Mr. Dorsh's (sic)continuing confusion about the scientific method, teaching,and matters of etiquette has provided an opportunity to discuss some basic issues that others here may find helpful. The principles involved here include:
(1) Drawing a conclusion from evidence or about evidence is not the same thing as having a closed mind, particularly when the results are described in terms of probabilities, as I do. In fact, a probabilistic discussion represents the ultimate in an open mind.
(2) The scientific method is agnostic, no matter the probabilities involved.(Popper calls this the "conjectural theory of knowledge.") Noting that the evidence is extremely strong that Oswald fired the shots is completely compatible with not knowing who fired the shots. The same basic principle holds for conspiracy--lack of evidence in no way means there was no conspiracy, even though it points very strongly in that direction. At least once a week during the semester I tell the students in no uncertain terms that the minute anyone produces hard evidence of conspiracy I will be first in line to acknowledge it.
(3) Professors are supposed to profess, not to hedge unnecessarily. For me not to tell the students what I think the evidence means would be to deprive them of my experience and capabilities. Mr. Dorsh (sic) seems to be equating "open-minded" with refusing to reach a conclusion or objectively characterize evidence. They are very different. Mr. Dorsch also fails to note the part of the syllabus that explains to the students that they are completely free to espouse any viewpoint they wish, provided only that they back it up with evidence. They exercise this right regularly, including on examinations, and we have great discussions.
(4) It is a breach of etiquette to unilaterally forward someone's E-mail message to another for whom it was never intended. Mr. Dorsch replied to me that I should have marked all correspondence to him "private" beforehand. I am happy to not be that paranoid. I assume basic manners instead.
(5) Messages are always written in a certain context, which determines their content, style, and overall approach. That is why I (and others, I am sure) write differently to a scientist and a nonscientist, when rushed and at ease, and when relaxed and on edge. Those are some of the reasons it is ill-considered to forward messages to third parties in different contexts.
(6) It does not generate warm and fuzzy feelings to correspond simultaneously with two people on the same topic, requesting permissions from the one and not requesting permissions from the other. Mr. Dorsch didn't tell you that he was doing that.
(7) It is a breach of etiquette to then post that lopsided correspondence to a newsgroup, especially knowing how one of the correspondents felt about previous violations, and claim that it represents anything objective. It does not.
Ken Rahn
Anyone interested in my point by point rebuttal of the above can