Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: astronomers, flesh and blood gliders, out-of-context quotes
Message-ID: <722@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Sep-85 12:01:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.722
Posted: Sun Sep 15 12:01:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 03:12:21 EDT
References: <395@imsvax.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 50


Ted accused Bill of "sealing his mind off from logic". Let's look at some
of Ted's diatribes and their contents and see how well he does.

1) Ted has stated that mathematics is wrong and is based on incorrect
   assumptions. Since it was mathematics that allowed us to send
   a spacecraft to successfully intercept a comet last week Ted's
   statement is demonstrably incorrect, and hence Ted's knowledge
   of mathematics is suspect.

2) Ted has criticized all authors of textbooks. He could not find
   a single branch of study to exempt from this proclamation.
   Ted's sense of reality is suspect.
   
3) Ted has been confronted with an error in the manner in which he quoted
   material from someone's work. Instead of correcting the error by
   retracting that part of his argument, he did nothing. Ted's
   integrity is therefore suspect.

4) Look at the following:

>           trees.  None  of these creatures RELIES on gliding as its primary
>           mode of transportation and, in  that  sense,  there  are  no true
>           gliders amongst  the animals  of our planet.  There are none now,
>           there have never been any, and there never shall be any.
  
   Ted claims that we will never find any fossils
   or remains of creatures that rely on gliding as their primary
   mode of transportation. One can say that one thinks it unlikely
   for certain reasons, but it is not scientific to say it without
   qualification. Ted's delusions of doing science are therefore suspect.

Ted you are making a poor impression here. I might be wrong, but the above
seem to indicate that (a) you are ignorant of mathematics, (b) you
are ignorant of reality, (c) you are lacking in integrity, and
(d) you are ignorant of science. In short, you are ignorant.

Now I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I will
wait for you to show me how wrong I am; all you have to do is make
simple retractions, or even qualifications, to the above four topics.
It's real easy. Just say something like "math works pretty well", and
maybe an admission like "I don't know absolutely everything, therefore
I was wrong when I said that all textbook authors are wrong". A small
comment like "I seem to have made a mistake when I failed to retract
an error that was pointed out to me" would also go a long way towards
piecing the shreds of your credibility back together again.

Sincerely,

Padraig Houlahan.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com