ID Video

[MattLangley]

There are many specialists working in the field of ID.

Then why are we even having this conversation about a book from a non-specialist. Why are you defending him to be what he can't and not just pointing to X book with Y author who is a Z specialist (and maybe point to sources that point them out as respected). If there are plenty of these cases then why use this weak case.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Then why are we even having this conversation about a book from a non-specialist. Why are you defending him to be what he can't and not just pointing to X book with Y author who is a Z specialist (and maybe point to sources that point them out as respected). If there are plenty of these cases then why use this weak case.

As I pointed out he is a specialist in the area of what science is and what constitutes scientific theory and argument. Several of his chapters address this because this is a point of contention with opponents. His book Signature in The Cell does a very good job describing and summarizing ID. The area where he is not a specialist (chemistry and mathematics) he has many footnotes and citations, which is exactly proper scientific protocol. No legitimate scientist would argue that a paper or book with sound reasoning and citations is worthless because the author is not an exact specialist in an area. In the end, disparaging ID via appealing to authority is still a faulty argument.

Would you like me to provide you with additional book sources?

 

[MattLangley]

As I pointed out he is a specialist in the area of what science is and what constitutes scientific theory and argument.

What? He is a specialist in applying the scientific theory. That's the definition of all scientists lol.

No legitimate scientist would argue that a paper or book with sound reasoning and citations is worthless because the author is not an exact specialist in an area. In the end, disparaging ID via appealing to authority is still a faulty argument.

I never said it was completely worthless, just worth less than a book by a specialist. The reason this isn't very useful is he is challenging the consensus of the majority of specialists, so why would I take his word over there's? I have absolutely no reason to listen to him over many specialists.

"appealing to authority" is such a weak argument in my opinion. You yourself are appealing to it when you attempted to call him:

"he is a specialist in the area of what science is and what constitutes scientific theory and argument"

So it's not ok for others to appeal to authority, only you?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

What? He is a specialist in applying the scientific theory. That's the definition of all scientists lol.

Don't put words in my mount. That is not what I said.

I never said it was completely worthless, just worth less than a book by a specialist.

I did not say you said anything. The book should be judged by its content. No other position make any sense.

The reason this isn't very useful is he is challenging the consensus of the majority of specialists, so why would I take his word over there's? I have absolutely no reason to listen to him over many specialists.

Einstein challenged the consensus also. The only rational position a scientifically minded person can take is to judge an argument on its merits. His argument is based on reason and the citations and work of many, many specialists.

"appealing to authority" is such a weak argument in my opinion. You yourself are appealing to it when you attempted to call him:
"he is a specialist in the area of what science is and what constitutes scientific theory and argument"
So it's not ok for others to appeal to authority, only you?

You don't understand the fallacy. The difference is that I'm not arguing he is right because of his speciality. I'm arguing that his argument stands on its own merit.

I only introduce his credentials because you are preoccupied by them.