Tooling around looking for news, I came across this post, which Barry wrote about a site called The Skeptical Zone (TSZ):
The site has a sort of symbiotic relationship with UD, because many, if not most, of the posts there key off our posts here.
Wow. This must really be Internet III.
Used to be that booted trolls would found solo blogs to rant about us for a few weeks, and then (one guesses) turn sixteen, get a job at the car wash legally, and discover what “the value of one’s time” means. TSZ seems really organized by comparison.
While we are here, a regular commenter who would probably really enjoy TSZ, if he doesn’t visit it already, appended a comment to “Are we and rats powerless against the urge to stuff ourselves with Oreos?”, to the effect in part that:
At no point in the published material do they claim that we (or rats) are powerless against our urge to stuff ourselves with Oreos.
But we hold on to the hope that our longtime commenter is not nearly so naive as to believe what he is saying. Indeed, one of the explicit purposes of such research (otherwise, why bother?) is to identify evidence that disapproved foods act like drugs, reducing our control over our actions.
Intrusive legislation follows, of course, and that was part of Satel’s point in the original post.
When former New York mayor Bloomberg tried banning large size soda pop, for the good of citizens, an evolutionary biologist chimed in, announcing that we evolved to need coercion.
Presumably, we have all turned out to be nutritionally reckless because there was no paleolithic Nanny Bloomberg to supervise us.
Worse, U.S. judges (judges!) have shown themselves to be creationist denialists after all. They have driven Nanny Bloomberg’s law to extinction.
As for TSZ, as Barry noted, skepticism of the faculty lounge’s received opinion is no more likely a goal of theirs than constitutional liberty is a goal of the “soda ban” mayor or his friendly neighbourhood evolutionary biologist.
It’s too bad in a way because “skepticism” used to be a meaningful word.
Note: “Evolved to need coercion” is, by contrast, a repulsive concept in this universe or any other that may happen to exist.
Nice post. Darwinian evolution exists as a “viable” theory only through coercion by self-appointed tyrannical nannies.
The first comment by Mapou above is so well worded, all I can say is “Agree!”
The majority of the people at the Skeptical Zone are anything but. I’ve yet to see the least amount of skepticism from them in their unquestioned faith that blind material processes can build the unfathomed levels of complexity we are finding in life.
Skepticism properly exercised would demand some pretty convincing evidence that blind material processes can generate multiple levels of overlapping coding that our best programmers cannot even conceive of, but what do we get from the supposed skeptics of the skeptical zone? Not a peep! No matter what evidence is presented to them, unguided evolution is the unquestioned answer for how such highly integrated coding came about. Even though these ‘skeptics’ have not one example that they can point of blind material processes generating such integrated complexity:
and even the supposed beneficial mutations of Lenski’s bacteria were not truly beneficial:
Basically, Darwinists/The Skeptical Zone cannot show any convincing evidence whatsoever for even the first few baby steps towards building the unfathomed levels of integrated coding being found in biological life.,,, And yet the skeptics of the skeptical zone accept that all life happened by blind material processes without the slightest hint of doubt. In fact many Darwinists/Skeptics are well known for the deep hostility they harbor for anyone who doubts their unfounded materialistic beliefs!,,, Thus, true skepticism was never welcome in ‘The Skeptical Zone’ in the first place! Like many other things in Darwinism, the name ‘the skeptical zone’ itself turns out to be a deception of the way things truly are.
Well, we’re keeping a watchful eye on you. So long as “Intelligent Design” Creationism continues to advance in the Italian fashion, that’s all we need to do. 🙂
Mr. Fox states:
Yet,,,
So if Intelligent Design and/or Creationism continues to be the majority opinion in America, despite the valiant attempts at disinformation, slander, and ‘EXPELLING’, you and yours have put into denying the truth for the past century and a half, then you and yours will be content to just lie, slander, and ruin lives as you have done? Well how mighty generous of you? But if you don’t mind me asking, what oh what will you guys do if the numbers don’t go your way besides just telling lies, slandering hinest people, and ruining careers?
Will you atheists start shooting people if the numbers continue to go against you? Actually that is what I’m afraid of if atheists ever grow in numbers and gain real political power in this country!
Music and Verse:
I usually try to avoid talking about people on this forum but as the OP is aimed fairly squarely at people including me I am going to indulge.
I am guessing that News in this case is Denyse because there is a lot of innuendo and discussion of motives and people and very little straightforward statement of facts.
I wrote:
I may be wrong. That is easily demonstrated by quoting the place in the published material where the claim is made. What we get instead is:
This does not contradict what I wrote but Denyse, being an experienced journalist, knows how to give that impression by:
* equating reduced control and powerless
* talking about such research instead of this particular piece of research by a bunch of kids
* vaguely referring to explicit purposes (if they are explicit then they should be written somewhere – reference please).
As to the question – why bother? Well we could try reading what they wrote in the press release:
i.e. to find out how addictive such foods are. As it happens I think the criticisms of the experiment are well founded for scientific reasons – but hey it was a student project and the publicity got out of hand (tough on the rats though to sacrifice themselves to dubious science)
PS – I am long standing contributor to TSZ and spend more time there than here as the debate is more open, straightforward and less repetitive. Several UD regulars also post there quite frequently and unlike UD they are in no danger of being banned or moderated on account of their views or arguments.
PPS Would that I were sixteen, but as it happens I am almost the same age as you are.
F/N: AF has basically been around UD since its beginning. That he — after much, well-merited correction — still insists on using a malicious and inaccurate conflation of design theory with creationism speaks sad volumes on not only want of basic respect for others, but also on want of even more fundamental integrity and exposes a toxic rhetorical intent to poison the well. That speaks volumes about what we are up against, and on the worldview-cultural agendas involved with evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller ideologies. All of which are of course are on all too revealing display at TSZ. $0.02 KF
MF:
Methinks we need to consider the contrast: habituating, vs addictive.
Many things can induce us into unhealthy or dangerous habits, and such habits can be psycho-socially and even spiritually enmeshing and entangling — consider the phrase: comfort foods, or drowning one’s sorrows in one’s cups — but that is very different from actual, objective chemical addiction. Where also, even mild chemical dependencies (I think here, coffee) can be managed through self discipline.
For, there is such a thing as the discipline of moderation that leads to self control, AKA temperance.
And in turn, that points to how we are more than merely biochemical machines, produced, programmed and controlled by blind mechanical forces. That underlying presumption that is far too pervasive in our day, is inherently self refuting, but is institutionally enforced by a dominant ideology and its thought police. It leads to a fundamentally flawed vision of humanity and enables those who are all too eager to use such to enable THEIR addictive pattern: dominance over others through abuse of powers of government, here in the form of the overbearing nanny state.
As in, what Plato warned against so long ago in The Laws, Bk X, as what evolutionary materialism opens the door to:
KF
PS: TSZ is — as has repeatedly been shown — little more than a nest of willful slanderers and enablers of slander. What I just had to call out AF on is a classic in point.
By the way – can News or anyone explain what is meant by Internet III in the OP? I have heard of Web 3.0 but that is refers to the semantic web.
News wrote:
In light of which, a couple of cliches spring to mind.
“Too much time on their hands,” obviously. “Get a life,” for another, although in some unknown number of specific instances it may be more precisely a matter of, “Get a job,” as cozy as mom’s basement may be after straining ones’ brain for so long post-graduate.