Ashby dishonesty and bias (was: botanical facts
p-ashby at nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk
Fri Oct 2 03:33:57 EST 1998
In article <6utq53$8t4$2 at whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku at globalserve.net
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Peter Ashby (p-ashby at nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk) wrote on 29 Sep 1998 11:58:45 GMT:
> > Just a few points for you Yuri.
> > 1. You used the term 'epistemological relativism' in an attempted
> > deragoatory response to me. I asked you to define it and explain why it
> > was relevant to my argument. You have failed to do so. Until you do so I
> > will assume that you used the term without knowing its meaning.
> Many current problems in philosophy of science find their source in
> epistemological relativism. Relativism, the claim that rules for justified
> theory acceptance can vary from context to context, leads to the troubling
> conclusion that rational theory choice is impossible.
> There are different types of relativism. Often it finds its source in the
> claim, based on Hume, that evidence radically underdetermines theory
> choice. Also, some relativists use or misuse the thesis of Kuhn that the
> contexts of theory choice are 'incommensurable'.
> Rationalism, the claim that there are rational and objective standards for
> theory evaluation, is usually opposed to relativism.
> So epistemological relativism is really a kind of a common New Age
> fallacy. Such Newagers love to cast doubt on the ability of science to
> provide good answers to the questions scientists and historians usually
Yes very nice Yuri, which dictionary of philosophy did you look that up
in? Some points: 1. Are you implying that you are a rationalist?
2. Your attempt to link e.r. with 'new age' philosophy by implication is
interesting but without some evidence yet more weaseling and name calling.
3. I consider myself a rationalist. I do not doubt the ability of sclence
to (generally) provide GOOD answers. I have been disputing with you your
conviction that science can provide ABSOLUTE answers. That does not make
me a relativist Yuri, by your own definition it makes me a rationalist.
BTW i don't believe in the special powers of crystals.
> > 2. In the botanical thread you tried to argue that proof that one
> > plant on your EI list was human introduced, was proof that all plants
> > on your list were human introduced.
> You're being dishonest. I've never made such a claim. I merely said that
> these arguments are cumulative. But you can't read.
Oh another backtrack. I must look up your old posts to prove to you that
you said it. If you *meant* the arguments were cumulative then you need to
learn to express yourself more clearly as I am not the only one to have
interpreted you this way.
> > I pointed out that to stop this being ridiculously absurd (rather than
> > just absurd) you need to explain why your list stopped where it did
> > rather than including the trees and the grass. Since you haven't
> > responded I assume you have withdrawn your flawed logic.
> That's because you don't have a brain, my poor misguided friend.
Yet another piece of abuse from Mr. Kuchinsky in lieu of reasoned
argument. I will let his attack stand in evidence against him.
Eukaryotic Molecular Genetics
Nat. Inst. Med. Res.
Reverse the spam and remove to email me.
More information about the Bioforum