Mathgirrl returns? An entire blog is now devoted to complaining about Uncommon Descent …

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 26, 2011

Darwinism, Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Darwinism
Intelligent Design}

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

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.

Comments

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:
Don’t go over old ground. It is a waste of time and very, very boring. Know when to stop. No one ever had a change of worldview in the middle of a blog discussion. Make your point, understand theirs, then get out and let the thoughts take root and germinate – maybe one of you will have an insight one day.
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.MathGrrl_{June 7, 2011
June
06
Jun
7
07
2011
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

markf:
Are you by any chance getting a bit obsessed?
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_{June 7, 2011
June
06
Jun
7
07
2011
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

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 --
a: the question or assertion is demonstrably misdirected, and b: has repeatedly been corrected as such [cf here for the last time around], then c: the warrant for CSI as an objective empirical fact has been given, then d: grounds for mathematical models and metrics have been given, including e: correcting the Schneider attempt to dismiss the definition of an information metric Ik = - log pk, then f: showing how the issue of isolation of islands of specific function in large config spaces is material, so that g: the use of a criterion of specificity and one of degree of difficulty of finding such isolated zones of interest in such spaces on chance based random walks and trial and error is justified, leading to h: the log reduction of the Dembski Chi metric into a log form threshold metric amenable to empirical investigation, namely
Chi_500 = Ik - 500, bits beyond a threshold
i: Also, by using relevant measures of Ik provided by Durston et al [on an extension to Shannon's metric of average info per symbol in light of statistical distributions of symbols in functional vs ground states], it was shown that specific biological cases of values of Chi beyond the threshold can be derived, such as on Table 1 of the 2007 paper:
RecA: 242 AA, 832 fits, Chi: 332 bits beyond SecY: 342 AA, 688 fits, Chi: 188 bits beyond Corona S2: 445 AA, 1285 fits, Chi: 785 bits beyond . . . results n7
j: So, the metric is warranted, meaningful and applicable and gives real world values that point to design (the real problem) --
. . . 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 TKIkairosfocus_{June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

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?markf_{June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

MathGrrl:
ev, on the other hand, is not looking for a specific solution. As I’ve emphasized a number of times during this discussion, in ev the recognizer co-evolves with the binding sites.
Me:
I’m pretty sure I brought it up first. Thanks for finally catching up.
MathGrrl:
Ah, more civility. I’ve been making this point since at least the first week of May:
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: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-calculation-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.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/mathgrrls-csi-thread/#comment-1858 My post here on UD (04/29/2011) from which MathGrrl copied what I said: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/news-flash-dembskis-csi-caught-in-the-act/#comment-378818 See my comment posted here at UD, prior to May 5, 2011. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/news-flash-dembskis-csi-caught-in-the-act/#comment-378840Mung_{June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

MathGrrl @55:
In fact, no component of ev has any knowledge of what a solution might look like, so targeting is impossible.
Patently false. You're either ignorant or a liar. It is obvious that ev has knowledge of what a solution might look like.Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

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:
GA’s are by definition targeted searches. If a GA was not a targeted search it would perform no better than a random search, and thus there would be no point in using a GA.
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.Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

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.
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.Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

ME:
ev is a search algorithm designed to perform better than a blind search.
MathGrrl:
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.
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.Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

ME:
i’ve made it clear from my first posts on ev that it, unlike Weasel, did not have a single fixed target sequence that it was trying to match.
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.Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

Not only have MathGrrl's responses been factually incorrect, they have also been logically incoherent. MathGrrl:
He [Schneider] 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.
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:
The information in the binding sites is measured as the decrease in uncertainty from before binding to after binding
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.Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

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:
Problems which appear to be particularly appropriate for solution by genetic algorithms include... As a general rule of thumb genetic algorithms might be useful in problem domains that have... Examples of problems solved by genetic algorithms include...
Solution Domain:
In respect to a given problem (or set of problems), the solution domain (or solution space) covers all aspects of the solution product, including: The process by which the solution is arrived at; The environment in which it is constructed; The design, construction, testing, operation, and functions of the solution product itself.
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:
In a genetic algorithm, a population of strings (called chromosomes or the genotype of the genome), which encode candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem, evolves toward better solutions. Traditionally, solutions are represented in binary as strings of 0s and 1s, but other encodings are also possible. A typical genetic algorithm requires: a genetic representation of the solution domain, a fitness function to evaluate the solution domain. The fitness function is defined over the genetic representation and measures the quality of the represented solution. Once we have the genetic representation and the fitness function defined, GA proceeds to initialize a population of solutions randomly, then improve it through repetitive application of mutation, crossover, inversion and selection operators
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.Mung_{June 4, 2011
June
06
Jun
4
04
2011
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

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.kairosfocus_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

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 TKIkairosfocus_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

The binding sites are part of the problem domain. They are constraints to be satisfied by the solution.
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?
They are constraints to be satisfied by the solution.
In ev, what is "the solution"?Mung_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

We’re responsible for our own words, not those of others.
We're also responsible for our silence.Mung_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Mung, I'm going to combine responses to several of your comments into one in order to avoid spamming the comment log.
Schneider measures the information content, both before and after and subtracts the before from the after in order to get the information increase. How does he know when and where to measure?
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.
i've made it clear from my first posts on ev that it, unlike Weasel, did not have a single fixed target sequence that it was trying to match.
By recognizing that, you identify exactly why ev cannot be modeled as a targeted search.
But that does not change the underlying operation or the fact that ev is a search algorithm designed to perform better than a blind 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.
Well, in ev, the location of the binding sites can change between different runs of the program, but once the run begins the locations are fixed. The width is also fixed. How that can be taken to mean that there are no targets is beyond me.
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.
I say ev has a fitness function. What do you say?
Of course it does. That's not the same as a target and is certainly nothing like the explicit target of Dawkins' Weasel.
ev, on the other hand, is not looking for a specific solution. As I’ve emphasized a number of times during this discussion, in ev the recognizer co-evolves with the binding sites.
I’m pretty sure I brought it up first. Thanks for finally catching up.
Ah, more civility. I've been making this point since at least the first week of May: http://mfinmoderation.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/mathgrrls-csi-thread/#comment-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 the binding sites targets? Why can’t we call the recognizer a target? Why can’t we call “an organism that makes no mistakes” a target?
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.MathGrrl_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus,
You full well know that a set of initials is vastly different from a given name.
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.
Going beyond that, some have falsely accused me of homosexuality — a mortal insult where I come from, that could easily cost someone foolish enough to make such an accusation his life [I want you to understand just how intentionally and offensively disrespectful, that slander is]
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.
All of this, you seem to have chosen to support.
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.MathGrrl_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

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.MathGrrl_{June 2, 2011
June
06
Jun
2
02
2011
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

How many "returns" are we going to allow to "MathGrrl"? I mean, even Jesus only gets what, at most two "returns"?Mung_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

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?Mung_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

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/blogger/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=main_tos&blog_ID=3630458562826695803&blog_URL=http%3A%2F%2Ftheidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com%2F&rd=1CannuckianYankee_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Wait a minute. I just checked, and he's still at it. They haven't stopped him.CannuckianYankee_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

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.CannuckianYankee_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

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.kairosfocus_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

PS: The discussion here will be illuminating on what is going on.kairosfocus_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

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:
. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. [cf p. xix]
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 TKIkairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

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 TKIkairosfocus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

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.
Many of the people discussing this topic at Mark Frank’s blog are doing so calmly, rationally, and civilly. They have expertise in a broad range of different scientific disciplines.
And for that they are banned from participating at UD? Puhleeze.Mung_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

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. :)CannuckianYankee_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply