Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!rutgers!caip!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sci Subject: Re: Population control & Freedom Message-ID: <1793@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 16:29:35 EDT Article-I.D.: curly.1793 Posted: Mon Sep 29 16:29:35 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 05:59:19 EDT References: <564@gargoyle.UUCP> Organization: UCLA CS Department Lines: 101 Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle.UUCP:-56400:inmet:26500108:000:4742 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh Sep 28 18:11:00 1986 /* Written 6:04 pm Sep 28, 1986 by nrh@inmet.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* Written 8:21 pm Sep 23, 1986 by carnes@gargoyle.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >>>The worst thing that can happen -- will happen [in the 1980s] -- is >>>not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or >>>conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these >>>catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few >>>generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take >>>millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species >>>diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly >>>our descendants are least likely to forgive us. --Edward O. Wilson, >>>*Harvard Magazine*, Jan.-Feb. 1980 >> >>Tosh: the other disasters he mentions are worse, and less rever- >>sible. Genetic diversity can be increased very fast by creating >>*artificial* habitats, by genetic engineering and cross-breeding. >>[janw] > >Utter nonsense. Jan, please provide one shred of scientific support >for your claims. (This means: document your statements by >references to a scientific author or journal with authority to speak >in this area, e.g., E.O. Wilson. Quotes from *National Review*, >*Time*, or *Gung-Ho For Freedom* do not count.) And now, Richard, it is time for you to go back to the books and consider a thing or two about what the word "scientific" means. 1. The word "scientific" does not mean "argued from authority", or "supported by a journal chosen by Richard Carnes" 2. The word "scientific" has to do with they way hypotheses are tested. Not with who argues them nor, except tangentially, where they are written up. I wouldn't be so harsh on you, but you have argued from authority and then attempted to bolster this conduct by ducking the issue of whether Jan was right or not and requiring Jan to give "scientific" support (where you incorrectly define the term "scientific"!). However, the proper answer to arguments from authority is not simply: "but that's an argument from authority!" but includes:, "oh? and why does HE say it". Wilson may feel, or even be able to show (scientifically) that genetic diversity is in peril if nothing changes. Jan, you will note, did *NOT* argue that nothing should change, but rather that the danger may be avoided or the damage repaired via certain means -- means that your quote from Wilson does not attack. >One has to admire Jan's chutzpah in implying that the distinguished >population biologist and behavioral ecologist Edward Wilson doesn't >understand the facts about genetic diversity. But I admire yours more! You have not answered Jan at all, and you've attempted to brand him as unscientific, all the while arguing from authority rather than firm grounds. I particularly like your idea of "scientific" as something that goes on in journals. Does this mean the Targ-Puthoff work on remote viewing is "scientific"? It did appear in "Nature"! No -- science has to do with subtler questions than mere appearance in a journal. Just for example: it is not scientific to talk about proving the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent God -- because there'd be no way to prevent such a being from interfering with the experiment itself. On the other hand, there are many learned journals of theology and philosophy: does that make their content scientific? >But of course it's >entirely possible that Jan has a better understanding of this >subject. Not difficult, at least in this one case, for Jan to have a better understanding of it than YOURS: you misunderstood his point and quoted an answer to the wrong question. You're in no shape to argue that Jan's understanding is flawed! >So please give us a lecture on this subject, Jan, and >explain where Wilson goes wrong. Explain what genetic diversity is, >how it is quantified and measured, and the nature of the present >threat, if any. It shouldn't take you very long. Tsk! When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law, and when neither one is on your side, pound the table! Since you understand argumentation so well, Mr Carnes, and since you feel it proper to assign topics, here's a lecture topic for you: Why the argument from authority is specious, and why one should never quote an authority in answer to the WRONG QUESTION. >If time permits I will post some passages from Wilson that support >and amplify the passage I quoted. But none, I trust, that actually attack Jan's proposal. (Of course if there are some, I'd be eager to see them, they'd be important and they would likely shed light on other answers to the problem). /* End of text from inmet:talk.pol.misc */