The Statement of Chemistry on the Origin of Life

American Thinker.com ^ | September 26, 2017 | James Clinton

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: " Nor did I post anything close to the summations you’ve projected on me. "

Can you cite an example?

" At least my summation accurately reflects your claim, whether you admit it or not. "

Nonsense.

"When it walks, talks, and swims like a duck, you need to have a reason to deny the identity of what you’ve described other than 'I never said it was a duck.' "

Can you cite an example that "walks, talks & swims like a duck?"

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: " 'Dysfunctional', how? "

Read it yourself, again.
"Anomaly: Blame apparatus, set aside problem, modify paradigm." Sounds pretty dysfunctional to me, and therefore not what Toulmin had in mind.

papertyger. " Bear in mind I’m only asking because I’m provisionally giving you credit in hoping you’ll have a real answer rather than 'begging the question' by simply positing Toulmin is right and Kuhn is wrong. "

Yet again you project views on me I never expressed, or quacked, as the case may be.
In fact, I don't doubt that both are right in different circumstances.
Kuhn describes a more chaotic, dysfunctional & unconscious "revolutionary" process, while Toulmin defends the honor of science by positing a more orderly & consciously directed "evolutionary" process.

I think both processes are, or were, true at different times & places.

You disagree?

[papertyger]

Sounds pretty dysfunctional to me, and therefore not what Toulmin had in mind.

Quack, Quack.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Quack, Quack."

So you're the duck, a bona fide member of the Ducka-cratic party devoted to projecting their own quacks onto others?

Fine.