Mathgirrl returns? An entire blog is now devoted to complaining about Uncommon Descent …
| May 26, 2011 | Posted by O'Leary under Darwinism, Intelligent Design |
Yes. About Uncommon Descent’s moderation policies in detail, and it is hosted by markf, who comments here.
So, if he comments here … does that … ? No, wait, this is the confused, illusory world of the Darwinist. It doesn’t have to make sense.
Hat tip: Our Cannuckian Yankee drew our attention to the continuation of the “overlong” MathGrrl’s thread over there, here, by citing this comment.
Now, are we such hot stuff? Come to think of it, Satan doesn’t like us either, for some reason. And the ID guys are, in the view of a Christian Darwinist, an evil and adulterous generation.
Cannuckian notes,
The blog holds a discussion among people have been banned from commenting on UD for one reason or another. Many of them are angry at UD for having placed them in moderation, and the discussion on that blog is almost exclusively centered around UD’s moderation policy. There’s not much discussion on the merits of either ToE or ID.
I’ve been reading posts there for several weeks, and it appears that some of the comments from markf here are intended to test whether certain things he says will lead to him being moderated. He does not believe that people are moderated due to any particular policy, but based on the emotional whims of the moderators.
Skinny: Given the growing number of people who use and enjoy our service, I don’t feel any need to defend our moderation policies: People who resent them are free to express themselves elsewhere. Sometimes we make mistakes. But we can’t both get out news and comment and run a perpetually sitting grievance committee. Best solution: Write as if you were participating in an online discussion with courteous and intelligent people. Especially if you think you are one.
Cannuckian also observes:
If MG is posting on a blog for former UD posters of dissenting views, then likely she is one of those former posters and is using another name. I got a hint of that when on the other blog, she erroneously posted under the name of one “Patrick,” on 3 recent posts, then after catching herself and saying that she outed herself there, she explained that she was using her father’s laptop, and that markf could decide what he was going to do with her 3 posts under that name; which is interesting, since markf apparently doesn’t censor anything on that blog.
Well one thing that certainly demonstrates, Cannuckian (hey, salut!!), is that many Darwinists are underemployed. Could that be because Darwinism is a useless obstruction to science, but the Darwinists themselves are entitled to be on one public payroll or another?
You know you are living in an Internet world when there are blogs about blogs. Happy reading.
Now back to regular news coverage, like we always do.
71 Responses to Mathgirrl returns? An entire blog is now devoted to complaining about Uncommon Descent …
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’d love to see a side by side comparison between the number of evolutionary biologists, and the number of ID scientists.
Option 1: Have a moderation policy, however imperfectly it may be applied.
Option 2: Allow our blog to degenerate into a slimy hatefest like Panda’s Thumb.
I vote for 1.
Denyse – there seems to be some confusion about this. There is just one thread on my blog about moderation at UD. I think maybe the title of the blog caused this.
I’d love to see the number of evolutionary biologists who can demonstrate that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct useful, functional mult-part systems. Seeing that biological organisms are full of useful, functional multi-part systems you would think it would be in their best inerest to provide such a demonstration.
That’s right “lastyearon”, don’t worry about observations and experiments when all you need is scientific consensus.
True science doesn’t need strength in numbers.
Looking forward to your response to Joseph though.
Only one? Darn.
Not on the same date that Jesus returned I hope. That would just be spooky.
Have the number of complaints regarding the evil UD moderation policy increased or decreased since Mathgrrl arrived?
Where is she, by the way? Did she return the key to townsquare on her way out?
A thread on markf’s blog! The nations tremble.
I tuned into to that blog post because I love a good math fight. However what i saw was mathgrrl get punched in her ideology with math by kairo
As the title of this post is wrong, perhaps you might correct it Denyse?
Can we supply the other side of the argument with a list of titles they have had wrong as well?
We’ll have a correct-o-fest, with ice cream for the kids.
😉
In Moderation
Celebrating being placed in moderation on Uncommon Descent
Yeah Denyse, they are not complaining, they are celebrating.
And from what MathGrrl says, the folks there are quite civil and there’s no reason for them to be banned or moderated by UD.
Let me quote:
I’m sure such folks are welcome here at UD. Right mods?
Mung:
Did you see the notification I received about a new blog, that riffs off attempted outing behaviour etc at MF’s blog?
REAL civil.
NOT
GEM of TKI
Denyse – out of several posts on markf’s blog, there is only one post that specifically addresses UD’s moderation policies. Out of curiosity, how many more slurs regarding “darwinists” do you have yet to express? The “underemployed” one is your silliest one yet.
Upright Biped – Mathgrrl apparently has a life outside of the internet, as she has mentioned many times before.
Mung – I dont see any indication at markf’s blog of “celebration” over being placed in moderation. It’s a constructive response to what becomes a very frustrating situation for many commenters at UD.
kairosfocus – are you referring to this:
The IDiots of Intelligent Design
http://theidiotsofintelligentd.....f-tki.html
So markf needs to change the title of his blog.
False advertising, and all that.
From Markf’s blog intro, captured May 26, 2011 (9:53pm EST):
“I enjoy participating in blogs, particularly those that where I disagree with the majority of posts. One such blog is Intelligent Design blogs Uncommon Descent. This blog is notorious for arbitrary censoring and banning of contributors who do not support the party line. For many years I led a charmed life but at one stage I was placed into what those responsible for the blog call moderation. Moderation means that all your comments are inspected before they are published. This can result in a delay of 24 hours and may well mean your comment is not be published at all. I decided this made it no longer worthwhile to comment on UD. So instead I created this blog – hence the title: In Moderation.
Later on I was reprieved and now continue to make comments there. However, I have stuck with the title for this blog.”
Well then, how seriously can be Markf expect to be taken, given that he still comments here and won’t change his blog hedder.
Is Markf one of those Darwinists whose funding ultimately comes from the taxpayer? Real scientists would be too busy for this. So are real journalists, incidentally, or anyone who has to live in the real world, so I am not pursuing this any further.
Denyse #17
“Is Markf one of those Darwinists whose funding ultimately comes from the taxpayer? Real scientists would be too busy for this. So are real journalists, incidentally, or anyone who has to live in the real world, so I am not pursuing this any further.”
I am semi-retired – that is why I have time to pursue interests like this. I have never worked for a public sector organisation and I don’t pretend to be scientist. I have no doubt you are busy, but you have time to look at my blog and conjecture about how I make a living, but not enough time to even admit, much less correct, a straightforward error in your post.
(I didn’t change the header of my blog because I rather liked the title independent of ID and also it confuses people if you change the name.)
markf, directly from your “In Moderation” BLOG:
“In Moderation
Celebrating being placed in moderation on Uncommon Descent (now happily rescinded)
Blog
About this blog
About this blog
Why is it called In Moderation ?
I enjoy participating in blogs, particularly those that where I disagree with the majority of posts. One such blog is Intelligent Design blogs Uncommon Descent. This blog is notorious for arbitrary censoring and banning of contributors who do not support the party line. For many years I led a charmed life but at one stage I was placed into what those responsible for the blog call moderation. Moderation means that all your comments are inspected before they are published. This can result in a delay of 24 hours and may well mean your comment is not be published at all. I decided this made it no longer worthwhile to comment on UD. So instead I created this blog – hence the title: In Moderation.”
No, it’s not just a thread, and your very words state so.
#19 CY – you left out the final paragraph:
“Later on I was reprieved and now continue to make comments there. However, I have stuck with the title for this blog”
It just a story about how I came by the title. If you look at the contents of the blog you will see it covers a number of topics – many relating to UD – many relating to other things. There is only one thread about UD’s moderation policies which I set up because a discussion on the policies had broken out elsewhere (a common occurrence on many blogs) and ironically I wanted to make the case that UD does not have a strategy for suppressing dissent.
I recognise it might be easy to make the mistake of thinking my blog was all about UD moderation policies. But I explained, quite politely I think, to Denyse in #3 that it wasn’t. Her response was to query whether I was tax-funded and underemployed!
markf,
Even if what you are stating is simply an innocent misunderstanding; which I doubt, but it may be (and when you initially corrected me about my perception of your blog, I was prepared to believe that it was). But now we have this quote above – which I admit I did not clearly read when I was visiting your blog (who reads such things? I want to read the posts). Think of the perception that the above quote from your blog provides.
I think I’ve been fair in pointing these issues out in a calm manner – to me what you’re stating here doesn’t ring true. The record on that seems clear.
The issue of there being complaints about ID on another blog does not phase me one bit. I’ve encountered complaints and spoofs and insults towards ID elsewhere and in most cases, I ignore them and move on. The issue for me is when our blog appears to be used as a proving ground to test the premise that UD boots dissenters on emotional whims; which on several posts I pointed out that if this were true any number of the perhaps dozens of dissenters who have come here and remained here for years before being moderated, would not have lasted as long. I’m not going to mention any names out of respect for their privacy, but many of us who’ve been here for a number of years know who they are.
I think given MG’s behavior over the past several months of repeating the same talking points has gotten her into hot water with many of us, and this behavior is what sparked my inquiry into what is truly going on.
This is not the reason I was reading your blog. I initially began reading it after MG pointed out that there was a discussion related to the ongoing issue of her initial question occurring there, and she linked to it here. I was intrigued by all of the complaints because I knew while some of the details regarding someone being moderated might have had some truth to them, there was no truth to the commonly repeated claims that UD intentionally keeps dissenters from being able to fairly voice dissenting views in order trump up the claims of ID. That is simply sheer rubbish spewed from the mouths of people who neither have any data to confirm such claims, but are demonstrating the very reason they were moderated on your own blog. And I’d like to see you try to rationally correct them. You’ve made an attempt, but they’re not buying it.
You stated you don’t know who MG is. Fine. I doubt if anyone here truly knows who I am apart from things I’ve already chosen to reveal about myself here. So I believe you – even though by the perception provided by your own blog’s title and description, and your own denial here that it is in fact a blog dedicated to such an endeavor, rather than simply a “thread,” as you say (which would really be inconsequential except given your denial) could easily lead me to not trust anything you say.
However, to give you the benefit of a doubt – I’m prepared to accept that you’ve decided to host a blog where people are free to slander with impunity anyone who posts here – and that you’ve chosen not to monitor such reprehensible slander – as an example of your being consistent with your own world view. I should accept that that is the way things are with Darwinists – that is until they do something wrong as Dawkins’ own bloggers accused him of several years ago when he decided to change the format of his OWN blog, and was surprised that his bloggers were resorting to slanderous vitriol.
Bottom line is, if you don’t police your blog, you may end up being the victim of the very vitriol (which often is more than simply words, but threats and violations of your own privacy) – if you don’t police it, it’s going to get out of control. They’ve already committed such behaviors against KF when he was invited over there to post. Don’t think they won’t eventually make you the victim.
So it’s not really an issue of us against you – but rather a useful observation of how far incivility can go if left unchecked. Keep your blog honest by strongly challenging and/or booting those who believe it is their private platform to say anything they want with impunity.
Here at UD opinions and assertions are challenged not only by the moderators but by the bloggers here, and not only towards dissenters, but towards supporters of ID in order that things do not get out of control. I have been the receiver of such correction, and I’m glad that it exists. I personally would not want to post on a blog where there was not any moderation. Thus, I would not want to post on your blog. I would like to share my own challenges to the charges I’ve already mentioned, but I don’t feel that your blog is a safe place to raise those challenges. I think people on your blog are motivated to challenge what I say – which would not be a problem, but part of that challenge is not in the form of reasoned arguments, but attempts to dig into peoples’ privacy and “out” them as was done by KF. I don’t think KF is attempting in any way to hide his identity. That’s not the issue. The issue is that such means are not civil and can lead to witch hunt type behaviors, whereby people begin attempting to control opinion regarding KF’s character, and excusing themselves for such means – because the ends justify the means – and KF raised this issue on another thread.
I think you’ve made some attempts to take a middle road on your blog recently and it shows in some of your posts but that is not going to be enough, and the very title and premise of your blog is quite counter to your recent demeanor. At least from my perspective – and I gather the perspectives of many here and elsewhere perhaps.
I think it would behoove you to look into these matters and do something about it without delay, and desist from denying here what your blog quite obviously is. Like I said, it’s not an issue if that’s what you want to talk about over there – that would be none of our concern – just don’t allow us to be dragged into it, like you’ve done, and then deny that it’s a big deal. It is a big deal.
F/N:
This — as I pointed out in the still active footnote thread — is what I am talking about, from an individual who (with the deepest unconscious irony) calls him or herself “the whole truth”:
This person manages to so mangle the truth in the compass of a few words, that it is astonishing.
Then, he — most likely, so let’s use this [oh, for the days when this was understood to be generic] — resorts to utterly unwarranted slanderous false accusations. This person is so full of twisted rage and hate that he thinks that the only reason one could differ with his ideology is because you have to be “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.”
He seems to imagine that reasonable standards of civility that discipline those who resort to the sort of vile conduct just excerpted, is an improper protection. He thus has lost sight of the reason why we have a premise of mutual respect and civility as the basis for civilised discussion. In short, if one has not learned enough to disagree on a topic and address the merits without resort to unwarranted abuse and false accusation, then that person has disqualified himself from civil discussion. (I recall my 4th grade teacher’s solution: washing out the foul mouth with soap. Do we have to go back to that?)
My response to him now and forever is, kindly, read the presentation here on origins science, then respond on the merits, point by point, without slander. Further, I think you should know that your assertions above are false, are things you know or should know are false, and so constitute a case of willful deception intended to hurt and harm, i.e. — as I pointed out and explained in the same thread at no 28 — they are lies.
Such language, I do not lightly use, nor do I use without regret and pain that such needs to be said. But, let me draw your attention to a bit of the scriptural tradition that lies at the foundation of moral thought in our civilisation, on just what “love your neighbour as yourself” calls for:
In short, neighbour love INCLUDES frank correction where it is warranted. And, here, I am pointing out how something that is tantamount to lying can slip in by the back door, whether by rage or by being so pre-occupied with one’s talking points and rhetorical tactics that one does not see where s/he is falling afoul of duties of care to the truth, to fairness, to respect and civility. On fair comment, MG did so, and on fair comment, the source of the cite above has done so.
But, we can turn over a new leaf, and actually think through the matter on the merits.
For instance, one might reflect on the significance of Philip Johnson’s reply to Sagan-Lewontin style a priori evolutionary materialism:
If you cannot understand that serious, intelligent, thoughtful, educated and qualified people may for good reason have a bit of a problem with such materialist a priorism in the false name of science, then I think it is fair comment to say that it is you who have a problem, not the undersigned.
If, having read the IOSE course materials (and let’s add the FAQs here [should be linked at UD!] as well as pointing to the definition of ID, the weak argument correctives and glossary top right this and every UD page], you have real problems, ask genuine questions — please, no more empty drumbeat repetition of demands in the guise of questions, as though serious answers were not long since and repeatedly given.
Then, let us see where the balance of the case is on the merits.
But if you have no cogent answer on the merits but resort to the sort of nastiness and slander as just excerpted, then that is the strongest possible proof that you are in the grips of angry closed minded indoctrination under the false colours of science, and are acting and reacting out of hostility and projection to others, not common good sense, reasonableness in discussion, or even basic broughtupcy and old fashioned good manners.
People who behave like that will poison any serious discussion by dragging red herrings out to strawman distortions and then will soak them in ad hominems and slanders, igniting through incendiary rhetoric. The better to cloud, choke, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere.
Only in such a climate of hostility is ti at all likely to be forgotten that they have made no cogent answer on the merits.
Such individuals do not even have the common decency to recognise that privacy is to be respected, and that I have repeatedly explained why I ask that my name not be used in discussions on the Internet — you have a good enough handle and even initials.
But, they have not got enough good manners left to respect even a minimal request in defence of my email box.
I can therefore see fully why Barry A said at 2 above:
And, on the sort of outrageous behaviour I have shown above, I concur.
GEM of TKI
PS: P, you have given promotion to a scurrilous attack site. Why have you given exposure to the uncivil in their misbehaviour? Is that not a participation in wrongdoing, when you have not corrected them in their wrong?
markf,
I think it’s great that you have a blog about Uncommon Descent.
I would think that you would welcome beeing misrepresented here, as that would give you even more material for your own blog.
Here’s at leasst one header you might try for a post on this subject:
Contrary to a recent claim made at Uncommon Dissent, this Blog, In Moderation (Celebrating being placed in moderation on Uncommon Descent) is not about claims made at the blog Uncommon Descent, nor about it’s moderation practices.
Sure, that’s a mouthful, but it gets the point across, right?
Afterwards, send MathGrrl back here. She waas given a chance to guest post here and then ran away to your blog even though she’d not been banned here or put into moderation and now only returns here periodically you make the same repetitious demands and accusations without ever engaging on the issues.
Pardon, missed a close to an address.
CY:
An excellent example of neighbourly concern.
And, thank you for sticking up for me.
I am not hiding my identity, but in the first instance, defending my email box from the spammers.
I also come from a culture where it is — for excellent reason — seen as rudely presumptuous to use someone’s given name as though one were a familiar friend, especially when one is being disrespectful. I think that those who behave like we can see at MF’s blog, should think on that behaviour.
And, as for the sort of behaviour where I was asked to come over and discuss then was subjected to abuse and attempted outing, that speaks volumes for itself. Volumes.
None of it to the benefit of those who behave like that, and seem to think they have a right to carry on like that.
It will also tell the astute onlooker a lot about the real balance of the case on the merits. But then, that was long since pointed out in the UD Weak Argument Correctives.
GEM of TKI
KF, I’m glad (not for you personally but for me) that you were the one who first raised the issue about that particularly slanderous blog – which apparently just started today.
I was about to place a new post here to direct you to it, and I’m glad you beat me to the punch, ’cause I didn’t want to be the bearer of unpleasant news on this, and I was debating with myself whether I should draw attention to it.
As always, your concerns are well founded – and any justified emotional response to these issues on your part, (again) as always are well balanced and controlled with reason. I’m thankful that we have you here as one of our teachers. Unfortunately there are those who refuse to be taught, and for that reason, you are viewed as a threat. So it’s not surprising. If it had been anybody else interacting with MG and calmly and reasonably correcting, the tactics would have been the same from him towards that other someone.
This guy is proud of himself that he found out some personal information about you as if it would somehow contribute significantly to his cause. It hasn’t.
He is only preparing his own self-destruction. One cannot last too long with that sort of self-absorbed mentality before one’s intellectual bowels implode. He’s the sort that even a PZ Meyers would probably correct on moral grounds, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some (or a majority) of mark’s own fellow bloggers are tired of him, If I were on their side I would see him as an embarrassment. So you do well to take it all in stride.
Wow. I made a big error in one of my last posts that really needs correction. I apologize for any misunderstanding it may have caused:
“but part of that challenge is not in the form of reasoned arguments, but attempts to dig into peoples’ privacy and “out” them as was done by KF. I don’t think KF is attempting in any way to hide his identity.”
it should read: “out” them as was done TO KF.
F/N: What an atheistical agenda — I here respond to the false accusations about an insane religious and political agenda — looks like, per Plato, in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC (2350 years ago, so we can hardly say we were not warned in good time):
__________________
>> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily “scientific” view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . .
[[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them. >>
___________________
So, now, it is time to deal with the matters of origins science on the merits, instead of the sort of ad hominem laced uncivil turnabout false accusations seen above.
And BTW, since my politics has been besmirched by someone who does not know the first thing about me, I will openly confess my political leanings: I am a convinced, small-d democrat, on the conviction that a democratic polity is the safest one for a sane and reasonably educated public. But not a propagandised, Plato’s cave mentally enslaved public.
As a Caribbean, Caricom and Commonwealth national, I am a small-m monarchist, on the quite simple grounds of history — never mind, my Grandma’s great uncle was unjustly hanged by a kangaroo court set up by an ill-advised governor in 1865 — and the advantage to the region’s tourism industry. (It was quite a boost to Jamaica to have it on BBC news that the Jamaica Regiment was guarding Buckingham Palace, a few years back. Hey mon, dere was even some reggae into it! YEA mon, come down to Ting and Stripe country and have some Jerk Pork or chicken — great to clear de sinuses. And de beaches are nice, much nicer dan ice on Christmas day.)
On matters of public policy, I am convinced that our civilisation is running itself into the ground by fiscal irresponsibility at large and by cutting itself off from its moral-spiritual cultural roots. But, for that I have a lot of company and a lot of history.
I am incensed that the name of science is being taken under false pretences to prop up a destructive a priori materialism, but that simply puts me in the company of many outstanding minds across the ages on the amorality and suicidal nature of rampant materialism among cultural elites and the youths who look to such for intellectual leadership.
I think that in education, our young people need more of sci and tech, and a bit of critical thinking and exposure to worldview analysis, so they for instance will understand the strengths and limitations of scientific knowledge claims, and will not be so easily gulled by misleading adverts, ideologically loaded web sites, and the like.
I think the porn plague — which seems, sadly, to have been the driving force behind the broadband net — is a disgrace, and is an outrageous disrespect to and exploitation of womankind. It is C21 high tech prostitution for profit.
I also think that the IslamISTS are a menace to us all, starting with their fellow muslims; especially if they ever get their Black Flag armies from Khorasan game going. (Don’t know what these are: thank the inept coverage of our media that could not tell why the date of 9/11 was historically significant, being the eve of the 318th anniversary of a pivotal event since memorialised by naming a constellation after Jan Sobieski’s shield.)
Pretty much as I think the various cults and sects that lie about the fringes of the Christian faith are a disgrace and in some cases a menace. Had a hand in exposing some, myself.
I think we need to get serious about truly sustainable development, and stop playing foolish fads with junk economics and junk science.
I think we need to focus the web on education, and get serious about the future of our civilisation and world.
I almost forgot: I am allergic to charismatic politicians, having had a dose of one in my youth. I refuse to register to vote in my homeland, in protest at a totally corrupt party system there. (I think a lot more good would be done in education.)
And, that is my politics.
GEM of TKI
CY:
Looks like the blog must have been in violation of Google terms, as it seems to be gone.
GEM of TKI
Good. I didn’t think it would last.
F/N: Nope, but you will learn nothing of any positive significance by going there. All you will see is that the objectors are driven by rage, and antipathy, and have no concern for reasonableness, truthfulness, fairness or basic respect. As was already addressed.
KF, but now they’re talking about me over at InMod. Oh well. 🙂 I guess I’m a celebrity too. 🙁
CY:
Notice the agenda: red herrings –> strawmen –> soak and ignite –> Polarise and confuse the issue.
What is being discussed, plainly, has little or nothing to do with the merits of the case.
And on that, after three months we see no responsiveness to the issues as we have answered on.
That objectors want to talk politics and personalities, on slanders and in cases outright vulgar language, instead of addressing the scientific issues [drumbeat repetition of already answered talking points does not count], it all too telling on the actual balance of the case on the merits.
GEM of TKI
KF,
Yes, I’ve noticed only too well, which for me is disappointing to say the least. You see, I really do want to hear what the strongest argument they can muster would be. I’m truly interested in such an argument. So far it’s difficult to tell if they’ve even attempted to provide one.
CY, you are already seeing it.
Theirs is a position wrought from worldview, not from evidence.
CY:
If they consistently resort to distractive tactics and fallacies of irrelevance (as we see), that is a strong sign that they do not have a serious case on the merits.
Complex — often functionally — specific information is a common enough observation, with billions of observations of known provenance. It is quantifiable based on reasonable extensions to established approaches to information metrics and mathematical models, as has been shown. And, it is empirically and analytically reliable as a sign of intelligent, choice contingency — i.e. design — as key causal factor.
So, when we see digitally coded functionally specific and complex info in DNA, the best explanation is design. And, from the work of Venter et al, we can see that a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond where our tech now is, would be a sufficient cause.
Ironically, the design inference as such (as has been explicitly and repeatedly pointed out from the first technical design theory work, TMLO in 1984) in the case of cell based life is NOT an inference beyond the cosmos as we observe it, but to an empirically and analytically grounded causal factor.
Where there is an inference to design that goes beyond the observed cosmos, that has to do with its beginning at a credible point in the past, and with its fine-tuning that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based, intelligent life.
And, in case the import of that is not understood, the issue here is the beginning of the material universe we inhabit. Even, through a multiverse (as in where did the cosmos bakery that bakes up habitable sub cosmi comes from).
GEM of TKI
“I also come from a culture where it is — for excellent reason — seen as rudely presumptuous to use someone’s given name as though one were a familiar friend, especially when one is being disrespectful. I think that those who behave like we can see at MF’s blog, should think on that behaviour.”
And this is perhaps something that distinguishes the American “mystique” from all or most other cultures around the world. We are all too familiar with each other. Young people are no longer taught to address adults as “sir” or “ma’am,” well except in the very polite communities of the south, which for me are quite refreshing. I never get bored with southerners. Many have something called “character,” which the majority of us have forgotten.
But we don’t have a polite society in general here in the US. I’m not saying that American’s aren’t friendly – because they are very much so; but the culture encourages informality and familiarity, and hesitates to stick to any particular social standards for what’s considered polite. It’s now considered quite acceptable in some social circles here to use profane language – even when children are present, and it ‘s considered rude to take offense at such language – so anyone who thinks it’s degraded merely on grounds of how we greet one another, isn’t observing all the dynamics.
And these people are all over the internet – because they know that there are still people who don’t tolerate this lack of considerate social mores in public. It’s a place to either hide out, or to connect with those of like mind and to encourage newbies towards dissent from tradition.
The problem is that by coming here, they’re actually reinforcing this behavior in the culture at large, and we continue to see increasing manifestations of it escaping the bounds of the internet – because a large number of Americans use the internet, and from this hub, the culture is spread.
And occasionally there is a tragedy involving internet behavior escaping to the real culture – teenagers sharing videos online of a peer beatings and rape, etc…
Another aspect is the propagandizing of American youth through the educational system. I see examples of this all the time. I had a discussion with a young man the other day online, who made the assumption that talk of commerce and economics is equivalent to politics – and of course, for him, politics is a dirty word. I wonder what Marxist teacher was influencing his understanding of the world.
You said something earlier that drives this home for me and I’ve looked back through your posts from today and it eludes me, but it had to do with liberal politics as being intolerant of authority, while …….
Well, I know what you said, but I can’t get the words quite right. Could you help?
Anyway, the young man I was speaking to does not realize the underlying politics of his own assumptions; and that is scary. It’s not quite brainwashing, but it approaches such – so it’s no longer just the cults who are using that tactic. It’s apparently right in our schools. He’s only one example of this. I find such examples all the time in discussions.
Reminds me of CS Lewis’s warning form the “Abolition of Man.” You think you’re getting an English lesson, but it’s Materialist Philosophy and Marxist Politics 101 in disguise.
CY:
Not sure, the issue I have had was not “liberal” politics but Alinski’s strategy of subversion, as can be documented here.
For those who came in late, Alinsky was a neo-marxist radical who saw cultural and community subversion as the means of communist revolution.
I cut my critical thinking eye-teeth on Communists, messianistic charismatic pols and cultists, and have wariness about all three.
GEM of TKI
PS: CY, in some cases, we are dealing with people who seem to believe that by tossing out vulgarities and slanderous false accusations, they have adequately answered a case on the merits. They don’t even realise they are showing forth exactly the amorality, factional spirit and tendency to impose and tyrannise on others that Plato warned about 2350 years ago.
I think they need a bit of critical thinking 101, first of all.
Then, they need a visit with good old Sis V. by the wash pipe basin, with her handy soap bar.
PPS: As in, evolutionary materialism running true to form, per The Laws, Bk X:
__________________
>> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily “scientific” view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . .
[[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality, here seen as if I think I can get away with it why not do it], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them. >>
___________________
Resemblance to current patterns is not coincidental.
The first lesson of history is that we usually refuse to learn from it.
F/N: I have commented for the record in response to the developments over the past couple of days, at MF’s blog and as developed elsewhere based on the behaviour at MF’s blog.
This is my bottomline to the uncivil and vulgar:
I trust the message will be heeded.
KF,
I briefly looked over your Critical Thinking 101. I haven’t seen you link to that before. One of the simpler arguments I’ve seen form you – not that that’s either a good or bad thing – just an observation. I’m going to read through it as I think it has just the concise information I might want to link to in discussions elsewhere – that is, if you don’t mind.
Plus I like the fact it’s in a font size I can actually read. 🙂
Well, it’s not like I’m going to go over there to find out for myself. I feel no such desire.
But MathGrrl assures us it’s just a bunch of rational reasonable scientific types hanging out together such that a good time might be had by all.
And for that they are banned from participating at UD? Puhleeze.
CY:
That has been used as a basic thinking primer by me and you are welcome to so use it.
If you go to the references page on its site, you will find the PPS version.
Feel free to download and use.
There is also a primer on dealing with straight or spin in the media, complete with a scorecard.
GEM of TKI
F/N: My acceptance of the reading of Alinsky as neo-marxist and revolutionary through cultural means has been challenged as a radical misreading.
Pardon a clip from Rules for Radicals:
Perhaps words like “revolution” and concepts like raising a consciousness of the “need” for radical change no longer have the resonance they do to someone who grew up in the era of the last phases of the Cold war and went to a Marxist dominated university, but you had better believe they indelibly colour my reading of how he refers to and cites the tactics of marxists of more traditional stripe. (Yeah, DK, there may be differences, but hey are not material relative to the main point, and while SA may have some degree of doubts on “truths,” he has definitely adopted the same basic pragmatic ruthlessness and manipulativeness of the radical, revolutionary leftist that are ever so familiar to me.)
He looks TO a revolution in the era where such revolution had a very clear context. Indeed, he sees “reformation” of certain classes as a gateway to revolution.
His strategies are community, institutional and cultural — given the balance of forces and the orientations of the groups he would recruit for his army, but the frame is plain and ever so familiar.
And, all of this is significantly tangential — save as a suspect5ed case of red herrings led off to yet more strawmen to be soaked and ignited: my primary point above was and is that the ruthless, polarising, demonising- and- ridiculing- to- discredit- the- other approach he advocated has now become a significant sub-cultural influence on ways of handling issues; driven by a worldview that sees issues through the lens of power conflict and using the discrediting of the other as the main strategic weapon.
If we need an explanation for why the debates over the design inference have taken the pattern that we see (instead of a focus on actually assessing evidence on the merits, especially by objectors), we need look no further.
And, for the good of our civilisation we must rid ourselves of this poison.
GEM of TKI
PS: The discussion here will be illuminating on what is going on.
PPS: I am beginning to suspect that the long since contentious issues over the design inference are not only a front in the culture war that is being waged as a priori materialists [cf esp the new/gnu atheists, so called . . . ] try to dominate our civilisation and delegitimise any other viewpoint, but that the issue is beginning to be caught up in the fever of the upcoming US election cycle because of the dominance of radical secularists on one side.
That would be a pity, but it would mean that we can increasingly expect to see some pretty nasty astroturfing pseudo-grassroots efforts to discredit design thought by using Alinsky’s tactics to try to discredit spokesmen for design thought.
And, this will tend to propagate far and wide as the spreaders tank up on over-wrought red herring, strawman and ad hominem tactic talking points and carry them as they go elsewhere on the web or on the street.
We must not allow the issues on the merits to be obscured behind clouds of poisonous, polarising smoke from burning strawmen.
And, we must not allow slander [i.e. willful deceptions (you know or should know better) — bluntly: lies — intended to damage reputations], privacy violation, verbal abuse and vulgarity to become “acceptable” tactics. If you show yourself to be a closed-minded, disrespectful uncivil ideologically lobotomoised and closed-minded fever swamp mosquito full of infectious trifecta fallacy talking points coming here from one Plato’s cave or another, don’t be surprised if you get swatted hard for that, as someone lacking basic broughtupcy.
And Sis V leaned over heaven’s balcony to say she is sending over an abundant supply of soap bars for foul mouths.
Mung at 43,
I think what she means to say is that they all agree with one another over there, so they’re being civil to one another. Since KF arrived, it became a different environment for them altogether, because he sharply and intelligently hammered away at their assumptions with facts and evidence. They didn’t like that, and the vitriol spewed. Not all of them engaged, just a couple and one in particular, and markf asked one in particular to put a lid on it. But that wasn’t effective enough, ’cause the guy continued. Since markf’s policy appears to be to let anything by the filter that doesn’t exist, he was allowed to continue. Then he created his own short-lived blog to spew even more slanderous remarks towards KF. So the issue with this guy is: “if I can be unreasonable here to a point, I’ll create my own blog where I can be as unreasonable as I like, and no-one can stop me.” Except that Google did stop him.
Wait a minute. I just checked, and he’s still at it. They haven’t stopped him.
And here’s why: “Blogger does not remove blogs for containing insults or negative commentary. While blogs that contain such content can be distasteful, Blogger is not in a position to arbitrate disputes.”
http://www.google.com/support/.....&rd=1
Sometimes I absolutely hate being a Christian.
Not really 🙂
I don’t think I’ve ever really been hateful (’til I started posting here), but I bet some of you who are now Christians were once just like these folks.
So there is hope for them yet. Yes?
How many “returns” are we going to allow to “MathGrrl”?
I mean, even Jesus only gets what, at most two “returns”?
The Footnote thread is closed to further comments, but since one response I have (to kairosfocus) is appropriate here, I’ll leave my last two here. I hope kairosfocus and Mung are still following this.
kairosfocus,
If your goal is to maintain your pseudonymity, apending your initials to every comment defeats that goal. With that additional information, it takes no more than 20 seconds on Google to find your real name. We’re all responsible for protecting our own personal information on the net.
Unfortunately, I find it all too easy to believe what you’re saying. I hope that the tolerance we’re starting to see spread across the US makes it to the hearts of your countrymen as well. I am optimistic that my generation will still be around when prejudice based on sexual orientation is as rare and widely condemned as that based on race or gender.
No, I have not. Please either provide citations to anything I have personally written that supports your assertion or retract it. Participating on Mark Frank’s blog doesn’t mean I support everything written by every other participant there any more than participating here at UD means you support everything written by other ID proponents. We’re responsible for our own words, not those of others. In particular, you are responsible for your baseless allegation above.
Mung,
I’m going to combine responses to several of your comments into one in order to avoid spamming the comment log.
He measures the information content of the binding sites. As already noted, those binding sites are part of the problem domain, not a target specified in the solution domain.
By recognizing that, you identify exactly why ev cannot be modeled as a targeted search.
No, ev is a model of a small set of known evolutionary mechanisms. It turns out that those mechanisms generate information in a genome better than a random process, in the context of an environment modeled on what we observe in the real world.
I’ve already answered this in detail above. The binding sites are part of the problem domain. They are constraints to be satisfied by the solution. They do not specify a solution, hence there is no target.
Of course it does. That’s not the same as a target and is certainly nothing like the explicit target of Dawkins’ Weasel.
Ah, more civility. I’ve been making this point since at least the first week of May:
http://mfinmoderation.wordpres.....mment-1858
If you can provide a link where you mentioned it earlier in our discussion I will, of course, recognize your claim to priority.
Why can’t we call a dog’s tail a leg, and claim that dogs have five legs? Because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
To repeat what I’ve explained several times now, the binding sites are part of the problem domain and do not specify a solution. In ev the recognizer co-evolves with the binding sites. Neither is specified in advance and the sections of the genome that represent them will be different in different runs. No particular solution is targeted. In fact, no component of ev has any knowledge of what a solution might look like, so targeting is impossible.
We’re also responsible for our silence.
In what way are the binding sites constraints, since they are clearly allowed to mutate (as is the “recognizer”)?
What do they constrain?
I find your attempt to separate the “problem domain” from the “solution domain” to be confusing. Could you please clarify?
For example, how do you decide which aspects of the simulation are in each domain?
In ev, what is “the solution”?
MG:
I need not repeat myself on the point, as that has long since been made.
Let’s just say that there is a massively failed test of character here, yet another sign of the problems of materialism as an a priori and of the implications of its inherent amorality and radical relativism for our civilisation.
If you cannot be trusted to respect basic good manners and privacy [much less the inbox of another person — think here, blatant false accusations of perversion], then you cannot be trusted with anything else of consequence.
Starting with a classroom full of impressionable young minds, and the control of major institutions, scientific and otherwise. For, the idea that one’s only restraint seems to be “can I get away with it,” blatantly fails the Categorical Imperative as a test. A civilisation increasingly dominated by that ethic is doomed.
At another time and place, I called it: Star Trek world, the reality.
In short, a brewing nightmare.
Good evening, madam.
GEM of TKI
F/N: I just did my own Google search. The “revelation” you may see there is based on — privacy violation by one who has set out on slander and abuse. Utterly telling.
MathGrrl asserts that the binding sites in ev are part of the “problem domain” in ev and are not part of the “solution domain” and reasons that they cannot therefore qualify as a target or targets.
Now apart from my failure to understand the logic of that particular line of argument, if her premise is false then one cannot accept that the binding sites fail to qualify as targets using her current line of argument.
So are the binding sites a part of the problem domain or a part of the solution domain?
Problem Domains:
Solution Domain:
So if we use that definition of the solution domain, and if the binding sites are part of the process by which the solution is arrived at (as they clearly are in ev), or if they are part of the environment in which the solution is arrived at (as they clearly are in ev, then they are in the solution domain.
But more from wikipedia (HT to kairosfocus.)
Genetic Algorithms:
Anyone want to guess where the binding sites are encoded?
MathGrrl, You can still withdraw your claim that ev is a GA if you want.
But you can no longer claim that ev is a GA but that the binding sites are not part of the solution domain.
That claim has been shown to be false.
Where on earth do you come up with this stuff? You claim to be trained in GA’s.
F/N: I think I read somewhere that Schneider claims ev has no fitness function.
If anyone is reading along and lacks the background to understand how this applies to ev let me know. We’ve covered it in other threads but I don’t think it’s been repeated yet in this thread.
Not only have MathGrrl’s responses been factually incorrect, they have also been logically incoherent.
MathGrrl:
If the binding sites are part of the problem domain and not part of the solution domain, why does Schneider bother to compute the information content at the binding sites?
Schneider:
Let it be known that Schneider does not divide ev between “problem domain” and “solution domain.” MathGrrl’s attempt to to delineate between the two of is of her own making.
Perhaps she will explain the basis of her attempt to distinguish the two, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
ME:
MathGrrl:
By recognizing that, you identify exactly why ev cannot be modeled as a targeted search.
I’ve repeatedly stated that ev is not being modeled as a targeted search. You repeatedly ignore what I’ve said and simply repeat your absurd unsubstantiated claims.
MathGrrl:
By recognizing that, you identify exactly why ev cannot be modeled as a targeted search.
By recognizing that, you’ve shown you don’t know what you’re talking about.
A search does not require a single target.
A search does not require a fixed unchanging target.
A search does not require a single fixed unchanging target.
RADAR comes to mind. The purpose of radar is not to find a single fixed unchanging target.
ME:
MathGrrl:
More unsubstantiated garbage.
You’re just making stuff up.
More evidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Give me some reason to take you seriously. Show me that you know what you’re talking about.
Which of the following statements do you object to:
1. ev is a genetic algorithm. (You’ve made this claim yourself. Time to retract it perhaps?)
2. Genetic algorithms are designed to perform better than a blind search.
Well gee, MathGrrl. Since you refuse to say what qualifies as a target and what does not qualify as a target, I have to assume that you can’t tell a leg from a tail.
I’ve been making this point since at least the first week of May
Somewhere else, not here at UD.
Perhaps if you’d been reading the posts here at UD and responding, since this is the one and only site where you launched your “challenge.”
Priority isn’t the issue. The issue is understanding.
I have refused to read anything you’ve written which doesn’t appear here at UD.
You quote me over at some other blog as having said:
Why didn’t you respond to that here at UD?
Why didn’t you post a link there, so people could understand the context? Chicken?
Why didn’t you post your reply here and post a link there to any responses here? Chicken?
It’s really big of you to post responses to what I wrote here on some other blog. Did you send me an email to let me know? Post something on my facebook page? Send me a tweet? No? Coward.
MathGrrl @55:
Patently false. You’re either ignorant or a liar.
It is obvious that ev has knowledge of what a solution might look like.
MathGrrl:
Me:
MathGrrl:
Well bully for you MG. Were you making that point here at UD, or elsewhere?
I was posting here at UD, the site where you posted your “challenge.”
I’ve been making this point since at least the first week of May:
MathGrrl rewponds to a comment I made here on UD on some other blog
Oh. Some other blog. Color me not impressed.
The original “MathGrrl Challenge”, 25 March 2011:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....on-of-csi/
On May 06 MathGrrl quotes on some other blog a comment I made here on UD on 4/29/11.
MathGrrl quotes me on some other blog (05/06/2011):
http://mfinmoderation.wordpres.....mment-1858
My post here on UD (04/29/2011) from which MathGrrl copied what I said:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-378818
See my comment posted here at UD, prior to May 5, 2011.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-378840
Mung
There is a certain irony here. The OP mocked my blog for being dedicated to discussing UD Moderation policies (actually it was only a single thread). Now this thread appears to have morphed into one dedicated to personal attacks by you on Mathgrrl.
You started with a request to “send Mathgrrl back over here” – a little later you wrote:
How many “returns” are we going to allow to “MathGrrl”
Mathgrrl makes a single response to you – (there is also one to KF) which contains just one phrase that might be interpreted as a personal comment (“Ah, more civility”). This opens the floodgates. The previous seven comments are all by you on the subject of Mathgrrl, here are some excerpts:
Where on earth do you come up with this stuff? You claim to be trained in GA’s.
Not only have MathGrrl’s responses been factually incorrect, they have also been logically incoherent.
By recognizing that, you’ve shown you don’t know what you’re talking about.
More unsubstantiated garbage.
You’re just making stuff up.
More evidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Give me some reason to take you seriously. Show me that you know what you’re talking about.
Well gee, MathGrrl. Since you refuse to say what qualifies as a target and what does not qualify as a target, I have to assume that you can’t tell a leg from a tail.
Why didn’t you post a link there, so people could understand the context? Chicken?
Why didn’t you post your reply here and post a link there to any responses here? Chicken?
Patently false. You’re either ignorant or a liar.
Are you by any chance getting a bit obsessed?
F/N: I see another turnabout attempt again on the “civility” question. This requires a note to set the record straight.
The material issue, MG, is that when (for three months or so now) one reiterates the insistent claim that there is no mathematically rigorous definition of CSI, when in fact —
. . . is thus to insistently and repeatedly act as though the just above has not happened (by indulging in drumbeat repetition of an answered claim while refusing to acknowledge or cogently respond to the answer (in the context of having has an invited guest post)), which is to be willfully deceptive.
Further to this, MG — and you snidely suggested a parallel to the case of Galileo (which you have never properly justified or retracted . . . and given who is being subjected to career busting, outing, disrespect, slander and just plain abuse you cannot justify such an outrageous claim, or the one that those of us who have laid out the case for CSI are being dishonest . . . see who lighted the fire we now all have to deal with as it blazes out of control to the point where people have set up abuse and slander and outing blogs, MG?) — evidently does not realise the material parallel between outing behaviour as used against me in a context of repeated persecution of those who do not toe the materialist party line, and the showing of torture instruments to intimidate into silence or public recantation, whatever private reservations may be held.
GEM of TKI
markf:
Well let’s see. MAthGrrl cut something I wrote here, posted it on your blog, and then responded to it there rather than here.
And you allowed it.
So. Glass houses, and all that.
Mung,
Did you miss me? Seriously, I do apologize for not following this thread closely over the past week. A combination of work and a fantastic weekend meditation workshop left me little time for blogs.
I did, however, manage to read a post by Mark Frank yesterday that resonated with me, in large part due to spending the weekend focused inwardly. Two points in particular are apropos here:
I’ve reread what I’ve written on the topic of ev and I have nothing more to add. I’m confident that I’ve explained my position as clearly as I can, so I’m ready to let it go. Perhaps we’ll discuss it in another context on another thread someday. Until then, thank you for your time. The last word is yours.