Elizabeth Liddle Runs Away

_{Barry Arrington

May 11, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Elizabeth Liddle has announced her departure from UD. If you miss her comments here, it is not because she has been banned. It is because she got caught in flagrante delicto, and this time she was unable to obfuscate her way out of it. I will elucidate.

In comment 2 to this post, I alluded to Liddle’s tendency to make diametrically opposing claims as the inclination strikes her. Specifically, I said:

Elizabeth Liddle also has problems keeping track of the sewage she spills into the UD combox, sometimes contradicting herself in the same thread:

EXHIBIT A:

EL @ comment 10 of prior post:

But he [i.e., Meyer] is no palaeontologist, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though . . .

EL @ comment 43 of same post:

I do not criticise Meyer because he is not a qualified palaeontologist. I don’t even criticise him because he, not being a qualified palaeontologist, writes a book on the palaeontology.

Elizabeth responded:

Barry, those two statements are perfectly consistent. Read them again.

I replied in the same comment:

OK; I read them again, including what followed each. In the first you criticized Meyer for not being palaeontologist. In the second you claim you never criticized Meyer for not being a palaeontologist. And in this comment you claim those two statements are “perfectly consistent.” Lizzie, get help.

Elizabeth’s last word:

I’m outta here.

Barry’s helpful translation from Darwinese: “I got caught. Then I got caught again when I doubled down. I will never admit I was wrong to do what I did, but it is too embarrassing to stay. I will slink back over to my echo chamber where they will cheer me on no matter what I say, even if it contradicts something I just said.

Comments

I think that people laid it on a little thick against EL. I wouldn't want to come back here, if I were her.Collin_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

peptidyl transferase noun pep·ti·dyl transferase \?pep-t?-?dil-\ Medical Definition of PEPTIDYL TRANSFERASE : an enzyme that catalyzes the addition of amino acid residues to the growing polypeptide chain in protein synthesis by means of peptide bonds http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/peptidyl%20transferase Apparently this is the biggest problem DNA Jock could find in Meyer's book.phoodoo_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

DNA Jock, If your biggest problem with Meyer's book is that he calls peptidyl transferase an enzyme, his book must be pretty darn accurate. Thanks for the seal of approval.phoodoo_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

DNA_Jock:
1) Of course I meant “wrong” in the narrow “in this specific case” sense.
And I "defaced" Reciprocating Bill's post but you forgot to leave off the scare quotes.Mung_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Box, First two minor points: 1) Of course I meant “wrong” in the narrow “in this specific case” sense. 2) You ask:
Do you have reading comprehension issues as well? What part of Lizzie’s “Meyer gets the actual predictions wrong” is in the form of your version: “Meyer is at risk of getting predictions wrong?
This part: “Meyer gets the actual predictions wrong” corresponds with “This is wrong. This is wrong because it is factually incorrect.” Whereas: “But he is no paleontologist, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though…” corresponds with “Meyer is at risk of getting predictions wrong” More importantly, you might want to brush up on logic 101. I wrote, and you failed to understand:
The premise that leads to He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist is “nobody except a paleontologist could possibly get this right”.
Let’s break this down: “He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist “ i.e. Not a P, therefore wrong Which is the same as Not wrong, therefore a P, or as I put it:“only a P could get this right” You were trying to equate Not a P, therefore wrong (i.e. He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist) With “error is of the kind that no paleontologist, philosopher and so forth would make.” Which is P, therefore not wrong This last statement is equivalent to Wrong, therefore not P You were committing the fallacy of the inverse. Look it up. Do you have any interest in discussing why Meyer was wrong (about phylogenies, or about peptidyl transferase) or would you rather continue to display your ignorance of logic? I did enjoy your attributing to me the logical error that you had made.DNA_Jock_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

DNA_Jock #40,
Box: He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist, philosopher, medical doctor, architect or whatever, is a sound argument only if the error is of the kind that no paleontologist, philosopher and so forth would make.

DNA_Jock: Oh dear. Let’s suppose, arguendo that “the error is of the kind that no paleontologist…would make”.
Okay, let’s do that.
DNA_Jock: From this we can safely conclude that “If he is wrong, therefore he is no paleontologist”, (…)
Unless you meant to say “If he is wrong on this specific topic which no paleontologist gets wrong…” you have failed to grasp the simple point of my argument.
DNA_Jock: (…) and the rather goofy, but logically equivalent, “he is a paleontologist, therefore he is not wrong”, (…)
“Goofy” indeed, unless you meant to say “he is a paleontologist, therefore he is not wrong on this specific topic which (as far as we know) no paleontologist gets wrong” My simple point is that there may very well be specific basic knowledge that is shared and adopted by every member of a profession X. If anyone makes a specific mistake, which stems from a lack of aforementioned specific basic knowledge, it follows that such a person is not a member of profession X.
DNA_Jock: The premise that leads to He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist is “nobody except a paleontologist could possibly get this right”.
Oh dear … Your conclusion is based on a logical mistake, which no logician would make; therefor I can safely conclude that you are no logician. Do you see how this works, DNA_Jock? You think that “only a non-paleontologist makes mistake A” is logically equivalent to “only a paleontologist does not make mistake A”. This is of course utter nonsense. I doubt that there is even a name for it.
DNA_Jock: This is not an argument that anybody has made here.
Finally something I can agree with. You are the author of this absurd argument.
DNA_Jock: Rather, Elizabeth’s argument was of the form: Because Meyer is not a molecular biologist, he is at risk of making elementary mistakes about molecular biology.
Do you have reading comprehension issues as well? What part of Lizzie’s “Meyer gets the actual predictions wrong” is in the form of your version: “Meyer is at risk of getting predictions wrong?
DNA_Jock: Elizabeth has previously explained why it’s a mistake.
Hahaha!Box_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

How does one define another as being "good" or not so "good" at their profession? How is that definition employed? Is it based on concensus? That is odd, for how can one assign quality of workmanship or intelligent thought to agreeing with a majority? It is even odder still when you consider the majority of significant scientific findings have come from those going against the current concensus; questioning it, daring to stand against the flow and challenge thought that has prevailed through tradition. Further, talk to almost any very great scientist and they will tell you that great success, innovation and discovery comes from questioning every consensus and choosing to not ignore those things others ignore and dismiss. So unless one can provide evidence of flaw and unsound reasoning in an argument, it seems tenuous at best to classify another as "not good" when this is based on largely the lack of agreement with concensus. That is the sort of attitude that leads to scientific stagnation and sadly is one of the chief attitudes and arguments among materialists, and as such, can tantamount to ad hominem in its attack.Dr JDD_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Box writes:
He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist, philosopher, medical doctor, architect or whatever, is a sound argument only if the error is of the kind that no paleontologist, philosopher and so forth would make
Oh dear. Let’s suppose, arguendo that “the error is of the kind that no paleontologist…would make”. From this we can safely conclude that “If he is wrong, therefore he is no paleontologist”, and the rather goofy, but logically equivalent, “he is a paleontologist, therefore he is not wrong”, which reveals the appeal to authority hidden in your premise. The premise that leads to He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist is “nobody except a paleontologist could possibly get this right”. This is not an argument that anybody has made here. Rather, Elizabeth’s argument was of the form: Because Meyer is not a molecular biologist, he is at risk of making elementary mistakes about molecular biology. When he wrote a book about molecular biology, he called peptidyl transferase an enzyme. This is wrong. This is wrong because it is factually incorrect. [Not part of Elizabeth's argument, but one might say, colloquially, that he made this error because (note the subtly different meaning of the word ‘because’) he is no molecular biologist.] Because he is ignorant of the fields about which he writes books, he puts himself at risk of making elementary mistakes. This is a problem for any author who pontificates from a position of ignorance. His lack of qualifications does not affect the veracity of what he writes, but it does make him run the risk (the realized risk in Meyer`s case) of looking like an idiot to the non-ignorant.
Needless to say that this doesn’t go for Stephen Meyer and the alleged mistake.
If by “Needless to say” you mean “no point in saying” then I guess so. Elizabeth has previously explained why it’s a mistake.DNA_Jock_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Lizzie states that Stephen Meyer gets “the actual predictions wrong” and that this follows from the fact that “he is no palaeontologist” ...
No, she does not. Lizzie may have made those two quoted statements, but she did not state that one followed from the other. RoyRoy_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

MF:
Removing all of someone’s comments without any explanation or even recognition is straight out of 1984.
LOL. You people are delusional. UD is not government website. It is a private site run by private individuals. You have no rights here other than those given to you by the operators of the site. Nobody owes you anything because there is no contract between you and the operators. Live with it. Now using our tax money to teach our children to believe in a bunch of government-mandated, Darwinian, dirt-did-it, fairy tales is straight out of 1984.Mapou_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Actually, the two statements work together to form an emergent property neither of the constituent statements have on their own: the property of non-contradictory contradiction.William J Murray_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

He is wrong, because he is no paleontologist, philosopher, medical doctor, architect or whatever, is a sound argument only if the error is of the kind that no paleontologist, philosopher and so forth would make. Only if someone makes a basic mistake that no plumber in the world would make (e.g. not shut off the mains), does it make sense to say: he made the mistake because he is no plumber. Needless to say that this doesn't go for Stephen Meyer and the alleged mistake.Box_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

It’s pretty simple, really:
I don’t think Richard Dawkins is stupid at all. I think he’s rather smart. But he is no philosopher, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though, because he gets his epistemology wrong.
And then
I am certainly not a philosopher. And nor is Dawkins. I do not criticize Dawkins because he is not a qualified philosopher. I don’t even criticize him because he, not being a qualified philosopher, writes a book on philosophy. I do criticize him for the errors in that book. If you think that Dawkins is qualified to write the book, then I am just as qualified to point out the errors. In other words, qualifications are irrelevant. What matters is the content of the book. If anyone here disagrees with my critique of his book, then please defend Dawkins against my critique.
But I contradict myself. Apparently.DNA_Jock_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Mung @ 33. You need to warn me when you are about to say something like that. I was drinking coffee and some came out my nose as I laughed. In the future, please preface such observations with "Put your coffee down."Barry Arrington_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Barry, you just don't understand the meaning of the word complementary. The two statements are complementary in that they complement one another [combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another] to show that when taken together they are contradictory.Mung_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

RodW,
RodW: Meyer is wrong; this may be because he is not a paleontologist.
And when a paleontologist is wrong, about let's say feathered dinosaurs, is that because he is a (qualified) paleontologist?
WJM: Meyer is either right or wrong because of facts and evidence that demonstrate one way or the other, not because he is, or is not, a paleontologist.
Indeed!Box_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

RodW, re-read the OP. It is about Lizzie thinking she can make mutually exclusive statements and then claim the mutually exclusive statements are perfectly complementary.Barry Arrington_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

WJM said
RodW: Meyer is either right or wrong because of facts and evidence that demonstrate one way or the other, not because he is, or is not, a paleontologist.
Certainly, and people can be self-taught experts in a particular field. Barry, Yes I know it was about Meyer's expertise etc. But I thought the whole squabble that led to Lizzie leaving began when she was accused of making an ad hominem.RodW_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Mung: I forgot that "qualified" means "never makes mistakes". My bad.William J Murray_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

RodW, Go back and read the post. The point made does not hang on whether Lizzie's remarks fall within the definition of ad hominem. To the readers: You know what is perhaps more fascinating than Lizzie contradicting herself in the same comment thread and then insisting that she did not? People like RodW who come in and suggest that mutually exclusive statements are actually quite complementary because it is all subtle and stuff.Barry Arrington_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

WJM, But if Meyer was a qualified paleontologist he would not have made "Meyer's Mistake." Get it?Mung_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

RodW: Meyer is either right or wrong because of facts and evidence that demonstrate one way or the other, not because he is, or is not, a paleontologist.William J Murray_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

A statement that Lizzie made but you guys ignored:
Ad hominem: Meyer must be wrong because he is not a palaeontologist. Not Ad hominem: Meyer is wrong; this may be because he is not a palaeontologist.
This is a subtle but valid distinction so you guys should stop your attack. I think she's wrong to bring it up though, its irrelevant. If Meyer thought it was worth his while he could go back to grad school and get a phd in paleontology. My guess is that it wouldn't change his views in the slightest. After all, it didn't change Well's views and Kurt Wise got a phd in geology from Harvard and still claims the earth is 7000 years old.RodW_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

MF and other defenders of EL: If EL was not using the fact that Meyer is not a paleontologist to support her criticism of his work, why bring it up at all?William J Murray_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

If people want a conversation they can come to my place, where no-one’s posts are edited or deleted and no-one is banned, except in the case of spam, porn, malware or posting other people’s personal info.
People are "welcome" at the TSZ if they are willing to put up with the worst kind of outrage. I visited that playpen a couple of months ago to correct the errors contained in KeithS's wildly skewed series on (against) Christianity. Since he could not address my arguments, he decided to blashpheme the Holy Spirit by name. I left without saying goodbye. I will never return.StephenB_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
If people want a conversation they can come to my place, where no-one’s posts are edited or deleted and no-one is banned, except in the case of spam, porn, malware or posting other people’s personal info.
Well, no. that's not exactly true. Elizabeth recently edited a post made by Reciprocating Bill. Her justification was that I had edited that same post by Reciprocating Bill (I had indeed added a comment at the end). So that means the same post got edited twice! But that won't happen at TSZ. LoL. See, her statement is true, but it's not exactly true, so there's no contradiction. See how easy that is? Must be the exception that proves the rule, or something.Mung_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

I am quite sure she has better things to do over at TSZ. Haven't you noticed the increase in guano since her return?Mung_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

You have to marvel at Liz's brass neck! Liz reminds me of a mad friend of my brother, whose brakes failed as he tried to draw up behind another car at the traffic-lights at the junction of Church Street and London Road in Enfield. He immediately got out of the car and said to the woman who eventually emerged from the car in front, 'What's the big idea?' 'What's your game?' That sort of nonsense, presumably implying that she'd pulled up sharply in front of him, when in fact she'd been completely stationary. Albie used to wear a pork-pie hat, before the Spaghetti Westerns, put both feet in the table in the ABC cafeteria, although in the upstairs part, jump off trains to Liverpool Street, between stations, trains which used to move at about 15 mph and chase across the gardens of the private houses, etc, lining the railway tracks. Soho, to Albie, was Chinatown. Just anything madcap to make life more exciting! Anything that is, except setting off explosives in Hilly Fields, a sort of park, which his even madder mate, Sam favoured. I know it sounds incredible, but I believe he owns an art gallery now! Anyway, it occurred to me, do you think it possible that Liz is a kind of female version of Albie. The way she talks sound very prim and proper, as befits an academic lady, but that wild streak of incorrigibility and bare-faced denial, you know...? Barry: How true that Poe's Law!Axel_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 8, You have doubtless heard of Poe's Law (without a clear indicator of an author's intention, it is often impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of such extremism). I think we just saw something similar. People like Mark Frank are so blindly invested in one side of a controversy, that they can't tell the difference between sarcastic and sincere support of that side.Barry Arrington_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Box @ 17:
I’m sorry to see Lizzie go.
I am too Box. Her incoherent rantings in defense of materialism are the best evidence I can think of against it.Barry Arrington_{May 12, 2015
May
05
May
12
12
2015
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply