<HTML>Anthony wrote:
>
>
> If we agree on this, as you have stated, then we agree on the
> absolute heart of the matter. Everything else is just window
> dressing.
Would that that were true, but you continue on...
> No, Joanne. Mixing baking soda with vinegar and watching it
> fizz is chemistry in action. Studying the reaction and
> finding out how it is occuring is science.
You are splitting the wrong hairs here.
> I'm not talking about "research methods", I'm talking about
> the actual function of creating the logical argument that
> leads to the/a logical conclusion.
So am I.
> I have yet to see a new
> methodology created to supercede logic and logical
> argumentation.
Logic is not an absolute. It depends on language and culture. I thought you would have known that from Anthro 101. Methodology is reasoning. This is part of what I keep trying to emphasize when I mention alternate hypothesis, and trying to understand a problem from every possible angle. If someone has missed an angle, or not gone down an avenue of exploration, something may have been missed. A new approach to the problem <I>is</I> a new methodology and that can supercede the earlier solution.
> I've seen people provided with plenty of "data" (facts) that
> are quite persuasive, yet they have been duped by a flawed
> methodology into thinking the pseudo-argument is "better",
> and they adhere to the erroneous conclusion. Take
> "Intelligent Design", for example. Horrendously flawed
> methodology, lots of contrary data, millions of adherents.
> Oh well.
Facts generally can't be persuasive on their own, they need to be argued. You are really saying that you have seen bad arguments. I'm saying it's important to argue properly against such stuff, not attack with an equally bad or only slightly better argument. (see below)
> That would be the "misrepresentation" portion. It may not be
> intentional misrepresentation, but it is still a
> misrepresentation. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity
> to clarify that position.
Sometimes, I don't think we speak the same language. "Misrepresesent" implies dishonesty. I think what you mean here is "misstate." Misstating the facts is an honest mistake.
> That's not good science. You begin
> > here by assuming some "evil" people are out to hoax others
> > and must be "exposed" -- that sounds like zealotry and
> > religiousity, not science or good scholarship.
>
>
> I am not the topic of discussion here. Historical research is.
Your argument is flawed here; it is fair to the discussion to point that out.
> Because the proponent is often <i>still</i> pushing their
> failed theories as if they were completely valid. Davidovits
> is still out there claiming Khufu's pyramid is made of
> geopolymers. So long as people keep pushing, an equal and
> opposite force must be raised to re-educate new people about
> the flaw in the argument.
Some people believe they are right. Sometimes they are and they have not argued their hypothesis well. Sometimes they are partly right, and hang on to that. The cure is not smart-aleck, zealous debunking. The cure is addressing whatever the problem is with as much reason as we can.
> People are still touting Piazzi-Smith and Cayce as if they
> got it exactly right. People still claim the Gizamids are at
> the geographic centerpoint of the earth. The list goes on,
> and you know it certainly as well as I do. Hey.. people
> still thing Neugebauer is right...
Don't you think that is because they don't know any better? Some people are not well-educated or well-read and they don't have access to material that might convince them otherwise. Some don't even know where to look or how to look. Giving them factual information and explaining how it contradicts what they believe is the solution.
> And there you have it! By teaching <i>good
> methodology</i>... by offering highly visible criticism of
> <i>bad methodology</i>... we <i>are</i> educating the public
> on "how to think", and not on "what to think".
>
> Again, we are in complete agreement.
Well, not completely. I don't advocate " highly visible criticism of <i>bad methodology</i>," I advocate high quality criticism of bad methodology. When I have criticized the bad methodology of debunkers, such as some CSICOP pieces, Krupp or Feder, I've been trashed on this board for my views. I have not seen you (or some of my other adversaries in this area "educating the public on 'how to think'" at all. I've seen dogmaticism, one-liners, "fallacy abuse," and flippancy. That's what has bothered me. There's no real debate. I would like to see more "how to think critically" being pushed on this board.
> They are welcome to keep trying to "prove" their claims. The
> problem comes when they state that their claim is proven, yet
> still unaccepted by "closed-minded" professional
> historians/archaeologists/egyptologists, and then foster
> animosity against the professionals. It's akin to someone
> promoting an agenda of killing all the doctors, and replacing
> them with evangelical faith healers.
No it isn't. Which fringe author advocates killing all scholars and replacing them with best-selling authors? And provide quotes...Moving past this baloney, I don't think scholars need to defend themselves against fringe authors. The groups of followers you mention are the people who don't know any better and need to be reached. When you come up with a silly paragraph like this one just above and a very bad analogy, you're not giving them a real alternative. This is a case in point of EXACTLY what I've been objecting to.
And no, what I have written here is not a personal attack on you, Anthony. It is a valid objection to an extremely poor argument you have made with a very bad analogy that grossly distorts reality.
Joanne
</HTML>
