Posted by Pat on October 23, 1999 at 18:13:38:
In Reply to: Well, Get this: posted by Boje on October 23, 1999 at 01:40:51:
BJ:
You prefer straightforward statements? You aren’t required to back up opinions regarding opinionated publications. Get it?
Pat:
No one has to back up anything. It all depends on how credible you'd like to be.
BJ:
Opinion is always more persuasive than fact, because it’s accompanied by emotion.
Pat:
Maybe to you. For me, a few facts would make you much more persuasive.
BJ:
I’ll back that assertion by noting the fact that you are impressed by Sagan’s popular presentations more than you are aware of his scientific contributions.
Pat:
Wrong again. I'm quite aware of the contributions Sagan has made to planetary science. But his real value has been in communicating that science to the general public. That is a skill few scientists have.
: Pat:
: “We all have opinions. The difference between useful and useless opinions is that Sagan offered evidence for his and you don't.”
: Pat:
: “It's considered a good thing to support your assertions with facts. You don't have to do that, of course, but it does enhance your credibility. You should try it.”
BJ:
That’s been the crux of Tom’s side of the debate, which has gone unanswered by you from the outset. As Tom has repeatedly demonstrated, Sagan wrote his popular publications in a style that ignored the scholarly convention of attributing his assertions to research-based facts gathered by authorities in fields in which he was not credentialed.
Pat:
The standards for that genre are considerably more relaxed than for scholarly publications. If you're assuming that Sagan was less scrupulous than most in either of these, you are very wrong.
BJ:
This discussion has had nothing to do with his research publications – as I stated in my first sentence in this thread.
Pat:
Yep, it has to do with Tom's assertion that Sagan did not mention Kepler's roots in Platonism. As you have seen, that is demonstrably not true. Sagan was very explicit about the conflicts Kepler experienced in his work, between Platonism on one hand, and modern scientific practice on the other.
BJ:
I haven’t done a thesis on Sagan’s work, so I don’t feel qualified to join the debate as a participant on Tom’s level. I am free to support Tom’s views, without citation, by candidly describing my impressions on reading Sagan’s books. That is the way opinions work.
Pat:
Everyone has an opinion. Without evidence, you know what the opinions are worth.
BJ:
They can be formed on the basis of interpreting the nuances of the language that the author employs. It is art – not science. Anyone who attempts to ascribe greater credence to such expression is a fool – in that regard you qualify!
Pat:
You are mistaken. I grant no credence whatever to your opinons.
BJ:
In the same vein, I’m free to make note of the effusive adoration that characterizes your defense of Sagan’s views, as if you had some sort of insight that raises your interpretations above all others. Let me tell you, Pat, memorization and quick recall of all of his statements only qualifies you as a disciple.
Pat: Frankly, your accusation suggests that you have become something of a fanatic about Sagan. Not everyone who reads and agrees with something Sagan wrote engages in "effusive adoration". That kind of perjorative marks the attacker, not his intended target.
I haven't memorized his writing. When I saw Tom's claim, I went back and took a look to see. I didn't remember Sagan being anything like that. He wasn't. You might benefit from checking your facts first. Saves a lot of embarassment later.
BJ:
It’s so commonplace for the disciples and opponents of a particularly notable teacher to argue about the finer points of his views after he is no longer able to clarify them. Don’t you feel the least bit conscious of that ignoble reflection on your present efforts?
Pat:
It's not hard to open a book and see what Sagan actually wrote about Kepler. It's not a fine point; Sagan pointed out Kepler's beliefs and how they held him back for a time from the truth. It's in black and white for anyone to read.
BJ:
I think that this discussion is demeaning to you especially, Pat, because you’ve been reduced so quickly to verbal abuse in defense of your approach to discussion of this topic.
Pat:
Two words: "effusive adoration". Is your real name Pecksniff, by any chance?
BJ:
Certainly, Carl Sagan was a very good and amply recognized teacher and an extremely effective lobbyist for the concerns of the scientific community, but his opinions hardly warrant the attention that you are giving them in this thread.
Pat:
I'm just pointing out an error. No need for you to get all lathered up about it.
BJ:
Why don’t you just form your own views and remain comfortable with them? Of course, you won’t, because obviously, you’re trying to reinforce your own agenda with support from the statements of a dead man.
Pat:
I guess it is time for you to tell me what my agenda is. I was never any good at reading minds over the net, but I would be pleased to see your act.