In the quoted section, you were referring to *scientific* influence. You said, "significantly shaped the *science* of our generation "¦ so well known in 'our *science*' " A valid measure of *scientific* influence (shaping science and being known within science) is citation in the literature. Gould theoretical work is highly cited. Hence, the relevance.

No, you are the one who used the words "scientific influence," not me.

What I wrote is this: "Back in October, I suggested that people such as Gould and Dawkins have significantly shaped the science of our generation. For why are these two men so well known in "our science?""

You take sentence fragments out of their context to make your point appear relevant (and, as a bonus, you get to quote me while evading the question).

Are you trying to tell me that up and coming grad students in neuroscience were introduced to Gould through his technical papers instead of his popular writings? Are you trying to tell me that post-docs in biochemistry were introduced to Gould through his technical papers instead of his popular writings?

For that matter, why have you ignored the writing of Zeigler himself? He writes, "In our science, there is no mention of, or mechanism forachieving, any long-term metaphysical or teological goals of form, complexity, or intelligence"”as Gould has argued so eloquently." Can you cite the paper, from the peer-reviewed technical literature, where Gould so eloquently makes the anti-teleological argument? My guess is that Ziegler has Gould's popular writings in mind. This guess is supported by a) the use of the adjective eloquent (commonly applied to Gould's popular writings), b) the fact that Zeigler appeals to one such argument two sentences later as an "obvious point" made by "Numerous science writers," and c) Ziegler does not reference Gould's work and is writing for a journal whose readers are more likely to know Gould from his popular writings than any technical paper.

I'm not sure why you insist on being contentious about this point. Science writers such as Gould and Dawkins have been immensely popular among the reading audience interested in science. And a significant chunk of that reading audience would be undergrads, grad students, and post docs who go on to become scientists of all varieties (where science is what scientists do). So like I said, "Back in October, I suggested that people such as Gould and Dawkins have significantly shaped the science of our generation." After all, "For why are these two men so well known in "our science?""

[As an interesting tangent, Gould himself was once asked, "How do you respond to criticisms that you are a "popularizer" and not a serious scientist?"

Here's his reply:

Anything, even the conceptually most complex material, can be written for general audiences without any dumbing down. Of course you have to explain things carefully. This goes back to Galileo, who wrote his great books as dialogues in Italian, not as treatises in Latin. And to Darwin, who wrote The Origin of Species for general readers. I think a lot of people pick up Darwin's book and assume it must be a popular version of some technical monograph, but there is no technical monograph. That's what he wrote. So what I'm doing is part of a great humanistic tradition.

]

Given those definitions I would argue that only the truth I defined above can meaningfully satisfy definitions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10. Further I am arguing that "empirical truth" is our only proven tool for satisfying these definitions. #3 is the formalized system definition which I explicitly exempted as an exception. #7 is the subjective "I really believed it" definition which I also exclude as applying to a different context (art, philosophy, etc). This definition has no predictive power. #8 is the "absolute truth" concept which I claim we cannot know. #9 is the "we all agree" version of truth which also doesn't fit the context or definition I provided. It also has no predictive power. #11 seems like an archaic version of #7. So excluding definitions that only apply to math, philosophy, or art I think my definition holds very nicely.

chunkdz: Hmmm. So to be a defender of truth, you merely have to make a judgement, a proposition, or defend an idea that is accepted as true?

I provided a definition of truth. The provided definition of truth judges truth by its predictive powers. I also acknowledged that there are other definitions of truth applicable to other contexts. You are now mixing those multiple definitions to attack a straw man.

chunkdz: To this Todd responds that these men are no mere duck groomers, but "defenders of truth".

Actually what I specifically said was that the only difference between those two statements was perspective. Give my definition of truth they are 100% defending truth. If instead your perspective sees only Absolute Truth and falsehood then given that absolute truth is unobtainable all positions become equally viable so you might say they are just grooming a duck.

I think Zachriel has adequately explained the faults in your reasoning so I won't bother to repeat what he has said.

chunkdz: Yet remarkably, science works just fine with or without it.

"Truth" has several related meanings, and I notice that you have yet to admit to such distinctions. In the phrase "the truth matters", "truth" refers to the philosophical concept. In Singham's "To be valid, science does not have to be true", "true" refers to some absolute reality that may exist independently of our empirical investigations. Being a nuclear physicist, this is a common distinction"”a field where existence itself may not be a binary property.

As I have pointed out this distinction to you several times, your continued insistence on the use of a particular buzz-word is an indication that the idea you are purportedly attempting to communicate is subservient to the equivocation.

"The truth matters."

Beautifully put. Yet remarkably, science works just fine with or without it.

In the words of one physics professor and member of the Ohio science advisory board,

"To be valid, science does not have to be true."

Bradford: This is all ancient history …

Yes, 2005 BCE. Not long after the Latins arrived in Italy.

Zachriel: The truth matters. If Galileo uncovers evidence that the Earth moves, you might minimize it.

Why would I want to do that? Of course the truth matters.

But when others try to suppress the truth, then the truth should be defended.

Agreed.

When people substitute "intelligent design" for "creationism", then lie about it, in order to sneak the teaching of religious doctrines into the public schools in the guise of teaching children science, then the truth needs to be brought to light. Eppur si muove.

This is all ancient history and unfortunately that subset of IDists has no copyrite on lying. I've seen enough of that in discussion groups from all sides.

chunkdz: While this is evident, I'd further define it to say that a very narrow focus (a particular hypothesis) does not even address whether the hypothesis in question is true. Only whether it is false.

*Falsified*, a quite different concept. Every empirical test carries with it a variety of considerations. Even the most direct falsification is also tentative and subject to revision in the light of new evidence.

chunkdz: So if even a narrow hypothesis cannot be determined to be true, (only "false" or "not false"), then what brazen hubris allows someone to equate the defense of the non-teleological perspective with the "defense of truth"

As you have read the entire thread, you know that I have already answered this question.