Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Bill:

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Bill Rea <bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

> Karl wrote:-
>
> >Strange, those "highly idiosyncratic definitions" were taken directly
> >from science textbooks, agreed to by scientists when I discussed the
> >issues with them, even on open fora such as the international skeptics
> >board (when they had open discussions). I have yet to interact with a
> >working physicist, chemist or other scientist who disagrees with those
> >"highly idiosyncratic definitions". Does that mean that most scientists
>
> >are "not talking about what most of the rest of the world would
> understand
> >by that word (science)"?
>
>
> I'm not sure what your point is. We've been round this before.


Yes we have been round this before, so you should know better. That you have
made this latest claim indicates to me intellectual dishonesty on your part.

It is further disingenuous when you make the claim "His definition is
religiously motivated as he wishes to have a definition which excludes
evolution from being science." when I have already imparted on this list
that I learned the definition of science from Dr.s George Gaylord Simpson
and William S. Beck (look up on Amazon.com, see how many of their books are
still selling) then afterwards, and only afterwards, learned their
definition for evolution, and recognized that their definition for evolution
is logically incompatible with their definition for science. For you to turn
it around is dishonest.


> I think
> its just being honest to say your definitions are non-standard and as
> such are a source of confusion.


I didn't think it was necessary, since it's not my definition in the first
place. Further, I was not going to make a scene about it as it is off topic
(b-hebrew). But now that you have …


> I posted to clarify the situation. You
> may think that your definition is standard, but it is non-standard
> and list members have a right to be aware of that. Otherwise they end up
>
> like Tory, confused about what you mean. Just about every time you post
> your definition someone points out that your definition is faulty.


The only thing I have done differently than many scientists, is that I have
accepted the definition I was given, then taken it to its logical
conclusion. There are many studies I have seen that have been called
"scientific" but which violate the definition I was given. It is that
illogical activity that confuses people.


> So
> you can't claim you haven't been told. I have nine refereed scientific
> publications to my name. So I'm a working scientist. There, you've just
> interacted with me. Now you can stop claiming you've never interacted
> with a working scientist who disagrees with you.


OK, since it is not *my* definition for science (you could call me guilty
of plagiarism), has the definition of science changed since when it was
written down by Dr.s Simpson and Beck, as well as all other science
textbooks that gave a definition for science I checked at that time from
physicists, chemists, etc.? Or do you claim that those scientist textbook
writers did not know what they were talking about when they gave the
definition that I learned? Where, how and why do you disagree with those
scientist writers? Why should I listen to you, a single person, instead of
to the many I checked with before, especially in view of your dishonesty
shown above?

>
>
> Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
> E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                       </   New
> Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332    /)  Zealand
> Unix Systems Administrator                              (/'
>
>
> Since this is off topic, should we continue? I don't think so.
Karl W. Randolph.