I just wanted to point out that Dick starts the paragraph below in a direction I have seen many arguments take: Premice: The other person doesn't have any formal education in the field of _____________. Conclusion: Their arguments can't be valide, nor their conclusions true. But, then he very nicely avoids that by pointing out that it is not just Phil Johnson's lack of formal education (I assume he does lack this) in one or more particular areas he questions, it is also his lack of experience or even self education (again I assume he lacks these), which when added to the lack of formal education in particular areas causes Dick to question his arguments and conclusions.
I bring this up only to point out that a lack of a formal education is not a barrier to presenting good arguments in a field. Ihave and I suspect many of you know some people who have no formal education in a particular area but are non the less quite knowledgable about it. Argueing or implying that the lack of a formal education prevents knowledge of a subject is not only illogical but can ease over into the ad hominim form of invalid argument.
I haven't seen this argument used often on this list and for that I am grateful. People here seem to only ask that the correspondents be knoweldable of the subject matter regardless of how they learned it, formal education, work experience, or self education through reading and correspondence.
It's nice to be part of such a group. I have learned much about much in the past few years reading these posts and even if I don't learn something eferytime, sometimes someone just says something nice that I hadn't thought of and it makes me smile.
I look forward to reading more good stuff.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Phil Johnson
If PJ comments on jurisprudence, where he has a doctorate degree, then I would
consider him an authority. I am unaware of any formal scientific or theological
training. My masters degree is in theology, for example. I don't see how he is
qualified to make statements about either of those subjects. As for "unbiased
investigation." How has he investigated the mechanics of genetic change, for
example? I have. How has he studied the phyletic tree of life that indicates
mutual shared common ancestry as Glenn Morton has? How has he studied
biological evolution as Keith Miller has? In short, he exhorts others to do what
he, as far as I know, has not.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 13:08:15 EDT