RAHN: Mr. Dorsch's 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:

DORSCH: I'm afraid that you doctor are the one confused.

RAHN: (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.

DORSCH: Ah, but when it is professed BEFORE the discussion begins, it becomes salesmanship. You are already establishing what the outcome is to be and seeking to "close" your audience. The outcome of the experiment is predetermined.

Have you not heard of "double-blind" studies doctor? Why are they done that way? Isn't it to avoid possible bias?

Is not your method therefore flawed?

RAHN: (2) The scientific method is agnostic, no matter the probabilities involved.


DORSCH: I agree, its just that YOU are not agnostic, as you professed to me to be. And YOU are teaching the course.

RAHN: (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.


DORSCH: Then my good doctor, why have you not applied the scientific method to the null hypothesis of Oswald alone being the shooter, rather than using the scientific method to disprove a conspiracy?

More specifically, a "lone nut" gunman requires that Kennedy passed within 100 meters of Oswald by "random chance" since Oswald did not "stalk" him.

If that does not stand up to "scientific method" my good doctor, all else means little since any other reasonable method for the "meeting" requires outside assistance...and a conspiracy.

Such is the fault in your logic. The scientific method is only applied to that which you state you do not believe, rather than that which you advocate.

RAHN: (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. Dorsch 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.

DORSCH: Very thinly veiled salesmanship again my good doctor..."I believe that there was not a conspiracy, I teach the course and grade it, but you are free to argue and believe what you want".

"We have great discussions, but everyone knows that I feel anyone who believes in a conspiracy is wrong."

Please...give me a break!

The table is preset...by you, and it and you are flawed, sir.

You start out with a self-image that places you above the rest in terms of the purity of your thinking and validity of what you believe. You do not subject your own thoughts and beliefs to the same rigorous testing you apply to others.

Your agenda has become one of showing why other people are wrong based on the totally fallacious premise that you are right.

You can see the lack of logic and objectivity in the work of other people but you are oblivious to the fact that are guilty of the same mistakes.

In fact, your website even mentions your biased feelings towards pro-conspiracy researchers.

This is, I believe a by-product of your education and the "courtesy" as you call it, of the way your peers handle debate with you. By not being forthright, they allow your flawed self-image to become too great for your reasoning to overcome when challenged on your methodology. Simply put, you can see in others that which you cannot see in yourself.

RAHN: (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.

DORSCH: You first breached "etiquette" by posting personal data about me on your website over 2 years ago...after I had denied you permission to use my work.

Is this not the pot calling the kettle black?

RAHN: (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.

DORSCH: In other words, you "talk down" to those unworthy?

Another example of what I mention in #3 above.

Even if I accept what you say, when I approached you after getting Dr. Thomas' rebuttal, you had the opportunity to respond with a "more scientific" argument...you chose not to do so, instead hiding behind your supposed indignation...rather convenient, I'd say.

I waited a full week for a response before posting anything about it.

That was more than fair.

RAHN: (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.

DORSCH: You didn't "correspond" to anyone but me, so the first sentence above is nonsense.

My post here refers readers to my website, specifically Chapter 5, where the article and a link to our ENTIRE exchange is viewable. I believe your stance here is ludicrous.

 If others feel or felt differently, the entire exchange is available.

If your argument was good enough to enlighten me, why did you not defend it to a peer?

Why did "...so easy to deal with", become "...not one of my strong areas in the JFK assassination"
when confronted by someone who, to be completely descriptive, you know isn't so easy to bull****?

If as you state above, you do all this so "scientifically", then why was no "scientific" counter-argument
to a peer readily available?

RAHN: (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.

DORSCH: I advised you in my last e-mail...the one you did not respond to...that I would make the entire exchange public.
You did not respond. Had you done so and requested that I not make it public beforehand, perhaps you'd have
a leg to stand on...you did not.

I felt, and still feel, that I was well within my journalistic rights to both forward your responses to Dr. Thomas and
to air them in the newsgroups. There is no expectation of privacy in an e-mail...even the courts realize that.

You were also well aware that I had published my work on the internet, thus establishing that you were speaking to a journalist, whether you agree with me or not.

If I had misquoted you, then I would have been at fault and you would have had something to bitch about.

As such, any and all comments not requested to be on "background" are subject to being published.

RAHN: Having noted these things, I will drop out of this thread and leave reactions to others.

DORSCH: Unfortunately doctor, all your rhetoric again side-steps the real issue...you have still avoided addressing both Dr. Thomas' rebuttal on the acoustics and my initial request that you provide scientific argument as to why Dr. Thomas' work was not sufficient to change your stance.

We're still waiting, doctor.