Nick Matzke – Book Burner?

_{Barry Arrington
June 30, 2013

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Nick Matzke famously got the publishing company Springer to suppress the publication of the papers of a conference held at Cornell. See here. He did this without having seen, much less read, any of the papers. Obviously, his motivation could not have been the content of the papers. He was motivated by the mere fact that several of the conference participants were well-known ID proponents.

Let us do a little thought experiment. Suppose that Nick had published his famous piece on Panda’s Thumb a few days later, and the head of Springer had called him up and said, “Hey, Nick, I’ve got some bad news and some good news. The bad news is that it is too late to stop publication of the book. The printer has done his work and the first printing of the book is finished. The good news is that not a single copy has left the printer’s warehouse, and they are all in a pile that has been drenched in gasoline. Nick, all you have to do is come over and toss a match on the pile of books and it will be as if they were never published in the first place.”

Nick follows UD and posts here from time to time, so I have two questions for him:

(1) Nick would you have tossed the match?

(2) If the answer to (1) is “no,” are you not a hypocrite? After all, the ultimate outcome from tossing the match would be identical to what you actually did – i.e., no book out there for people to buy.

BKA: Updated in response to Dr. Sewell’s comment @ 2.

Comments

Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!
- Albert Einstein (commenting on a Nazi pamphlet entitled '100 Authors against Einstein' If ID ha a core of correctness, it will emerge.Alan Fox_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Now, Suppose the tables were turned, and I was posed with the same question about burning a Darwinist book like say: Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America by Lenny Flank. I'd say, "let me keep a few copies to sell later, but lets get some fireworks and make a good show of it this 4th of July." Then at least we'd have a good time watching it before the police came by to arrest me for illegal fireworks and lighting illegal fires (just kidding). But more seriously, why would I want books I disagree with to be given a fair hearing. Hence, as I said, let me keep a few copies to sell later. (Btw, making it the out-of-print book rare in this way elevates the value of copies I have in my possession, hehe.). Not only did Darwin argue for a fair hearing, but Discovery Institute Fellow, and Darwinist, John Angus Campbell gave me this gem of a quote by atheist John Stewart Mill, which Campbell is able to quote from memory:
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.[17] John Stewart Mill
Matzke's activities of shutting debate down is showing he feels deep down he doesn't feel he's been dealt a strong hand of cards, quite the opposite, imho. This whole suppression thing by Matzke, in the end it will be just a side show. The facts will prevail in the end. Though I don't like it, I no longer worry about it. If the Intelligent Designer is for you, who will ultimately be against you. PS PZ Myers despises Lenny Flank. Myers would probably have the honors of lighting the match.scordova_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

@ Voice-in-the-ceiling I have a pathological aversion to voices-in-the-ceiling!!!Alan Fox_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

JoeG: don't ever change, sweetie :)Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

seconded.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Sal Keep up the good work. I'm impressed by your comment no. 50 and I never thought I would say that! UD: Alan, do you have some sort of pre-disposition against comments numbered “50”? Or is it “fifty” generally that you have a problem with. I have heard of tridecaphobia (fear of the number 13), but quinquagintaphobia (fear of the number 50) is new to us here at UD. :-)?Alan Fox_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

JoeG was dealing with many buttwipes, including the blog’s owner. And buttwipes are full of guano.
QEDAlan Fox_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth BS Liddle:
My only concern, and this is the absolutely honest truth, is that papers that go out under the imprint that is associated with rigorous science should be rigorous science, and my only beef with ID is that the science is not rigorous.
And yet there isn't any darwinian science that is rigorous- well there isn't any darwinian science.
There are 634 contributions in there right now, and although the most prolific single contributor is JoeG, the majority of posts are by ID critics.
JoeG was dealing with many buttwipes, including the blog's owner. And buttwipes are full of guano.Joe_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

So how, then, do you expect me to have full confidence that you are against culture-warring? I have the sense that you disapprove of it wholeheartedly when it comes from the ID or creationist side, but that you “look the other way” when it comes from your side. Or am I wrong? Have you ever dressed down anyone on your side for making illegitimate arguments or taking illegitimate action based on improper motivations? If so, please tell me where.
I will vouch for Elizabeth. She has treated me with graciousness and respect. As far as her supposed silence and looking the other way, I can't complain because I'm also silent about some of the behaviors of the ID side that I find disagreeable (probably because I'm a pretty big offender myself, I'm known as "Slimy Sal" for at least some good reasons). On the scale of model citizens in this debate I regard Elizabeth at the top as I do Allen MacNeill (who is also a Quaker). At issue is whether Matzke would like to shut down debate and make sure certain literature he finds disagreeable isn't released by premiere publishing houses. I expect if we asked, him, he'd say "yes". That's the way to settle the issue. I would bet, if we asked, "Nick would you light the match?" He'd respond something to the effect, "a fire would contribute to global warming, so I wouldn't. But Creationists literature shouldn't be published by Springer." The book burning illustration I think is to illustrate symbolically the obvious delight in Matzke would have in seeing certain ideas burned out of society. But, Nick, if the IDists and creationists were gone from the Earth, what would you have to live for? Your reason for living and crusading would be over.scordova_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Barry:
Elizabeth Liddle @ 33 and 35: “editorial judgement is not censorship.” Orwellian doublespeak at its finest. WAR IS PEACE! FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
No, Barry. There is nothing Orwellian about this. Let me ask you: Is it censorship to insist that a student thesis must pass rigorous standards before the thesis is archived as satisfying the requirements of a PhD? Is it censorship to refuse such an endorsement if the thesis does not satisfy those requirements? If a PhD student fails her defense, and is not permitted to graduate, is she then prevented from making her thesis as public as she likes, minus that endorsement? The answer, I think you will agree, to all these questions, is no. Censorship is the word we use when people's words are actively prohibited from being published - redacted from documents, cut from plays, removed from libraries, when publication is penalised by imprisonment or worse. To call such censorship merely "editorial judgement" would indeed be "Orwellian". But to call the requirement that scientific papers meet a minimum standard of rigor before they are endorsed by a scientific imprint "censorship" is a kind of reverse Orwellianism - renaming something perfectly benign to associate it with something evil. If Nick Matzke or any "liberal" lays so much as a match to a children's library book I shall be the first to protest. But equally, I will protest when papers that do not meet minimum standards of scientific rigor are published with the imprimatur of a scientific publishing house.
Some years ago Jonah Goldberg wrote a book called “Liberal Fascism” in which he traced the fascist roots of the progressive agenda. Based on the responses I’ve seen here, it seems he could have added a chapter entitled “Darwinist Fascism.”
Well, I'll buy that argument when I see any evidence that non-"Darwinist" views are being deleted from the public realm. I'd even buy the argument if I saw evidence that papers that make a good argument for ID were being refused publication, for anything other than the grounds on which any other paper is rejected (and good papers are rejected all the time).Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Timaeus:
I’m happy we’ve found partial agreement.
And me :)
However, you have not answered the question whether Matzke was right to judge, in advance of reading the papers, that they would not be worthy of publication, especially given that he was not familiar with the writing of some of the authors, and to be so sure of that judgment as to try to get a publisher to reverse its decision.
I think he was perfectly right to alert Springer to a potential issue. If they withdrew it because Matzke threatened to sic his dog on them, then that's thuggery. If they just said: Ok, that's interesting, we'll take a second look at the proposal then, did look at it and decide that Nick was right, and it wasn't the kind of thing they'd originally thought it was and the basis on which they'd scheduled it, I think that's just fine. And, for that matter, I'd also think it was just fine if, for example, and ID person were to do the same over the proceedings of some conference that they didn't think was appropriate for the Springer imprint. My only concern, and this is the absolutely honest truth, is that papers that go out under the imprint that is associated with rigorous science should be rigorous science, and my only beef with ID is that the science is not rigorous. Not that the conclusion is in correct, or the subject matter invalid, but that the reasoning is invalid. When I review papers, there is usually a list of things to grade it in, and one is usually: "is the conclusion supported by the data?" With ID papers the answer is usually "no". That is not universally true, but in my reading of the ID literature (which is not exhaustive, but is extensive), the more radical the inference, the less justified by evidence and argument I find it to be. tbh, the best book I have read on ID was Behe's first - Darwin's Black Box. I thought he made a cogent and moderately persuasive argument. I don't think it has worn well, but I would have been more than happy to see it published under a scientific imprint.
You say you are against the culture war. Matzke is one of the main instigators of it on this continent. I know that you largely agree with his scientific opinions, but that is not the issue here. I’m addressing his social behavior, his way of conducting himself. He is as pure a culture warrior as you will find on any side of these debates (atheism, TE, ID, YEC, OEC), and he adds fuel to the fire everywhere he goes. I have never seen you reprimand him for his behavior, or even mildly criticize him for it, or express any disapproval of it, here or anywhere else.
tbh, I'd never actually seen Matzke's alleged bad behaviour (though I'm not arguing that he hasn't indulged in such, and I've certainly roundly criticized P.Z.Meyers, and even tackled Dawkins on one occasion). I agree he's not very polite, but then the same is true of people on both sides of the culture war, but rude words don't actually bother me, as may be apparent. So I'm not sure what the complaint is. But be aware that I am not an American, and this is very much an American war. Most of the issues (church-state separation) aren't even issues in the UK. Our head of state is actually head of the Church of England, and religious teaching in schools, far from being illegal, is actually compulsory.
So how, then, do you expect me to have full confidence that you are against culture-warring? I have the sense that you disapprove of it wholeheartedly when it comes from the ID or creationist side, but that you “look the other way” when it comes from your side. Or am I wrong? Have you ever dressed down anyone on your side for making illegitimate arguments or taking illegitimate action based on improper motivations? If so, please tell me where.
I've certainly addressed illegitimate arguments. Not sure I can actually find an example, but, like Joe Felsenstein, I've always maintained that the concept of Specified Complexity is potentially a useful one. I even think there is a "marker" of "design" where "design" means "optimising a structure to perform a function" rather than "intentional inventing". As a mod at Talk Rational, I used to regularly punt posts to The Compost Heap, and at my own blog, although I try to use a light touch, I do move posts that I consider address the poster rather than the post to a quarantined, though public, area. However, I explicitly point out that the move is not a moral judgment but a practical one, so that may not count. On the other hand it may, because my purpose is to defuse the skirmishes of the war, and drill down to the brass tacks of where we really disagree, rather than where we think we do ("You are trying to impose a theocracy by stealth!" "You are trying to impose amorality and the homosexual agenda on our traditions and principles!") In other words, to get past the tribal stuff, and on to the substance. You could try inspecting Guano at TSZ. There are 634 contributions in there right now, and although the most prolific single contributor is JoeG, the majority of posts are by ID critics. I've also given a couple of contributors at After The Bar Closes a piece of my schoolmarm tongue (including a defense of kairosfocus if I recall correctly). I'm a fairly equal opportunities reprimander. I blame my Quaker education :) And I do on occasion subject myself to the same treatment and apologise, when I think I have contributed to a ramping up of hostilities. Possibly not often enough.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: I'm happy we've found partial agreement. However, you have not answered the question whether Matzke was right to judge, in advance of reading the papers, that they would not be worthy of publication, especially given that he was not familiar with the writing of some of the authors, and to be so sure of that judgment as to try to get a publisher to reverse its decision. You say you are against the culture war. Matzke is one of the main instigators of it on this continent. I know that you largely agree with his scientific opinions, but that is not the issue here. I'm addressing his social behavior, his way of conducting himself. He is as pure a culture warrior as you will find on any side of these debates (atheism, TE, ID, YEC, OEC), and he adds fuel to the fire everywhere he goes. I have never seen you reprimand him for his behavior, or even mildly criticize him for it, or express any disapproval of it, here or anywhere else. So how, then, do you expect me to have full confidence that you are against culture-warring? I have the sense that you disapprove of it wholeheartedly when it comes from the ID or creationist side, but that you "look the other way" when it comes from your side. Or am I wrong? Have you ever dressed down anyone on your side for making illegitimate arguments or taking illegitimate action based on improper motivations? If so, please tell me where.Timaeus_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

keiths @ 10: If I understand your argument, you would burn the book if it were published by Springer but not if it were published by some less respected publisher. Well OK then. LarTanner @ 11: Calling me a poopyhead is certainly a response, but it is a response that conveys a message I suspect you did not intend to convey. You might as well have written: “I’ve got nothing.” Barb @ 15: She quotes Indy in “Last Crusade” “Goose-stepping morons such as yourself should try reading books instead of burning them!” To which I would add , “or reviewing them,” which highlights another of Nick’s sins. See https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-man-p-z-myers-attacked-darwins-doubt-without-reading-it/ Elizabeth Liddle @ 33 and 35: “editorial judgement is not censorship.” Orwellian doublespeak at its finest. WAR IS PEACE! FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH! Some years ago Jonah Goldberg wrote a book called “Liberal Fascism” in which he traced the fascist roots of the progressive agenda. Based on the responses I’ve seen here, it seems he could have added a chapter entitled “Darwinist Fascism.”Barry Arrington_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Granville Sewell @ 43
3. with the help of solar energy, and guided by 4 unintelligent fundamental forces of physics alone, the atoms on a barren planet rearrange themselves into computers and spaceships and the Internet. In my opinion, the answer is (3) is not like the others, and so (3) is the only one where I see evidence that the basic principle behind the second law has been violated.
Sorry, I haven't read the paper. Could you explain in simple terms what you see is the basic principle behind the 2nd law? Is it different in any way from the standard 2nd law we find in textbooks? Thanks.CLAVDIVS_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

I do think they should have been more cautious about committing themselves to publication, and, having read most of the papers now, I’m happy that it was not published by Springer.
IOW, she's glad Matzke's thuggish tactics worked in censoring an idea she didn't want promulgated - not the ideas presented in the papers themselves, but the idea that Springer found the papers worthy of assocating their name to the work. So, Springer gets intimidated by Matzke et. al., withdraws their commitment to publication, and Liz is happy about the outcome.William J Murray_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Elizzabeth and Keiths, In my article, I claim that the basic principle underlying the second law is that natural forces do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view. Whether we are talking about an isolated or open system matters only in that if the system is open, you have to take into account what is crossing the boundary (eg, solar energy). "Compensation" is just a silly attempt to avoid the issue of probability, as I show clearly in the paper. Now, let's play "which of these is not like the others": 1. snowflakes form out of water. 2. sunlight causes a seed, which contains all the information necessary to recreate a corn plant, and is designed so that all it needs is water and sunlight to do this, to grow into a corn plant. 3. with the help of solar energy, and guided by 4 unintelligent fundamental forces of physics alone, the atoms on a barren planet rearrange themselves into computers and spaceships and the Internet. In my opinion, the answer is (3) is not like the others, and so (3) is the only one where I see evidence that the basic principle behind the second law has been violated. In all my writings on this topic, I acknowledge that I could be wrong, that perhaps (3) is not really extremely improbable, in which case none of the above violate the second law. Why is this so controversial? I was really just trying to defend the Cornell proceedings, didn't want to get drawn into defending my article, but was forced to by some personal insults from KEITHS. I don't plan to discuss my paper further on this post, though.Granville Sewell_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Timaeus. Yes my comment was addressed more to the OP than to you. And I agree that Springer should not have deleted the book without reading the content, or the prospectus. I do think they should have been more cautious about committing themselves to publication, and, having read most of the papers now, I'm happy that it was not published by Springer. However, I'm also glad that it has found a publisher, and even happier to have been able to download it for free! I also agree about the culture war. I think it needs to stop. It's one of the reasons I post here! And why I started my blog. We need to understand each others' positions, not hurl kneejerk brickbats (to use a mixed metaphor that is not my own!)Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

The conference was held at Cornell. If that fools anyone into thinking Cornell sponsored it, then they were already fools.Joe_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: Most of your remarks don't have anything to do with anything I said -- I didn't speak of book-burning or censorship -- so I assume they are addressed to others here. I have no objection to "Ithaca Conference" -- but that doesn't solve the problem. Someone might think it implies that the conference was sponsored or encouraged by the town of Ithaca, and that, too, would be an error. The basic problem here is that people are making an unwarranted leap from "held at" to "is sponsored by." I've seen square dance conventions on university campuses. And I'm sure that the members of those square dance associations, when they look back upon a successful convention, will quite often refer to that convention by the name of the university it was held at, rather than by the name of the town the university was located in. After all, they spent two or three days at the university -- dancing in the gymnasium, sleeping in the residences, and eating in the cafeterias -- not in the town. They will think about the beautiful lawns and trees and architecture of the campus. So they are going to remember fondly their "Harvard convention" not their "Cambridge convention." It's a natural expression, and there's no attempt to mislead. The big problem you are avoiding, Elizabeth, is that Matzke led a campaign to persuade a publisher against publishing papers that he had not read, from a conference that he had not attended, and that he did this on the basis of knowing some (not even all!) of the people involved in the conference. His judgment that the papers would not have any scientific value was, in the literal sense of the word, "prejudiced." Had Matzke *read* the papers, there *might* have been a case (I say, "might," though I think that only in very rare circumstances, if any, would it be appropriate) for his writing to the publisher, and saying: "I have read these papers and I want you to be aware that they are inadequate and could embarrass your firm, so you might want to reconsider your decision to publish them." But he hadn't read them. Are you going to defend his intervention, even though you *know* it was based on prejudice, i.e., the prejudice that nothing any of these guys could produce would be any good? I thought you were a fairer person than that. From a professional point of view, as explained by a long-time scientist above, Matzke's action constitutes unwarranted interference. Publishers have their own means of deciding whether or not to proceed with a publication, and if they chose to go ahead with the conference proceedings, Matzke should have respected that, and then, after the papers were published, he could have read them and evaluated them, and if they were poor, he could have written up his judgment in a review. But of course, Matzke learned these "interference tactics" from his mentor, Eugenie Scott, who practiced similar tactics, writing private notes to dissuade certain scientists from attending certain conferences, and launching private investigations into the religious affiliations of journal editors who dared to offend her by publishing ID-sympathetic articles, and then trying to see to it that those editors were duly punished for their effrontery. And of course, he has another model to hand in the AGW crowd, which as we know, from hacked e-mails, were contemplating ways of discrediting established peer-reviewed journals whose publication decisions they disagreed with. There is a disturbing tendency toward manipulation of publication outcomes among modern Ph.D.s with I find a betrayal of the Western spirit of inquiry. The older tradition was that an author wrote something, found a publisher, the publisher decided (by itself or after hearing from referees) to publish, and then the critical readership passed judgment. That was in my view the right way to do things. This behind-the-scenes politicization of the sciences, and of academics in general, whereby third parties, who are neither authors nor referees, get themselves involved and try to put pressure on publishers, is unhealthy. You say you aren't in favor of censorship; fine, we agree. You say that people don't have to endorse something they think is bad science; fine, we agree. But you are silent on this new practice -- a culture-war practice -- of behind-the-scenes pressure, by third parties, to get publishers to reverse their decisions on the publication of papers that have already been accepted. I think it's a loathsome practice, and should be repudiated by scientists and scholars. What do you think?Timaeus_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Hi Lizzie, I challenge you to produce a testable hypothesis for darwinian evolution so we can all have a go (at exposing your BS).Joe_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

keiths doesn't know what science is.Joe_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Of course I don’t support “thuggery”.
Apparently you do, by providing a safe haven venue for it, being an apologist for it, and providing smokescreen cover for it.William J Murray_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

William: what part of “editorial judgement is not censorship” don’t you understand?
Are you or Nick Matzke editors at Springer?William J Murray_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

William: what part of "editorial judgement is not censorship" don't you understand? Of course I don't support "thuggery". I do support rigorous peer-review. And if something fails rigorous peer-review, the last thing I want to is suppress it. Post it on the internet where we can all have a go.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Censorship has never been a feature of scientific culture.
ROFL. What patent tripe. Censorship is the suppression of an idea one finds objectionable; Matzke finds the idea that the work of what he considers to be "creationists" be lent the imprimatur of scientific validity because of the publisher objectionable, and that is the idea that he - and you, apparently - seek to censor via thuggery. Thuggery, meaning without having even ready the work, apply political pressure to keep something from being published for no reason other than who is being published, and the ideas you associate those people with. It seems that Dr. Liddle aids and abets all sorts of thuggery in the name of "science". If Newton were alive today, I wonder if she would offer up such an apologist screed if Newton's paper was prevented similar venue publication by those familiar with his religious views?William J Murray_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Timaeus:
There was a diverse group of scientists with a common interest in biological information, and they met at Cornell to exchange views on that subject. How else would you express that idea in a short, simple, English sentence?
I'd call it the Ithaca Biological Information conference, myself, or even just the New Perspectives conference. I go to many conferences held in different venues each time, and the specific conference is usually referred to by the city name, no matter where it is hosted (sometimes a hotel, sometimes a campus), and occasionally by the theme. It would never be referred to by the institution where it was held, unless it was specifically sponsored by that institution. So you wouldn't call a conference the Montreal Hilton XXXX conference, unless it was sponsored by the Hilton, any more than you would call a conference the Oxford University XXXX conference if it was merely held in a University venue in Oxford. You might call it the Oxford XXXX conference, but Oxford refers to a city as well as a University. Is "Cornell" also the name of a city? Not that this terribly bothers me, but I do think that calling it the "Cornell" conference is misleading unless it was actually sponsored by Cornell. Also, to repeat: objecting to a paper being published in a specific journal or by a specific publisher is NOT the same as objecting to it being published at all. I know nobody who wanted to see Granville's paper "burned". I'm extremely glad it is in the public domain. I wouldn't be surprised if more people read it that if it had been published behind a firewall, without fuss. Exercising editorial judgement is NOT the same as censorship. Implying that Nick would approve of book-burning, as opposed to not-endorsing is to extrapolate way beyond anything Matzke has ever said. Censorship has never been a feature of scientific culture (although secrecy has been in the past, and still is in the commercial sector). The same can not be said of religion.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Granville, I am curious: Do you think that snowflakes violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Does a snowflake have more or less entropy than a drop of water, in your view?Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: I was there and can testify that what you say is true. But the people you are dealing with use respectability a a mere veneer. they avoid hard challenges by claiming that their opponents are not respectable. And guess what? Respectable people never offer such challenges. I think that the retirement of career Darwinists is something we will all have to wait through, to put a stop to intellectual thuggery and shell games of this type. - O'LearyNews_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

CS3 is referring to the bolded part here: Thus unless we are willing to argue that the influx of solar energy into the Earth makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable, we have to conclude that at least the basic principle behind the second law has in fact been violated here. CS3 then asks: So, do you argue that the influx of solar energy into the Earth makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable? If so, you have no disagreement with Sewell’s paper. Umm, CS3, it’s the opposite. Granville doesn’t think that the influx of solar energy makes those things “not extremely improbable.” Thus, he actually does believe that the principle behind the second law has been violated here. Seriously. So of course I disagree with his paper. Notice that his rejection of the compensation argument implies that plants violate the second law by using sunlight to grow. Thus the cornstalks shooting up in my home state of Indiana are cosmic scofflaws, according to Granville’s view. If he’s right, then we’re surrounded by violations of the second law. Now do you begin to see why scientists find Granville’s position ridiculous?
Keiths, My statement was that if you believe (as you apparently do) that the influx of solar energy makes it NOT extremely improbable that computers and the Internet would arise on a barren planet, then you do NOT have to conclude that the basic principle behind the second law has been violated here. So why would you have a problem with that statement? What you cannot say is what nearly everyone does say, "sure it is astronomically improbable, but there is no conflict with the second law because thermal entropy increases outside the Earth compensate these extremely improbable events." And where did you read that I think sunlight causing a seed to grow into a plant violates the second law? I don't believe that is extremely improbable, because the seed already contains all the information to produce a corn plant in its cells, so I conclude there is no violation of the second law. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.Granville Sewell_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

keiths, since you are such a defender of scientific integrity, I was wondering if you could help me with the little problem of finding the exact mathematical demarcation criteria for Darwinism so that it may be potentially falsified and thus considered a 'reputable' science instead of a pseudoscience?
“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003) Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
Whereas nobody can seem to come up with a rigid demarcation criteria for Darwinism, ID does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor:
Evolutionary Informatics Lab - Main Publications http://evoinfo.org/publications/
Moreover, the empirical falsification criteria of ID is much easier to understand than the math is, and is as such:
Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997 Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
Well, do you have evidence of one molecular machine arising by Darwinian processes keiths?,,, keiths, since it is pretty clear that you really have no clue as to what good reputable science actually is, I'll help you out a little bit and show you what your very disreputable threshold is for believing Darwinism is a scientific fact on par with Gravity:
How Darwinists React to Improbability Arguments - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA also known as,, Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/ Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True - Plantinga - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/
bornagain77_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply