Re: Payne-Miller dialogue regarding facts/interpretation

Date: Mon Jun 18 2001 - 10:40:26 EDT

  • Next message: Paul Nelson: "Re: Macro- and microevolution [was Re: Icons of Evolution]"

    Bill Payne wrote,

    > Joel, what you have done here is conflate evolution with heliocentricity
    > and atomic structure. There is a major difference between interpretating
    > *historical* science and *experimental* science. Perhaps this divergence
    > in our view of data is rooted in our employment. Those of you who work
    > in the university and government environment are insulated from the world
    > of litigation. You can say practically anything you like about science
    > without fear of a lawsuit.

    Really now? I don't think it is far out of line to think that frauds can
    be found in any form of enterprise. There wouldn't be litigation were it
    not for that fact that there *is* fraud. I for one care about whether my
    reports are true or false. I may have it wrong, but I certainly have not
    tried to bamboozle my peers, sell a big sham, or otherwise fall far short
    of my calling as a seeker of truth in the academic world. Moreover, in as
    much as I can, I try to find out if what I have read is true.

    I don't much care if you don't want to agree with what academia, or anyone
    else for that matter. You can reject the whole world if you want. That is
    option. However, don't insinuate that academics are a bunch of liars. If we
    mislead, you must demonstrate where we are mislead. Otherwise, just say you
    don't want to agree and get on with life.

    by Grace and Grace alone do we proceed,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 18 2001 - 10:40:40 EDT