Ashby dishonesty and bias (was: botanical facts

Peter Ashby p-ashby at
Fri Oct 2 03:33:57 EST 1998

In article <6utq53$8t4$2 at>, yuku at
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

> Peter Ashby (p-ashby at 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
> ask.

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.


Peter Ashby
Eukaryotic Molecular Genetics
Nat. Inst. Med. Res.

Reverse the spam and remove to email me.

More information about the Bioforum mailing list