Poor logic

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 01:29:38 -0700

SJ: Kevin's arguments to date in support of his theory have been inadequate.

So you claim but have failed to show so.

SJ: That in itself is not surprising, when the author of the proteinoid theory,
Sidney Fox, has been unable to convince the majority of his scientific
materialist colleagues that his theory is a realistic model of the origin of life
under plausible early-Earth conditions.

Again a fallacy in SJ's argument. The argument should be addressed based on its merrits, not on what SJ perceives motivates outhes.

SJ: When confronted with counter-arguments Kevin typically has launched into a
complex digression which has little or nothing to do with the point under
discussion. He then thinks he has answered the point!

And SJ believes that ignoring Fox is the answer.
SJ: In the end there is no need to refute Kevin's argument on behalf of Fox's
proteinoids. The scientific community concerned with the origin of life
are increasingly ignoring it, and it will quietly slip into that most
wonderful of all time-saving inventions: the ashcan of history!

More poor logic from our friend SJ. Why can SJ not address the arguments rather than resort to such silly attempts to stall?

SJ: However, for the record, I have no "contempt for science" only contempt for
*pseudo*-science which "depends less upon its subject matter than upon the
attitude of its adherents towards criticism" and whose adherents "feel
personally threatened when the theory is under attack" and "leads such
people to embrace uncritically any device that preserves the theory from

I am glad that you have contempt for much of the YEC creationism then.

KO>Steve himself has been unable to provide any evidence that invalidates
>any of the research or which supports his claim that the research is

SJ: See above on the burden of proof. Since it is *Kevin* who is proposing the
theory, it is up to *him* to support it, not up to me to refute it.

Again SJ shows some ignorance of how science works. Yes, it's up to Kevin to support his theory and he has done quite well here. And not only that but he has skillfully exposed that SJ is unable to refute his arguments.

SJ: But in fact I *have* provided "evidence that invalidates" Fox's proteinoid
"research" but Kevin just ignores it by changing the subject and/or dismissing
the critics I cite as either knaves or fools.

Why are you then resorting to such silly arguments. Why not stick to the arguments which you believe truely refute Fox?

SJ: Kevin's is the *pseudoscientific* method. One could prove *any* theory using
Kevin's method.

More confusion about "proof", theory and how science works.

KO>All he has been able to offer are personal opinion that is based on
personal bias, misconceptions or speculation.

SJ : It is instructive to note how Kevin protects his theory from falsification by
dismissing any counter-evidence as "personal opinion", "bias",
"misconceptions" or "speculation."

If the counter evidence is based upon "well other scientists do not take him seriously" then indeed kevin's arguments are valid.

SJ: It is also instructive that Fox uses this same pseudoscientific method when he
accuses those non-theistic scientists who oppose his theory of being

"Some of the objections raised by scientists to the proteinoid model are at
times repeated by creationists, not necessarily the ICR creationists. There is,
furthermore, little doubt that some degree of creationistic thinking enters into
the personally held paradigms of many scientists" (Fox S.W., "Creationism
and Evolutionary Protobiogenesis", in Montagu A., ed., "Science and
Creationism", 1984, p213)

More reading problems on the part of SJ.

SJ: Shapiro regards Fox's the relation of Fox's proteinoid microspheres to the
actual processes of life, as "merely shadow play":

"Similarly, the various properties shown by the microspheres-division, weak
catalytic activity, a doublelayered border, electrical signals, and the rest-may
be somewhat general properties of microscopic particles of a certain size and
unrelated, or only slightly related, to the actual processes of life. During my
childhood, I learned that I could make the shadow of a dog with my hand. I
needed only to point my thumb out, bend in my index finger, and hold my
hand before a light to produce the image of a dog's head on the wall. I could
enhance the effect by moving my pinky while making barking noises. But this
form was not a dog, nor could it ever become one; it was merely shadow
play. In the same way, the properties of the microspheres, while entertaining,
may be merely shadow play." (Shapiro R., 1986, p200)

More reading problems "may be merely shadow play" has become "merely shadow play" in SJ's world. If SJ could only spend some more time on his arguments and his references, then he would save himself from much embarassment.
KO>This is incorrect. I last spoke to Dose only a month ago. We argued
>over whether thermal protocells constitute a viable living system

SJ :Well that is interesting in itself! If Fox and Kevin think that Fox's proteinoid
microspheres are "a viable living system" and Klaus Dose, "an outstanding
exponent of the protein-first school of thought" (Shapiro R., "Origins", 1986,
p268), does not, then why should *anyone* believe Fox and Kevin that they

Poor logic.

SJ has shown how his reading comprehension has become an obstacle in presenting a real refutal of Fox and Kevin's arguments.

In the end what is left in SJ's arguments are "well others seem to think..."

Not very convincing