From: George Rudzinski Posted: 10 Oct 94 05:24
To : David Rice Received: 13 Oct 94 10:56
Subj: Re: DIFFERENT KINDS OF SCIENCE
-=> Quoting David Rice to John Brawley <=-
JB> Gentry's reported facts do support his conclusions, but to
JB> do so, he has to _ignore_ a few things. Hence _all_ the
JB> facts do not support him, but the extensive science (good
JB> science) of his laboratory work never showed up the
JB> alternative hypothesis he was ignoring.
DR>
DR> One thing I consider mandatory in "good science" is applying
DR> Ockham's (spelling various?) Razor. The alternative conclusion
DR> was simpler and explained the observed.
DR>
DR> I have -NOT- read Gentry's book, so I don't know enough to say
DR> that he fail to follow scientific methodology.
David,
Read the paper "The Geology of Gentry's 'Tiny Myster'" by Jeffrey Wakefield
in the Journal Geological Education, 1988 V.36 pp 161-174.
It shows that Gentry claimed that there was no parent source of radioactive
materials in the area where he collected his samples. Wakefield shows that
two of Gentry's collecting cites were working uranium mines at one time.
In my mind that blows a big hole in his methodology. Not to mention it was
flat out lying.
My understanding
DR> of the issue is that P218 decays far faster than possible to
DR> make "halos" in mica, and yet we observe mica. It is also my
DR> understanding that Gentry said that only a god could account
DR> for this observation--- he multiplied entities beyond what was
DR> required. If he had considered R222 causing the "halos," the
DR> requirement for the gods vanishes, and no multiplication of
DR> entities were required to explain the observed.
DR>
DR> Is my understanding wrong? Or too superficial?
Well radon without a source would be pretty miraculous as well. But he has a
source he just doesn't mention it.
JB> [cuts] Well, I have to give him the credit he does deserve
JB> (even if it's not much), and recommend that you actually read
JB> _Creation's_Tiny_Mystery_ and/or his actual published papers.
DR>
DR> I would like to very much. I do not wish to give money to the
DR> ICR for the "privilage" however.
Gentry has his own publishing company. It is available for $13.95 from Earth
Science Associates (gag), Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912.
Of course if you aren't interested in funding the ICR I doubt you would wish to
fund Gentry, I sure don't.
I prefer funding what
DR> I consider "real" science and scientific publications. I have a
DR> great deal of books written by evolutionary scientists, and I
DR> have borrowed/stolen/photocopied books and pamphlets by many
DR> Creationists.
And I've been hunting for Creation's Tiny Mystery in libraries and used book
stores for quite some time.
JB> [large cuts] I'd say "glaring mistake" or "lied to himself"
JB> rather than "lied."
DR>
DR> From my slight reading on the subject, I would agree that he had
DR> very likely not deliberately deceived others--- just that it was
DR> and is a possibility.
Not if Wakefield is correct, and since Gentry refused to submit an article to
JGE but instead requested including an add for his book. I lean toward
deliberate deception.
george
From: George Rudzinski Posted: 10 Oct 94 05:32
To : David Rice Received: 13 Oct 94 10:56
Subj: Re: DIFFERENT KINDS OF SCIENCE
-=> Quoting David Rice to John Brawley <=-
JB> As yet, however, paper publishing in the formal scientific
JB> literature is a ways off, so Gentry's knowledge of me (if
JB> any) comes from that one contact, and from other people
JB> (like Lane) sending him copies of my stuff.
DR>
DR> Do you think Mr Gentry's vested interest is too great to admit
DR> he made a mistake?
David,
Absolutely. Either that or the guy has flipped.
After all, he has written a book and has
DR> made claims that have been reproduced in Creationist literature.
DR> I suppose he may also have gone on Creationist lecture circuits.
DR> Would admitting a mistake damage him irrepairably? A great many
DR> scientists acknowledge mistakes they have made.
JB> Wakefield, interestingly enough, had _never_seen_ an actual
JB> point-source pleochroic halo until I sent him some of my
JB> biotite samples a couple of years ago. He "added" nothing,
JB> because he's not well-versed in the _physics_ of the halos
JB> themselves. Wakefield's work and mine are complementary;
JB> they do not overlap. Wakefield's speciality is the _geology_
JB> of the sources of Gentry's samples, which I totally ignore.
JB> My speciality is the physics of the halos themselves, from
JB> _wherever_ they come from. My "authority" for this comes from
JB> myself personally gathering the samples with my very own
JB> physical hands, and from my microscope and micro-technique
JB> being the equivalent of Gentry's.
DR> It doesn't matter if the refutation comes from Jose the plumber,
DR> if it is accurate.
You don't know how close that is to the truth. At the time Wakefield published
the paper he was a fireman and amateur geologist. He has since gone on to get
his degree.
The problem is gaining access to present the
DR> refutation. Getting a journal's editor drunk helps, I hear.
Or collaborating with someone that has been published.
JB> (My mom was a biology
JB> teacher; I was examining pond scum under high-powered
JB> microscopes while still an adolescent. Microscopes and me
JB> go back a long ways....(*g*))
DR>
DR> I threw away my microscope the instant I looked at my lunch
DR> with it--- I DO NOT want to see all the tiny beings that go
DR> with my lunch! :-) Ignorance -is- bliss.
Gee I think it's kind of neat knowing they are there while you eat your lunch.
I suppose you don't want to know about the little critter that lives in the
roots of your eyelashes either?
george
From: George Rudzinski Posted: 10 Oct 94 05:43
To : David Rice Received: 13 Oct 94 10:56
Subj: Re: DIFFERENT KINDS OF SCIENCE
-=> Quoting David Rice to John Brawley <=-
JB> Apart from this, I have never contacted Gentry, although I
JB> did try to do so when I passed through Tennessee on the way
JB> to the Spruce Pine pegmatite fields of North Carolina. I
JB> intent to formally notify him if and when some form of my
JB> paper gets into peer-reviewed print, in enough time for him
JB> to respond in the same journal if he wishes, and I'd like
JB> him to know that.
DR>
DR> The journal would have the common courtesy to do this for you.
DR> It would make much more interesting reading, and sever the
DR> scientific community better. I'd like to hear what Mr Gentry
DR> would have to say.
David,
Your wish is my command.
"Editor's note:
Shortly before this issue of JGE went to press, R.V. Gentry called and
requested that the following message be published along with Wakefield's
article.
'Gentry's response to Wakefield's material is given in the second edition
(1988) of his book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, available ...'"
Journal of Geological Education, 1988, V. 36 p. 173.
If Gentry thinks John's paper is a big enough threat to his ideas, and I
certainly believe it is, you are going to probably have to buy the third
edition (2049?) depending on when John gets to publishing.
Hell of a way to do science on Gentry's part.
george
From: John Brawley Posted: 10 Oct 94 15:55
To : David Rice Received: 13 Oct 94 10:57
Subj: DIFFERENT KINDS OF SCIENCE
On (07 Oct 94) David Rice wrote to John Brawley...
>JB> Not so. The bare-bones essence of Gentry's idea on the
>DR> My impression was that the facts did NOT support his
JB> They do and they don't.
DR> Teriffic. I wanna "Yeah" or "Nope," not both! :-)
(*grin*)
JB> Gentry's reported facts do support his conclusions, but to
JB> do so, he has to _ignore_ a few things. Hence _all_ the
DR> One thing I consider mandatory in "good science" is applying
DR> Ockham's (spelling various?) Razor. The alternative conclusion
DR> was simpler and explained the observed.
Well, yes and no.... (*'nuther grin*) The Radon222
explanation isn't "simpler," in the sense of number of
suppositions needed to even _see_ the hypothesis, and nothing
imaginable is simpler than "God did it." (*grin*) Of course,
"God did it" doesn't _explain_ anything....
DR> I have -NOT- read Gentry's book, so I don't know enough to say
DR> that he fail to follow scientific methodology. My understanding
It's a tough call. IMHO, Gentry is _unique_ among
creationists, having applied excellent scientific methodology
to the obtaining of the data he needed, to a high degree of
scientific precision, and having published these _scientific_
data in peer-reviewed journals of the stature of SCIENCE and
NATURE. It's also somewhat unique to see a person gather
reams of accurate scientific information about a specific,
physically unambiguous phenomenon, and then come up with a
really wild conclusion from the huge pile of data gathered.
(Gentry and his "polonium" halos are obviously one of my
dearest subjects.)
DR> of the issue is that P218 decays far faster than possible to
DR> make "halos" in mica, and yet we observe mica. It is also my
Yes. ("...and yet we observe [halos in the?] mica.") It
should be seen that _if_ one could manually place a one-or-
two-micron particle of 218Po into the mica suddenly, it would
make a halo.
(Gad.... Sorry.... I'm hearing in my head one of the sixties'
songs---a Jefferson Airplane tune: "...shares a little joke
with the world somehow.... sounded like he'd make a _halo_,
when I heard his laughter floatin'; it's all for fun, you
know: he said he just let Go....")
DR> understanding that Gentry said that only a god could account
DR> for this observation--- he multiplied entities beyond what was
DR> required. If he had considered R222 causing the "halos," the
DR> requirement for the gods vanishes, and no multiplication of
DR> entities were required to explain the observed.
Exactly. Gentry preconcluded his hypothesis, based on a
religious suspicion that he was "right" about the halos.
DR> Is my understanding wrong? Or too superficial?
Depends on how deeply you want to go. For an extensive in-
depth researching of Gentry's hypothesis, it's superficial,
yes, but you seem to have the essence of it.
JB> [cuts] Well, I have to give him the credit he does deserve
JB> (even if it's not much), and recommend that you actually read
JB> _Creation's_Tiny_Mystery_ and/or his actual published papers.
DR> I would like to very much. I do not wish to give money to the
DR> ICR for the "privilage" however. I prefer funding what
ICR's not involved. (I'm told they actually don't like what
Gentry's done.) Another peculiarity here:
_Creation's_Tiny_Mystery_ is an obviously creationist book,
but buried in it is probably the most extensive _scientific_
(in the true meaning of the word) compendium of data on
biotite, fluorite, cordierite and 'coalified wood' point-
source pleochroic halos available in the geological and
mineralogical literature. It's really odd, to be able to use
the scientific data out of a creationist book, with little
doubt about its accuracy and validity, while wading through
creationist blatherings in other sections of the book.
In the main, if you are to study point-source pleochroic
halos, Gentry is the sceintific reference of choice (along
with the previous researchers' papers that Gentry cites).
It's most odd to recommend a _creationist_ book for a
_scientific_ study, but IMHO Gentry's book is the easiest-to-
understand and most complete overview of the tiny field of
pleochroic halos extant.
DR> I consider "real" science and scientific publications. I have a
DR> great deal of books written by evolutionary scientists, and I
DR> have borrowed/stolen/photocopied books and pamphlets by many
DR> Creationists.
Gentry reprints the texts of most, if not all, of his papers
that were published by SCIENCE, NATURE, Geophysical Review
Letters, and others, in _C_T_M_.
JB> [large cuts] I'd say "glaring mistake" or "lied to himself"
JB> rather than "lied."
DR> From my slight reading on the subject, I would agree that he had
DR> very likely not deliberately deceived others--- just that it was
DR> and is a possibility. My contention/concern is that he chose a
It's a fact. He deceived _me_, where he says that "polonium"
halos are not found near any other sources of radioactivity, a
thing that my own research flatly denies. Now, maybe he
didn't mean it the way I saw it, but it did mislead me, and I
found that out real quick, from looking at square _yards_ of
mica (in little pieces, of course) from several sources.
DR> unlikely conclusion in what I suspect was a self-serving way:
DR> before he could blame the "halos" on gods, I think a scientist
DR> would need to produce the gods.
Well, Gentry's a _creation_ scientist, of course....
(*bigfatgrin*)
J B
InterNet: john.brawley@p1.f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org
NETmail: Fido=1:100/435.1 Toad=86:8102/9.1 Family=8:3006/28.1
From: John Brawley Posted: 11 Oct 94 13:09
To : David Rice Received: 14 Oct 94 22:42
Subj: DIFFERENT KINDS OF SCIENCE
On (07 Oct 94) David Rice wrote to John Brawley...
JB> literature is a ways off, so Gentry's knowledge of me (if
DR> Do you think Mr Gentry's vested interest is too great to admit
DR> he made a mistake? After all, he has written a book and has
I do, but I have zero evidence to support that. I just
suspect _any_ creationist's ability to gravitate to an
uncreationistic position. They tend to move only as far as
the slightly ambiguous "theistic evolution" stance, and if
they're adamantine Bible-driven Genesis-literal creationists,
as Gentry appears to be, they're about as movable as the
earth without Archimedes' lever and fulcrum.
DR> Would admitting a mistake damage him irrepairably? A great many
DR> scientists acknowledge mistakes they have made.
Who knows? It depends on his mental balance. He's apparently
never been a materialistic ("naturalistic") scientist, but
instead has seemingly always managed to do science in a
separate compartment from his religion, at least until his
creationism became common knowledge and science work got hard
to find. Science tends not to trust creationists....
JB> Wakefield, interestingly enough, had _never_seen_ an actual
JB> point-source pleochroic halo until I sent him some of my
DR> It doesn't matter if the refutation comes from Jose the plumber,
DR> if it is accurate. The problem is gaining access to present the
DR> refutation. Getting a journal's editor drunk helps, I hear.
I'm not real worried about it. Apparently my work constitutes
a "material contribution" to the field, and with pleochroic
halos being such a _miniscule_ part of the field of
mineralogy, my work is so minor in a scientific sense that it
will get itself published simply because it's unique enough
that nobody else has bothered with it.
JB> (My mom was a biology
JB> teacher; I was examining pond scum under high-powered
JB> microscopes while still an adolescent. Microscopes and me
JB> go back a long ways....(*g*))
DR> I threw away my microscope the instant I looked at my lunch
DR> with it--- I DO NOT want to see all the tiny beings that go
DR> with my lunch! :-) Ignorance -is- bliss.
*ROFL!*
DR> [Note: I do not know if it is Doctor Gentry or Mister Gentry,
DR> so I used "Mr." No disparity of title was meant or implied.]
It is "Doctor" ("D.Sc, Hon.").
I use "Dr." because it's properly correct, whether or not it
means what it usually means in academic circles.
J B
InterNet: john.brawley@p1.f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org
NETmail: Fido=1:100/435.1 Toad=86:8102/9.1 Family=8:3006/28.1
From: John Brawley Posted: 11 Oct 94 13:24
To : David Rice Received: 14 Oct 94 22:42
Subj: DIFFERENT KINDS OF SCIENCE
On (07 Oct 94) David Rice wrote to John Brawley...
JB> He does prevaricate a bit in his book, where he implies
JB> that halos are found "far from" other radioactive sources
DR> :-) At least he's a Creation scientist doing science. I bet the
DR> ICR would like a hundred more of him.
They doubtless would, but they don't use even him much. They
in fact historically have expressed doubts about him. His
stuff is _way_ too hard for the target audience (the
grassroots common person) to understand. It's a nifty little
piece of religious/scientific interpretation, to be sure, and
appears on first blush (without digging _real_ deep, as I did)
to be "airtight," but it requires an audience to know a mess
of nuclear physics in order to have any effect. They (the
ICR) can say, "Dr. Gentry's work on pleochroic halos in mica
proves sudden creation" if they want, but the audience
wouldn't understand _why_ it "proves" this without an
extensive education in real, hard science. It's my thought
that the ICR does not _want_ its audiences to get an education
in "real, hard science".... (*grin*)
DR> If I were a scientist doing research and came to an incorrect
DR> conclusion, I'd want to hear about it, either privately or in
DR> a peer-reviewed journal. In a small way, your not sending your
DR> paper to Mr Gentry is doing him a disservice. If the truth does
DR> not interest him, he'll dismiss the paper anyhow.
I guess that could be said, but then, if Gentry were a
professional scientist and not a creationist, I'd probably
have communicated with him before now. My work on Gentry's
halos is scientific only because that's how I did it. It
wasn't a scientific discussion that generated my interest, it
was a religious (creationism) discussion. Hence I don't see
it as a scientific matter between me and Gentry; I see it as a
matter in creationism between me and anybody/everybody else
who _uses_ Gentry's hypothesis to support their creationist
position.
In other words, there are almost two separate things going on
here: 1) Gentry's hypothesis, my examination of it, and
creationism-arguing, and 2) the almost entirely separate
possibility that by examining the claim I may have "by
default" generated some decent useful _science_. The two
aren't as easily linked as you imply (at least, they're not so
linked in my mind). I will do the "right scientific thing"
when and if I get to that point with the paper's
publishability and with more study I intend to do before I get
there, but the "right scientific thing" doesn't apply to my
sending Gentry a copy of my paper since that is entirely a
creationism conflict, and creationism isn't science.
(Do I feel guilty? I don't _think_ I feel guilty....)
I don't feel the need to notify another researcher until I'm
about ready to publish. You know many scientists (even
amateurs like me) who let the opposition know their data until
just before they publish? Read up on the battle between Ting,
at Brookhaven, and the team at SLAC, over the discovery of
"the resonance at 3.1 GeV" (the 'J,' or 'psi' particle). The
two teams were looking at the same energy range, but the SPEAR
accelerator at SLAC wasn't looking in exactly the right place,
although it could be tuned to it in a matter of a few hours.
Ting had already found the resonance, and wanted to keep it
secret because he _knew_ the SPEAR ring could be tuned right
onto it. There wasn't a lot of communication between the two
teams, needless to say, because Ting wanted the credit for the
discovery, and he wasn't ready to publish, and he knew he'd
have to publish _immediately_ if the team at SLAC got a whiff
of the information that there was a new resonance at 3.1 Giga-
eletron-Volts. (Ting and the other guy eventually shared a
Nobel Prize for the discovery.)
JB> (I wrote him, asking for the source (mine, whatever) of his
JB> "polonium halos in _GRANITE_" and he responded by sending me
DR> He obviously misstook your request or mixed up your request
DR> with someone else's. The same thing happened to me when I wrote
DR> to Hal Lindsey after he claimed that the creator of the XEROX
DR> copier was "given" the idea and complete plans on making the
DR> device by Satan while he, the creator, was sleeping. I asked
DR> Mr Lindsey for the source of his claim, and he sent back to
DR> me a tape of Mike Warnke. :-) How bizarre!
I don't think Gentry mixed up the requests. I have his letter
still. I think he was testing me for anti-creation
sentiments.
JB> Apart from this, I have never contacted Gentry, although I
JB> did try to do so when I passed through Tennessee on the way
DR> The journal would have the common courtesy to do this for you.
DR> It would make much more interesting reading, and sever the
DR> scientific community better. I'd like to hear what Mr Gentry
DR> would have to say.
Probably. When it happens, we'll see.
J B
InterNet: john.brawley@p1.f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org
NETmail: Fido=1:100/435.1 Toad=86:8102/9.1 Family=8:3006/28.1
... If God is real, we will not find Him 'outside' of reality.
