From scott Sun Feb 27 09:08:38 2000
From: Scott Doty <no-spam@sonic.net>
Subject: BDK's NYT criticism
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Organization: 
Summary: 
Keywords: 
User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.34 (i686))
Status: RO
Content-Length: 4941
Lines: 127


In alt.paranormal Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com> wrote:
> Tom Kerr wrote:
> TK:     "...difficulty with your incoherency."

> DK:     The only difficult I see here, is yours, 
>         with honesty.  Why is it, after I've repeated 
>         this many times, that you cannot attempt to 
>         rebut the following instead of parroting
>         the "incoherency" accusation like a fool:

> DK:     http://www.psicounsel.com/nyt.html

"Incoherent" is the antonym of "coherent" -- the definition I am using can
be found here:
  [1] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?coherent

To be clear: the New York Times said Kettler's attack was "incoherent",
which Kettler claims to have rebutted at the URL above.  Kettler's
rebuttal consists of the following:

  1) The statement, "the points I made are not 'incoherent'",

  2) The assertion that debate of the his "points" is proof
     of coherence, and

  3) an example post, in which someone else states, "Randi issued a
     challenge, yet he's avoided acceptance of the challenge by Dames."
     (Thus showing that he understood Kettler's argument about
      the Randi challenge.)

(1) is Kettler's conclusion.  (2) (3) assume that if an argument
is debatable, it must be coherent.  This turns out not to be
the case, for in [1] we find:

  coherent 1 a : logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated

The problem, here, is that Kettler's argument about the Randi challenge is
fallacious.  Inspection of the web site reveals the following text:

  ] The points I'd made, which allegedly were "incoherent" (as stated in the
  ] New York Times) are _here_.
  ...where _here_ is a link to
     http://www.psicounsel.com/artbellclub/bdkspage.html#dames

At that URL, we find the text that NYT referred to as
"incoherent."  (Though precisely what text earned that criticism
remains a mystery, we can guess.)

First:

  ] 4.      On March 7, 1997, Art Bell, on-the-air, reported a faxed message
  ] from James Randi, refusing to appear on the Art Bell show. Art reported
  ] he'd had telephone contact with James Randi and would again contact
  ] him. . .

  ] Randi's continued refusal to negotiate is shown by his not offering to
  ] appear on the Art Bell show to discuss a procedure for testing Ed Dames,
  ] with no counter-offer for another mode of communication since March
  ] 1997.

Here we find incoherence as an antonym to "coherent" [1]
"1 a : logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated".  Specifically,
the conclusion begs the questions:  Why should Randi negotiate test
conditions on a radio show?  And: Why is Randi obligated to make
a "counter-offer"?


Second:

Immediately following, in a section entitled "A note, from me, on prophecy",
subsection "free-will and fate", Kettler writes:

  ] Actually, both free-will and fate work together. No probable future, in
  ] my opinion, exists without the ability for it to be reversed with the
  ] determined and enlightened free-will of spiritual beings, which we all
  ] are.

While the meaning of this paragraph can be puzzled out, at first
glance it appears incoherent.  I am now using definition
1.b. of "coherent": "having clarity or intelligibility."  Indeed,
the paragraph is ambiguous:  one meaning is that "probable futures"
and "free-will" may be exchanged, which is clearly unintelligible.

Considering the probable meaning, we are still left with a non
sequitur.  "Actually, both free-will and fate work together" -- Kettler
promises reconciliation of this apparent dichotomy, but fails to
do so in the rest of the paragraph (or anywhere else on the page).

The paragraph dearly needs a rewrite.  One possibility:

  Actually, both free-will and fate work together.  I believe the determined
  and enlightened free-will of spiritual beings affects the future.  (We are
  all spiritual beings.)

(Obviously, this does not solve the problem of the non sequitur -- _my_
paragraph is incoherent by that measure.)


Third:

In the next subsection -- "alternate realities" -- we have the following:

   ] According to this theory, whatever future you, as an individual,
   ] experience as part of the same events that those around you are with,
   ] could be one alternate reality, while others you don't witness, may
   ] experience altogether different world events.

Again, the meaning can be puzzled out, but the paragraph remains
very opaque.  (Hint: "others" appears to refer to alternate
possible futures.)  A better wording might be the following:

   According to this theory, the events in your future may not be
   the same as another's.  In other words, your reality may not
   match that of someone else.


Conclusion:

Kettler's opaque style ensures that he remains incoherent to
many people.  I strongly suggest he develop his self-criticism
so that he can tighten up his style.  Further, study of common
logical fallacies can improve his logic:

  http://www.sonic.net/scott/logic.txt

 -Scott