Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Expert, Smexpert

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

IN A RECENT THREAD VJTORLEY WRITES:

Here’s a question for everyone: when is it rational NOT to believe an expert? That’s a difficult one. The following is a (by no means exhaustive) list of “warning signs” which indicate that what an expert says may be open to legitimate doubt:

(1) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the known facts are dwarfed by the unknowns, as much remains to be discovered. In that case, even if the expert knows a LOT more than you do, he/she is about as much in the dark as you are.
(Here’s a concrete mathematical illustration: if you know 0.01% of everything that could be known in the relevant field, and the expert knows 100 times more than you do, that’s still only 1%, which means that he/she is 99% in the dark, while you are 99.99% in the dark. That’s not much of a difference.)

(2) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the relevant uncertainties have not been adequately quantified.

(3) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the predictions made by the dominant scientific model are based on mechanisms whose causal adequacy to generate the effects predicted has not been established – in other words, where the capacity or efficacy of the mechanisms has not been adequately quantified.

(4) The expert makes a claim which strikes you as prima facie outrageously implausible, but is unable to demonstrate that the dominant scientific model upon which he/she relies is adequate to support that claim – in other words, the expert can’t prove to you that his/her model is at least capable of getting you from X to Y.

(5) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the predictions made by the dominant scientific model are highly sensitive to the initial assumptions which are input, so that a tiny revision in these assumptions dramatically alters the predictions made by the model.

(6) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the predictions appear to accord well with the data, but the mechanics of the phenomenon itself are poorly understood, so that the currently accepted model, while plausible, is not necessarily the only possible way of explaining the phenomenon – in other words, another model may supplant it in the future.

(7) The question in dispute relates to multiple disciplines, in several of which you have a limited degree of expertise, whereas the expert you are listening to has a great deal of expertise in just ONE of these disciplines.

(8) The expert in question has a track record of making bad judgements on other subjects with which you are familiar, and most of these judgements tend to betray a common cognitive blind-spot.

(9) The expert in question is very dogmatic about his/her claim, even though other experts in the same field have contrary opinions, or are considerably less certain about the claim.

(10) The claim itself appears to be ideologically motivated to some degree – i.e. it is accompanied by snide put-downs of alternative world-views which are held by many people, but not by the expert.

(11) The expert has been financially rewarded or has obtained fame or promotion by promoting his/her claim, but would not have been so rewarded had he/she promoted a contrary claim.

(12) The expert’s claim is asserted hotly and with great vehemence, accompanied by moral indignation and/or contempt towards those who question or reject the claim.

Can anyone think of any other warning signs? If so, please feel free to add to the list.

As an exercise, readers might like to check the boxes for neo-Darwinian evolution (as opposed to common descent) and the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming.

Regarding global warming, I think it’s best to be prepared. Personally, I’m skeptical that anthropogenic global warming is likely to be dangerous on a global scale over the next 100 years. But of course, I could be completely wrong. The good news is that even if anthropogenic global warming does pose a real threat to the biosphere, we have a feasible action plan that won’t cost the earth, that won’t line the pockets of the bureaucrats, and that will solve all our energy problems:

Sustainable Nuclear Power by Professor Barry Brook.

The following articles show (I hope) why it remains rational to doubt the claim that anthropogenic global warming is likely to be dangerous in the foreseeable future.

Why I am a Global Warming Skeptic by Dr. Doug Hoffman.

The Crumbling Pillars of Climate Change by Dr. Doug Hoffman.

The Grand View: Four Billion Years of Climate Change by Dr. Doug Hoffman.

Could Human CO2 Emissions Cause Another PETM? by Dr. Doug Hoffman.

A Demonstration that Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science by Dr. Roy Spencer.

Connecting the Dots: Theoretical and Observational Evidence for Negative Cloud Feedbacks by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. William Braswell.

Global Warming Skepticism 101 by Dr. Roy Spencer.

A Climate of Belief by Dr. Patrick Frank

Comments
Seversky at 99, thanks for thoughts! The main thing for the local resident is to actually, really know what is going on, and avoid being a victim, and ignore statistics that do not represent reality - as many statistics do not, in a local area. Of course, the sympathy of ER nurses may be useful, if he is looking for a wife.O'Leary
April 9, 2010
April
04
Apr
9
09
2010
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Where was the expert wrong? According to you, he designated the area a low-crime zone not a no-crime zone. Even if you were unlucky enough to get rolled by the outlaw biker and his buddies the area might still be statistically a low-crime zone. The expert would still be right to that extent. Of course, if the biker gang were foolish enough to pull off a whole string of robberies in the immediate vicinity then the expert might have to re-classify the area. Then the police, if they are smart, will consult the expert about the crime stats and he will be able to advise them about where they need to deploy extra resources. Experts are not gods but they can be useful.Seversky
April 9, 2010
April
04
Apr
9
09
2010
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
A number of good warning signs re experts have been offered here, and much thanks. Here's another one, from a little old hack: If advice doesn't accord with your own experience, be careful. For one thing, if you have lived a number of decades in your own environment, you might know more than you think. You can't put it into words, maybe, but that's not the same as not knowing. Here is an example: Maybe you know that a given street is not safe to walk down at night, even though a local expert proclaims your neighbourhood a low-crime zone. Why doubt? Because you know that a local outlaw biker was recently parolled and has a squat on that street, where his "friends" visit him. But the expert doesn't know, because he looks only at statistics, not immediate future events. An "immediate future event" is what will happen to you if you get rolled by the outlaw biker and his "friends". But hey, you will get loads of sympathy from the emergency room nurses.O'Leary
April 9, 2010
April
04
Apr
9
09
2010
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Seversky you stated: "we would have to disqualify all theologians since none can offer a mechanism by which God created life, the Universe and everything." I would have to say advances in our understanding of quantum mechanics, which has shown consciousness and transcendent information to be foundational and dominate of 3-D material reality, have rendered your objection obsolete. Indeed it is 3-D material reality which has been completely undermined as a valid scientific hypothesis to postulate "emergence" from, which makes all grandiose claims of atheistic evolutionary scientists absurd from first premises of science.bornagain77
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
---Morgentau: "StephenB, I believe they have evidence but not evidence that would count for you and me. Their “evidence” comes from their Godless Worldview and so seems credible to them." No, their "interpretation" of the facts comes from their world view. That they have no real evidence to support their world view is a different matter. --- "It is these assumptions that drive the Atheist scientist. If one believes God is not, how easily all things show His absence!" Learn from the wisdom of Aleta, who wrote, "This is not a God vs. no God issue, I don’t think."StephenB
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
StephenB @95,
..well before anyone claimed to be disturbed by a “shift.”
For those of us in the moderation queue, it is very frustrating that our comments may not appear for hours or never at all. You may never see a post from us where we point something like this out. I think it's unfair to use an apparent silence as evidence that there wasn't a response. This goes for all of us who are moderated, not just myself.Toronto
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
"My only concern was that the claim about that had metamorphosed perhaps accidentally from an earlier and narrower claim about “naturalistic forces generating macro evolution." Macro evolution is the essence of the debate. If no one can explain how macro evolution happened, then they cannot explain how all of life happened. So essentially to say macro evolution or all of life means the same thing. We can explain how a lot of life happened, just not all. The part they cannot explain is origin of life and origin of novel complex capabilities or what is commonly referred to as macro evolution here. No goal posts have been moved and the debate has not shifted. Many evolutionary biologist would be considered experts if they were honest but they are not. So in my book and my guess in anyone else's estimation no one is an expert that lies about what they know. Anyone want to call someone an expert who lies about what is known in their field. I wouldn't bet there would be too many who would do so.jerry
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
---Morgentau: "StephenB, I agree with you that naturalistic forces cannot explain all of life. My only concern was that the claim about that had metamorphosed perhaps accidentally from an earlier and narrower claim about “naturalistic forces generating macro evolution.” That is not exactly the issue on the table. The point is that evolutionary biologists cannot provide evidence to support that claim. ---"My only concern was that the claim about that had metamorphosed perhaps accidentally from an earlier and narrower claim about “naturalistic forces generating macro evolution.” I did use more than one term throughout because evolutionary biologists think that their mechanism can explain all of them, but the term "all of life" was used consistently and without any variation at 56, 61, and 64, and 66, well before anyone claimed to be disturbed by a "shift." So I am not buying the idea that there was any real confusion about terms.StephenB
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Oh my, how did "Godlessness" enter this discussion? Many of the experts that Stephen says aren't experts are believers in God. The original claim (and I appreciate you getting us back to the original claim, Morgentau) was "about naturalistic forces generating macro evolution." A belief that natural forces "generated macro evolution" is no more anti-God than a belief that natural forces generate any other aspect of the world. Theistic evolutionists, or evolutionary creationists (CE's, as gingoro prefers to be called) believe in common descent through the mechanisms described by the experts in mainstream science and also believe that the flow of natural events manifests the will of God. This is not a God vs. no God issue, I don't think.Aleta
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
StephenB, I believe they have evidence but not evidence that would count for you and me. Their "evidence" comes from their Godless Worldview and so seems credible to them. It is these assumptions that drive the Atheist scientist. If one believes God is not, how easily all things show His absence!Morgentau
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
It's also worth pointing out that while there is overwhelming consensus among biologists concerning the truth of evolution, there is no such consensus among theologians, even on issues as fundamental as God's attributes. When the "experts" can't even agree on fundamental questions, their expertise doesn't carry very much weight.pelagius
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
---"The false claim that they are unable to offer an explanation of how life has evolved would not undermine that even if it were true." The claim is not that they don't have an explanation but rather that they cannot support that claim with any credible evidence--and clearly, they cannot. ---"And if it were allowed that a lack of adequate mechanistic explanations would be sufficient to bar someone from being an expert, we would have to disqualify all theologians since none can offer a mechanism by which God created life, the Universe and everything." We are talking about science, which is supposed to provide theory based explanations based on data. Thus, the comparison to theologians is irrelevant because theologians are not in the business of offering mechanisms.StephenB
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
StephenB, I agree with you that naturalistic forces cannot explain all of life. My only concern was that the claim about that had metamorphosed perhaps accidentally from an earlier and narrower claim about "naturalistic forces generating macro evolution." You are I know anxious to keep your terms sharp.Morgentau
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
An expert is someone, usually a practitioner, who is reckoned to be fully apprised of the state of knowledge and thought in a given field. Merriam-Webster defines the word as:
: one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject
Note that the definition does not require them to be omniscient, only that within the limits of human fallibility, they know what is currently known. If we are sensible, we give greater weight to expert opinion as compared with that of the non-expert but we do not assume that it is infallible. This greater credibility is also only assigned to an expert commenting on his or her own field of expertise. For example, when vjtorley writes about Augustine I treat his opinions with considerable respect because my understanding is that this is his field of expertise. However, when he writes as above:
Finally, even if there were no alternative to unguided evolution, that wouldn’t make it a good or even a viable hypothesis. The findings described in “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Dilemma” constitute very powerful scientific evidence that neo-Darwinian evolution is not a viable hypothesis. That’s why it should be rejected.
I will heed it as the opinion of someone who highly-educated and well-read but not an expert in that particular field. Evolutionary biologists can be as much experts in biology as other scientists can be in their respective disciplines. The false claim that they are unable to offer an explanation of how life has evolved would not undermine that even if it were true. And if it were allowed that a lack of adequate mechanistic explanations would be sufficient to bar someone from being an expert, we would have to disqualify all theologians since none can offer a mechanism by which God created life, the Universe and everything.Seversky
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
StephenB @88,
Evolutionary biologists are not true experts (my thesis)because they cannot defend their major proposition, namely they cannot explain (fact) how naturalistic forces can produce all of biodiversity.
Then medical doctors aren't experts either since they can't explain all diseases. Using your definition of an expert, I claim that none yet exist since there is no scientific discipline where everything is known. You also put words in the mouths of the evolutionary biologists when you state that it is their claim that they can explain all biodiversity. That is a claim you made on their behalf.Toronto
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Morgentau, I will make it as easy and simple as I know how to make it: Evolutionary biologists are not true experts (my thesis)because they cannot defend their major proposition, namely they cannot explain (fact) how naturalistic forces can produce all of biodiversity. Hence, I have based my thesis on a fact. Aleta claims that the fact on which I base my thesis is not really a fact at all, that is is simply "my opinion." I say that in all the literature available, no such explanation can be found, and if it had been found, the world would know about it. Therefore, it is a fact that they cannot defend their position. So, you either agree with me or you agree with him.StephenB
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
StephenB, I have now read the entire sequence of posts, as you suggested. I also looked closely at 64, and I am tryihg to be as they say Forensic. In 64 you write "[A] StephenB states that evolutionary biologists are not authorities on the subject of evolution because they cannot cannot justify their position that naturalistic forces explain all of life." This refers to a previous moment, so I looked for it. In 56 you say this in response to Aleta in 53, which quotes you in 52. So you in 56 are summarizing you in 52 as saying "[Evolutionary biologists cannot support their claims that naturalistic processes can explain all of life.]" In 52 you said "I said they are not truly experts because they cannot support their claims, which they cannot. That is not simply my opinion. That is a fact. If you disagree, provide even one example [or cite someone else who can provide an example] of a Darwinist showing that their mechanism can do what it claims it can do." It seems this was summarized as Darwinists saying Naturalistic forces were "explaining all of life." I don not know why you summarize this way but it may be inaccurate to do so. Your 52 refers back to Aleta at 46, where he writes "No, you said they were not experts because you don’t think they can support those views, which is entirely different. I have no reason at all to consider you knowledgeable on these issues, much less an expert, so your belief that their views are not supported is relatively inconsequential." This refers back to you in 45, where you say that "Darwinists are not experts since they assert as fact that their mechanism can do something that it cannot do." (I think this is the relevant part.) Your comment quoes Aleta in 36, where he disagrees with you about the meaning of "expert." The Statement about "explaining all of life" always seems to have referred to some previous Statement in the conversation. But I cannot find that Statement comes first, and I go back to the conversation about experts. I may have gone wrong. It is hard to follow the flow of a conversation in Time. If so could you please to tell me where?Morgentau
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
---Morgentau: "Probably I have missed something. It is a long conversation and I have not been central to it." Did you miss my summary @64 that preceded your questions. If you have any questions about that summary, let me know. Meanwhile, my two statements Aleta alludes to are answers to different questions, the former having to do with the definition of the word "expert," which contains the words "have" and "display" and the latter having to do with the reasons why arguments from authority are not sufficient. The arguments are related, but they are not identical. Aleta treats them as if they were identical, conflates them, puts them on the same plane, and then seeks to do a comparison contrast. This is typical. As I have stated numerous times, Darwinists do not do well with context. To get the full flavor, you need to read the entire post, which, as you suggest, you have not done.StephenB
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
fadedGlory (#67) Thank you for your post. You write:
In my view neither intelligence nor design are mechanisms.
In a sense, you are right. "Intelligence" is not the name of a kind of process, like photosynthesis. "Know" is not a modal verb. However, I question your implicit assumption that a scientific explanation of a phenomenon requires a mechanism. If I am looking at an interesting pattern, and I ask the question, "What kind of being produced that pattern?" then this question is surely a scientific one. And if the answer is, "An intelligent being," then I respectfully submit that this is a genuinely informative answer, even if we know nothing about the being in question. For it means that in principle, I can understand why the pattern was produced, which is a much more interesting question than how it was produced. The "how" question might be harder to unravel: if the being is a lot smarter or more advanced than I am, then I might not be capable even in principle of understanding its modus operandi. You also write:
What is your alternative for common descent? What is your proposed mechanism for that alternative?
I believe in common descent; I just don't believe that unintelligent processes can explain life in all its diversity today. ID is neutral on the subject of mechanism. Some ID theorists hold that very finely tuned initial conditions of the universe plus finely tuned constants of nature are all that is required; others posit one or more interventions. What unites us is a conviction that we have a reliable method for detecting patterns in nature that were unambiguously designed. (Of course, it can also be demonstrated that many other things in nature were designed too - e.g. its laws - but that's a separate argument, relating to fine-tuning, and at a deeper level, the intentionality of the laws of nature.) Finally, even if there were no alternative to unguided evolution, that wouldn't make it a good or even a viable hypothesis. The findings described in "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Dilemma" constitute very powerful scientific evidence that neo-Darwinian evolution is not a viable hypothesis. That's why it should be rejected.vjtorley
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
StephenB, I do not want to sympathize with Aleta, but his claim in comment #75 seems partly meritorious. He says your claim has shifted from “Evolutionary biologists do not “have” nor can they “display” any knowledge concerning their main claim about naturalistic forces generating macro evolution.” to [Evolutionary biologists] “claim that naturalistic forces can explain all of life.” Probably I have missed something. It is a long conversation and I have not been central to it.Morgentau
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
---Aleta: "That’s not a REASON, Stephen. It’s just a bald-faced assertion on your part." @64 sums it up. Please never leave this site. We need examples like you.StephenB
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
"Can’t you really see the difference?" I can easily see the difference and the answer is that there are billions of different types of intelligent interventions that are possible. Because we do not know the exact one does not undermine the proposition. You might want to look at my list of honest type answers and apply it to yourself. Here is a simple, honest answer. The answer that you give (imperfect reproduction modulated by natural selection) does not work. There is no evidence it ever did anything of consequence in the evolution debate so why make our case and point to it. It has been shown to be inadequate because they cannot point to any instances where it worked. Because they cannot point to any place where it has taken place, we question it. You use an example that supports ID to undermine ID. That is why it is a stupid argument (unless you are secretly and ID supporter and want to pose as an anti ID one.) Can intelligence do it? No one in the biology community believes that within a hundred years they will not have the capability to do so. They may be wrong but the anti ID side of the argument think intelligent intervention will work somehow. Do they have the exact mechanism. No, but they think one will appear or several will appear. Again an honest assessment. Try honest comments sometime instead of bringing up irrelevant comments. By the way, Michaelangelo used paint and brushes and scaffolding and it is described in several books. Or do you want the actual hand motions and touch he used to mix and apply the paint? Or do you want the mental neuron movements he generated to cause his hands and body to move?jerry
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
morgentau, If you look at it in that light I don't really disagree, but if we get back to the question of common descent, your professor of Esthetics would be a theologian or a philosopher, not a biologist. For a biologist that answer is beside the point and therefore unsatisfactory (even if it were true). fGfaded_Glory
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Jerry, 'Intelligent intervention' is not a mechanism. Michelangelo's decoration of the ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel was intelligent intervention, but merely saying that throws zero light on how he actually did it. Let's turn it round. If you ask an evolutionary biologist about the mechanism for common descent and he says 'unguided flow of nature', does that help you at all? Of course not. That answer is beside the point, just a metaphysical position, not a biological mechanism. That is why you won't get that answer of course, but rather something along the lines of 'imperfect reproduction modulated by natural selection'. Now *that* is a mechanism that actually explains the process. Can't you really see the difference? fGfaded_Glory
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
faded glory, you ask, "If you would ask ‘by what mechanism did Michelangelo decorate the ceiling of the Sixtine chapel’ and the guide replies ‘by using his intelligence’ or ‘by design’, would you consider your question adequately answered? I for sure would not. It may be true, but it doesn’t answer the question. " That is a good Question. Suppose I am a Professor of Esthetics. For me in that case, "by design" can be a good answer. BUT suppose I am the famous Painter David Hockney. I have a theory that the Old Masters painted using a camera obscura. I expound on this theory in my book Secret Knowledge. The theory may be true or it may not be true. But some opponents say this "mechanism" of camera obscura imperils the Genius of these painters. I say no, they are still geniuses and the paintings are still great creations of Mind despite the material mechanism of the camera obscura. Is not the material mechanism pale next to the genius that makes it work?Morgentau
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
"I can just as easily claim that ID advocates have no knowledge whatsoever about the actual act of design that they claim happens. Would you accept my statement as a reason that ID is wrong?" Now, I will show you what an honest reply would look like. ID supporters claim that it is likely, not absolute, that there was an intelligent intervention somehow. An honest assessment. They have good data for such reasoning. An honest assessment. It is quite true that ID advocates have no knowledge whatsoever about the actual act of design. An honest assessment. People can speculate on various things but there is no definitive act that can be pointed to. An honest assessment. That does not make the ID point of view, that it is likely that some outcomes were due to intelligent intervention, wrong. That statement does not follow. An honest assessment. For example, people always thought the figures on Easter Island were man-made even though they didn't know the mechanism for their appearance and arrangement. That did not stop the assessment as being wrong because they did not know the exact mechanism. An honest assessment. Try being honest sometime and you will be able to have a conversation. You are in a corner and do not like it but there are ways out and they involve honest discussion.jerry
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
"What is your alternative for common descent?" Intelligent intervention. "Has that mechanism been observed in nature?" About a couple hundred billion times every day.jerry
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Jerry said: "For an example of another stupid anti ID set of comments just follow whatever Faded Glory says. He thinks he is scoring points by pointing out that intelligence is not a mechanism. But his comments are nearly always as irrelevant as yours have been." Nice one, Jerry. Instead of cheap flaming, how about you have a go at my questions to morgentau: What is your alternative for common descent? What is your proposed mechanism for that alternative? Has that mechanism been observed in nature? fGfaded_Glory
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
That's not a REASON, Stephen. It's just a bald-faced assertion on your part. Also, by the way, you've moved the goalposts. You original statement was "Evolutionary biologists do not “have” nor can they “display” any knowledge concerning their main claim about naturalistic forces generating macro evolution.” [My emphasis] This is quite different from your statement that they "claim that naturalistic forces can explain all of life." I can just as easily claim that ID advocates have no knowledge whatsoever about the actual act of design that they claim happens. Would you accept my statement as a reason that ID is wrong?Aleta
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
"(12) The expert’s claim is asserted hotly and with great vehemence, accompanied by moral indignation and/or contempt towards those who question or reject the claim." Again you are making our point. It is the expert who you are pointing to and we are contesting the experts with logic and data. And it is the pro ID people who are the target of moral indignation and contempt by these experts. Now if you would just admit that, then you would be an honest person but your reply just reinforces the dishonesty of your remarks. 'Nuf said.jerry
April 8, 2010
April
04
Apr
8
08
2010
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply