann/Shannon anecdote. They used it before that. Perhaps the significance they attach to it is incorrect; the implication that they got the idea of using it in the way they do from the VN/S anecdote is certainly false. Patterson ought to have known that, as I said, because one of the books that refutes his point is in his *own* reference list. This is scholarship as poor as that often said to characterize creationists. Think about it. >> [DuBois] >> Why do I submit this article? > [Greg] > To decree guilt by association, perhaps. My first guess was that you are > attempting to stanch the flow of charges of dishonesty levelled at > creationists, but you explicitly denied this in the next sentence, so I > could be wrong. > ... > Since you're discussing my charges of dishonesty (and Bill Jefferys'), > please look for dishonesty in our writings rather than Mr. Patterson's. I was not discussing your charges of dishonesty (but see below). I wish to repeat that I am not trying to excuse any creationist who chooses to be dishonest (and remember that I did not deny the possibility). I wish to repeat that non-creationists (e.g., Patterson) sometimes engage in what we might call less-than-commendable means to express their point. Remember: I have not stated that *all* non- creationists do so; I explicitly stated otherwise. I did *not* state that dishonesty is allowable for creationists; I explicitly stated otherwise. But I certainly am not going to say that dishonesty is allowable for anyone else, either. Patterson's statements seem to me *at a minimum* highly questionable. I don't want to call him a liar, but if he isn't (and I hope he isn't) then he didn't do much homework before committing his ideas to paper. That suggestions such as these provoke the response they do is very telling. It is as though the possibility that non- creationists might not always be immaculate in their practices in inconceivable. To me this signifies another stain on the white lab coat; one which, moreover, is considered indelicate to discuss. I won't excuse creationist dishonesty (when demonstrated), but you need not expect that non-creationist dishonesty shall be ignored. ---- On another note: I had not really intended to respond to Greg's invitation to discuss the charges of dishonesty raised against Ray Miller, but upon re-examination of the articles in question, I see that there are some points that bear discussion. Therefore, I will try to address issues that have been raised, and will do so as follows: Article 1. My own reply to SOR #4. This will be a prelude to other articles. Since it will be a creationist replying to a creationist, it will be (as you might expect) less antagonistic than those which have appeared thus far. This is not to say that I disagree with all the criticisms that have been raised. On the contrary, I think some of them have merit, and I will state that fact, and why. Article 2. Response to Greg Kuperberg's first reply to SOR4. Articles 3-6. Response to Bill Jefferys' reply to SOR4. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but | the honor of kings is to search out a matter" | Proverbs 25:2