Thanks! Got your PM.
[color:#3333FF]I never did come up with a really good response.
How can one use logic to convince another that he is not logical? What evidence can one supply to another that he completely misunderstands the nature of evidence?
It is a very common occurrence for me to hear or read a person quoting some famous scientist that the second law of thermodynamics is paramount in physics and quite inviolable, that abiogenesis and evolution were they true would obviously violate this law, and that therefore they cannot be true. The claimant is typically wholly unfamiliar with the quoted scientist's work beyond this quote. The claims seems incredible.
"How do you know this?"
He provides a canned comic book summary of second law that is circulating among various creationist sites - generally, but not always, a cut-n-paste.
"Have you taken a course in thermodynamics?"
No.
"Have you read a book on it?"
No.
"Have you read any scientific papers on it?"
No.
"Have you solved any problems using thermodynamic either theoretical or real?"
No.
"Have you discussed the subject with a recognized expert in the field?"
No.
"Do you realize there are very many people who have read the books, and taken courses, and read journal articles, and solved problems and discussed with the experts who disagree not just with our conclusion, but who would maintain that your entire understanding is mistaken?"
They just don't want to admit the obvious conclusion.
"I see. Do you think you could read a book on it?"
That would be a waste of time.
And so forth.
It gives me no pleasure to convey to you that my dog knows more about thermodynamics than these people, because my dog's head is not full of a lot of false "knowledge" and surely a little girl dog without even the awareness of a subject is less ignorant than someone with a head full of stupidity who nevertheless feels qualified to educate others on the subject.
It is a common tactic or technique to list a bunch of objections to a subject one after the other with demands that each of these items must be refuted; otherwise, the "skeptic" is victorious. We call this "bundle of sticks," but in some circles it's known as "the Gish gallop." The list of items is generally cut-n-pasted or a link is pasted. It takes the person all of 20 seconds to create a challenge when one is unconstrained by intellectual integrity. A good response, of course, might take many minutes or even hours to research - by which time the "victor" has moved 5 assertions ahead. "Ah, but you haven't addressed these other cut-n-pasted, spoon-fed factoids ... er, carefully reasoned, personal conclusions!"
It would be conducive to understanding to pick just one thing at a time - just one thing and really try to understand it. I think thermodynamics is a bit ambitious for most of these people - but it's not entirely inaccessible. It would do. They could take the issue and really try to understand it. Read a book, solve some problems, talk it over with people who use it and understand it. But, no, obviously the brainwashed scientists don't understand thermodynamics.
