On a second reading, it looks like your are right. But, I really was just offering my opinion about where the emphasis is in the sentence, regardless of the content. Getting further than that into the Randi/Hawking dispute would be off-topic for this thread, IMO.
Yes, I agree that the crux of Randi’s argument is that astrology fails to satisfy any scientific test. You interpretation of the subordinate clause is a more elegant way of saying what I meant. He assumes that no-one will argue that astrology is “based on rational premises and by nature credible” just as no-one would have argued that for quantum physics but quantum physics was proven by experiment.
I think we are labouring under the difficulty of crediting Randi with too much precision in usage. I think the statement after the contentious sentence “His statement gives believers the opportunity to scoff at the “arrogance” and the “smugness” of those who demand supporting evidence before embracing a charming notion,” pretty clearly indicates that he is being a smart arse by adding the new clause. I can’t see how he thinks adherents of astrology would think someone less arrogant or smug by referring to the irrationality and incredibility of their beliefs.
So perhaps the sentence in question is the equivalent of, “The reason most scientists don’t believe in astrology is, aside from the fact that it’s adherents are irrational and by nature credible, because it does not pass any simple scientific test, and in fact it fails any test spectacularly.”
If he wanted to say what we think he is saying with any precision he should have said what you said - “The reason most scientists don’t believe in astrology is not because it is based on irrational premises and is by nature incredible but because it does not pass any simple scientific test, and in fact it fails any test spectacularly.”
I think that this was a GD thread to begin with, as GQ is not the forum for asking for opinions. And the OP certainly raised red flags in my mind (looked like an attempt to present only the favorable side of the argument), but the revelation that this is in regards to peter morris’ continued obsession with Randi raises red flags in the other direction. I don’t see how presenting one’s opinion that someone did not explain something as well as could have been done is “attacking” or how “vehemence” is an appropriate word.
I agree with Princhester that Randi was trying to draw a distinction between the process of science, and the content of science. It is not enough to say that a new theory is not consistent with the content of science- that is, that it is consistent with current theories. Were that the case, no theory would ever supplant a previous one. Rather, the criterion is whether the theory is consistent with the process of science- that is, whether it withands rational investigation. To present the former as the criterion is to imply that one is wedded to certain ideas, and refuses to discard them. The latter, however, says that one is wedded to nothing more than the honest pursuit of truth, and the summary rejection of nothing more than baseless credulity.
I think both Princhester and peter morris are trying to over-interpret the quotation from James Randi. Even when I look at the entire context, I don’t think that it’s useful to try to call one argument more important than the other. In fact, the more I read the statement, the more I think that it’s not well written and it’s not useful to try to figure out what Randi was saying. Randi says that Stephen Hawking says that astology is wrong because “it’s not consistent with our theories that have been tested by experiment.” He says that he would say himself that “the reason most scientists don’t believe in astrology is, aside from the fact that it is based on irrational premises and is by nature incredible, because it does not pass any simple scientific test, and in fact it fails any test spectacularly.” First of all, this sentence is clearly ungrammatical. Second, none of the clauses is exactly the same as the argument that Hawking was making. This is a badly written paragraph, and it’s not worth our time to analyze it further.
I think that’s somewhat unfair. I don’t have an obsession with Randi, its just that on this forum and others I see his fans raving about what a wonderful guy he is, and I feel it neccessary to point out how dishonest he is. If it hadn’t been for Princhester and others singing his praises, I wouldn’t have felt the need to mention him at all. Rather, I think you need to examine Princhester’s obsession with him, rather than mine. Not to mention his vendetta against me, just because I once called his hero a putz.
Look Wendell this isn’t really the place. But why don’t you come over to the Randi boards and see what the argument is actually about? This is a link to the first page of the thread in question, but I think Peter brings up the quote in question on about page 5.
I think what you are saying about me is unfair, but I don’t think this is the place to defend myself. I think you lack for background (not your fault). This is GQ after all.
This thread has turned into a debate or worse and I’m going to ask for it to be moved or whatever as the mods see fit.
The question about the interpretation of the sentence has been answered about as well as it can be, so I’ll close this thread. Those wishing to debate Randi, etc., are invited to do so in another forum.
bibliophage
moderator GQ