From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Summary: How far this whole thing has drifted from its genesis
Keywords: philosophy, ignorance
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Oct 92 23:29:34 GMT

I am amazed at how much bandwidth has gone into an in-joke about
SAT's.  The whole thing began in a way that seems almost
unrecognizable now.  Eric Marsh had been arrogantly going on about
how most pro-lifers start from an irrational and un-philosophical foundation,
and I tried to tell him (it would take a great many posts to SHOW him)
that the pro-life position can be given a philosophical foundation:
			___________________

Date: 12 Sep 92 19:56:30 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion

In <lb4486INNm30@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

> The real matter
>at hand is how one interprets the data. I've been debating this issue
>for several years now and during this time I have managed to examine all
>the salient issues and put together a coherant framework that 
>is pro-choice.

All the salient issues which have been brought up on this net so far, you
mean. I have not yet begun to fight.

> When debating this issue with pro-lifers, I have
>never seen any arguments put forth that are consistant with the
>scientific facts that support the concept of a z/e/f having the attributes
>we value (and generally label as "personhood") sufficiently to bestow
>"rights." 

As the old joke has it, "What do you mean we, paleface?"  The pro-choicers
have claimed a big piece of turf which they generally label "personhood"
and they get to make up the rules as they go along as to what 
"personhood" encompasses.  The more they alter the rules, the more
they remove the concept from the realm of science and into the realm
of politics.

>In the final analysis, the evidence is there for anyone to examine.
>The real issue is, how well does a given philosophical system deal with
>this, and other evidence? I think that if we all tried to examine
>the questions involved logically, there would be a great many less
>pro-lifers out there.

I claim just the opposite is true, and you will be hearing a lot
from me now that a pro-choicer, namely you, has finally uttered the
words "philosophical system" in an approving way within my earshot.

> The problem is, most pro-lifers base their
>beliefs on religious systems that are in turn inconsistant with the
>scientific evidence pointing to the nature of the universe.

Count me out.  My present pro-life stance is based on an agnostic
world-view, and I can run circles around most people when it comes to 
science and philosophy.                  ^^^^^^^^^^^

		______________________________

Here I most certainly was NOT comparing myself to most people who post
in talk.abortion.  For one thing, Eric's description does not fit most
pro-lifers in talk.abortion, as far as I have been able to tell; at
any rate, I took him to mean pro-lifers in general and I meant people
in general.

And it is as nearly a sure bet as anything, that what I said is literally
true, and probably it would be literally true if most people who post
regularly to talk.abortion said it.  After all, the average American
is abysmally ignorant of science and has next to no idea of what philosophy
is all about.  

Anyway, Larry Margolis, with malice aforethought, took the one sentence
and deleted everything around it for paragraphs around, making it look
like I was strutting around and claiming to be superior to almost everyone
on the net.

Date: 17 Sep 92 15:46:28 GMT

In <1992Sep13.155019.38256@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.716327790@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
>> science and philosophy.

>You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
>to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.

Note that Larry's first clause already accuses me of "showing ignorance,"
with the "in fact" going a good bit further.  Larry tried to wiggle off
the hook several times, saying that the ONLY thing he accused me of
was to have "showed ignorance", but the "in fact" clause uses the words
"showed yourself TO BE rather ignorant."

At any rate, with my credibility
in all kinds of other matters under intense fire by Larry, I felt I had
to seize this opportunity to show how he had compromised his own
credibility with this outrageous claim.  How else to do that, except
by posting some of my credentials?

Then the threads branched in three directions.  Ron Bense challenged
even these credentials, and I reluctantly dragged out more information
about myself in response to him.  Margolis...well, as I said to him
in a later post, "You just don't know when to quit, do you?"
 
And in the third direction, I was asked for my SAT scores.  Sensing
something afoot, I gave dates as well as scores (why should something
I did back in 1963 mean so much today?) and put in the well-known
phrase from popular accounts of boxing, "could not resist...opening"--
something almost invariably followed by disaster for the boxer in
question.  

Sure enough, I became the butt of an in-joke.  Why that joke continues
to take people's attention away from more important things long after
the trap was sprung, I don't know.  

It even seems silly for me to talk so much about it now, but
you know what they say about a stitch in time...

Peter Nyikos



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39103 talk.politics.misc:48397 alt.sex:31200 alt.rush-limbaugh:6108 alt.politics.elections:14546 alt.politics.clinton:7636 alt.politics.bush:7043