Ya Can’t Make This Stuff Up!

_{Barry Arrington

February 9, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

In response to my last post DrREC wrote: “what is Barry Arrington’s exposure to the practice of science that trumps that of a scientist who has “been around the scientific block” as he put it?”

This is unintentionally hilarious. In the post I criticized scientists who appeal to authority instead of evidence and logic. DrREC, a scientist, responds by . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . an appeal to authority! Beautiful. Thank you REC.

Comments

ES: Twice today, I have had to correct misrepresentations by you in details, that you know or should have known were false, misleading and potentially damaging while serving your apparent agenda. I think you owe us all some fairly serious explanations, especially of what has to be taken at this stage as repeated personal attacks, for in both cases, indeed, all three it was your use of my handle that drew my attention as I happened to be scrolling down this thread. It seems to me you are dealing in some pretty indefensible mud slinging in hopes some will stick. That's not cricket. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Null, I fully agree with you here. Barry obviously went livid with what must have been the last straw when Dr REC dropped an obscenity, but what is going on elsewhere behind that sort of contempt to your HOST in a context where you are a GUEST is atrocious and inexcusable. And, it is directly connected, almost in real time, to what is happening here. Look, I saw people nastily speculating on whether Zoe [who is most definitely not me] is me, basically live; and in a context where it is obvious that these have been obsessively running all over the net to see what dirt they could try to find, or what they could twist to caricature and demonise. Look, my expose of web porn -- it is apparently so bad that a good fraction of net traffic in recent years was this stuff, and porn is implicated in something like half of US divorces from the divorce lawyers (don't tell me it is harmless fun) was twisted into gleeful nonsense that tried to make me out to be a pornographer or whatever you call one of those -- I guess they did not realise I asked the FBI unit to look into the case I checked out, in hopes that a skunk's hide could be nailed up to the wall. I hope they get him and I hope he rots in gaol for what he is doing, my gorge rises just to remember that this sort of exploitation is going on. I saw the man who runs a hate site that targets members of the UD community and which has threatened members of my family, operating as one of the circle in evidently good standing. I have seen far more than I want to speak of here, and none of it good. Barry is the host, and I think he was entirely within his rights to say, enough is enough on this case. And no, I see no need to wallow in filth and abuse from those who show every sign that they are sick, rage-sick, just to discuss a scientific issue. Their behaviour has forfeited any and all rights to civil discussion. Right now, what is troubling me is I am seeing abusive patterns I remember all too well from my days when I had to expose and correct destructive, manipulative groups. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

ES; Re:
We have people here correcting critics on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, insisting that biolology and/or evolution is a violation of 2LoT. Multiple clear and patient efforts were launched to correct the nonsense. Instead, the nonsense gets doubled down. And doubled down again. What’s more, none of the IDers who know better can be bothered to stick up for some sanity on this.
Pardon me, but have you actually read what has been seriously argued re the 2nd law, in terms of its statistical underpinnings, as opposed to what you may be able to dredge up from whoever, wherever? I do not have the time to take you up on all sorts of points, some of which have been more than adequately answered elsewhere, but let me focus on this point, as it is so revealing of what is really going on at UD and elsewhere, despite your protests otherwise. One slice of the cake has in it all the ingredients. Let's go:
1: No, it is not seriously argued by ID proponents that what actually happened with biology that we did not actually observe violated the law, but that 2: the proposed evolutionary materialist mechanisms -- and in particular, the chem evo mechanisms -- imply the origin of beyond astronomically isolated complex organised states and structures on chance plus necessity, when 3: the evidence of the equivalent to a still warm pond or the like and related analyses would be that, by overwhelming implausibility, we would get nowhere near such organisation on the gamut of the observed cosmos. 4: Look, it is overwhelmingly improbable that by forces at work the O2 in the room you are sitting in would unmix itself and go into a corner, leaving you choking. (And this is mere order, not organisation.) 5:There is nothing physically forbidding it by force, but the number of states consistent with available energy in which the molecules are mixed so overwhelms the number of isolated ones that the chance of that happening by chance and necessity without intelligent intervention is essentially zero, on the gamut of our observed universe. 6: That is the context in which the sort of comparison to monkeys at keyboards typing at random producing Shakespeare by chance was developed, for example.
Look, as I have cited already on 2LOT in recent days, from my online note -- and you know or should know that every post I have ever made at UD is linked to that note through my handle -- where it clips TBO from 1984 in the founding ID technical work. Let's hear them from Ch 7 TMLO, as they remark on the relevance of 2LOT:
While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in terms of thermodynamics, the origin of such living systems is quite another matter. Though the earth is open to energy flow from the sun, the means of converting this energy into the necessary work to build up living systems from simple precursors remains at present unspecified (see equation 7-17). The "evolution" from biomonomers of to fully functioning cells is the issue. Can one make the incredible jump in energy and organization from raw material and raw energy, apart from some means of directing the energy flow through the system? In Chapters 8 and 9 we will consider this question, limiting our discussion to two small but crucial steps in the proposed evolutionary scheme namely, the formation of protein and DNA from their precursors. It is widely agreed that both protein and DNA are essential for living systems and indispensable components of every living cell today.11 Yet they are only produced by living cells. Both types of molecules are much more energy and information rich than the biomonomers from which they form. Can one reasonably predict their occurrence given the necessary biomonomers and an energy source? Has this been verified experimentally? These questions will be considered . . . [Bold emphasis added. Cf summary in the peer-reviewed journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, "Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life," in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40 (June 1988): 72-83, pardon the poor quality of the scan. NB:as the journal's online issues will show, this is not necessarily a "friendly audience."]
The answers from 1984 are obvious, and that still remains the case, or there would be no ID movement. And so, when we see the sort of strawman case that you and ilk repeatedly set up in the teeth of correction or remonstrance, the better to dismiss, and as I cited from you just above, we find reason to be troubled. What I have pointed out on Clausius' key second law example, is that simple importation of energy is overwhelmingly likely to ADD disorder, by various ways and means. That is obvious from App 1 my always linked, indeed it is key to how we get to the rule that in an isolated system that has components passing and receiving d'q of heat, the rise in entropy of the receiver at a lower temp so overwhelms the reduction in the emitter at a higher temp, that overall entropy increment ds will be positive. let me clip again, just for clarity:
Isol System: | | (A, at Thot) --> d'Q, heat --> (B, at T cold) | | b] Now, we introduce entropy change dS >/= d'Q/T . . . "Eqn" A.1 c] So, dSa >/= -d'Q/Th, and dSb >/= +d'Q/Tc, where Th > Tc d] That is, for system, dStot >/= dSa + dSb >/= 0, as Th > Tc . . . "Eqn" A.2 e] But, observe: the subsystems A and B are open to energy inflows and outflows, and the entropy of B RISES DUE TO THE IMPORTATION OF RAW ENERGY. f] The key point is that when raw energy enters a body, it tends to make its entropy rise . . . [the box of marbles example follows to help the reader intuitively understand what is going on]
The statistical explanation in terms of accessible distributions of mass and energy at micro level backs this up. Energy conversion mechanisms, by contrast, couple energy based on structures and boundary conditions etc, and thus are able to convert energy from one type to another. That is for instance how a heat engine works. Such are often accessible to natural systems and can form spontaneously, e.g. a hurricane, but also there are many cases relevant to living systems that are well beyond 500 - 1,000 bits worth of functionally specific complex organisation and implied information. The sum total of OBSERVATIONAL evidence and proper analysis that such could credibly be expected to or actually did spontaneously arise on the gamut of our observed cosmos from reasonable pre-life clusters of matter and sources of energy in reasonable environments is ZERO. That is why OOL is a conundrum for evolutionary materialists. Remember, we have to account for a metabolic automaton joined to a von Neumann self replicator that uses stored information to direct self replication using machines that take in energy and materials to carry out the instructions. If you want to propose some other first life, show us an observed case and its spontaneous origin in a lab or in the field, then show us how such can then change into something like the sort of living cells that dominate our observed world of life. By direct contrast, we do have abundant empirical evidence on the known causal source of cases of the underlying FSCO/I. Intelligence, every time. Thus, we have excellent empirical reason to infer that the FSCO/I is an emppirically reliable sign of cause by such intelligence, starting with posts in this thread. Nor is this news, we have said this over and over and over, week after week, month after month, year after year. the challenge to provide a credible counter example stands unmet, for 25 years and counting now. Going beyond OOL, it is known that cell based life forms use explicit coded information, and a reasonable estimate for the first one would be 100 - 1,000 k bits, and for complex multicellular body plans 10 - 100 mn bits. There is nothing that physically blocks the spontaneous emergence of this by blind chance and mechanical necessity, but the chance of getting to such a configuration by any observed non-intelligent mechanism, are not essentially different from zero, given the overwhelming number of possibilities and the tightness of a coded functional requirement. So, the notion that body plan level evolution can occur by blind chance and mechanical necessity, however mediated in light of known forces and factors, to generate protein codes, regulatory codes etc etc, is an appeal to materialist miracle. And the reason for that conclusion is that the self same statistical principles that ground the 2nd law are at work. I have given the thought exercise of assembling a micro jet in a vat by chance or by programing, to show the point, in the same App 1.
Q: Can you provide a naturally occurring mechanism that on the gamut of our solar system would per our observation and in accord with the statistical underpinnings of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, credibly account for origin of life and body plans? A: I put it to you, sir, that you cannot, or this fact would have been trumpeted all over the Internet and major news, with award of a Nobel Prize. In short, you are bluffing, and to back the bluff you have set up and knocked over a strawman that you knew or should have known was a serious and even deceptive misrepresentation.
So, sorry -- you are acting like the Wikipedians and you have no credibility at this point, if you cannot even produce an accurate and fair summary of what is in front of you. Do you want me to spell it out? I will: you and ilk are habitually, insistently saying what you know or should know is false, in the intent that such willful falsehood is seen as the truth, to the detriment of others. That is demonstrated fact, easily accessible, and indeed you just provided yet another example. I happened to be scrolling down when I saw it. There is a short little word to describe what you have done, and it is not a pretty word. I hope you are thoroughly ashamed of yourself. For, that would be a good sign, that there is hope. Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

@eigenstate
And that’s a good example of the path William J Murray advocates. You have shown, without a doubt, that there is no reasonable measure for “misrepresentations of ID”. By “Joe’s standards” there are no standards, “evo propaganda” is whatever triggers your oppositional defiance reflex.
eigenstate, you appear to good at discussing science. You should stick to that. A misrepresentation is a misrepresentation and propaganda is propaganda-> it is what it is. The words are defined. And when the actions fit the words I use them. But you would prefer to shoot the messenger- much easier over the internet and much easier than actually trying to rebut the claim. That said- I talk like a christian? In what way? Do I quote the Bible? Do I quote the New Testament? You are obvioulsy angry and that anger has caused some, hopefully, temporary confusion. Please don't do it again. But anyway- evidence and science- if you want to criticize ID show us how the "mainstream" does it. Ya see the way to the design inference is through the current mainstream paradigm. That means if that position just did it right we wouldn't be having this discussion. So enlighten us THAT way. Give us those long sought for testable hypotheses for matter, energy, necessity and chance being all that is required to account for what we observe. People say ID isn't science and the "mainstream is. I am looking for a way to compare the two. If not it would be best if you just don't respond to me because I don't want our personal differences to take away from your contributions nor be a distraction towards any future contributions.Joe_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

The way to criticize ID is to show how the alternative scenarios do it- that is how the theory of evolution goes about presenting A) testable hypotheses and B) supporting evidence for those.
In a sense you are right. There is no other way to criticise ID except by establishing alternative hypotheses.markf_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

@Joe,
What isn’t welcome are blatant misrepresentations of ID and nonsensical evo propaganda.
And that's a good example of the path William J Murray advocates. You have shown, without a doubt, that there is no reasonable measure for "misrepresentations of ID". By "Joe's standards" there are no standards, "evo propaganda" is whatever triggers your oppositional defiance reflex. Murray's in the same boat, both philosophically and practically. Does he suppose that "patently absurd, uninformed and unexamined" -- his criteria for comments and their owners to be shown the door -- is workable at all in practice? Especially on such a highly charged, bitterly disputed set of topics. Not a chance. It's either pure, näive folly on your part and his, or it's just being profoundly disingenuous. Look how many times KairosFocus has assaulted differing opinions as purposely misleading, etc. I read the comments he is responding to and am impressed with how sane, informed and well tested they are. This is a fundamentalist problem. And I understand William J Murray is not a Christian, or is some kind of crypto-theist, and that you are not a Christian (although you talk like one), but fundamentalism is not a Christian distinctive. It's a mindset. And it's an "ad hominem" mindset that sees interactions and conflicts in primarily tribal terms -- the forces of Light vs. the forces of Darkness and all that. That makes a rule like "patently absurd, uninformed and unexamined" here at UD a non-starter. If I ran an atheist blog, and wished to ban "patently absurd, uninformed and unexamined" views, it's all too easy for me, or people on "my side" of the debate to use that to judge Christians and the Christian worldview as disqualified by that, up front. It's a cowardly rule for me to impose, were I to consider and impose that. And that's what happens here -- how can an atheist even weigh in on this question, atheists can't even ground their morality! How absurd is it to hear an atheist say, "that's wrong"? It doesn't even make sense for an atheist, that guy is just babbling absurdities. That groove gets a lot of play, here. It's a cowardly stance. I agree with Murray that it's the blog owner's right, but it can't be offered as "reasonable" policy with a straight face. It's just a guarantee for the kind of hypocrisy and abuse that goes on here all the time.eigenstate_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Evolutionary theory is built upon testable hypotheses,
That's what you say yet you cannot demonstrate such a thing.
and a vast array of supporting evidence has been accumulated.
That's what you say yet you cannot demonstrate such a thing.
You simply refuse point-blank to appreciate it, or make any effort to understand the science.
That is false.
Yet ID is not anti-evolution –
It isn't. Taht you can't even grasp that fact exposes your agenda.
What evolutionary theory seems to lack in your distorted vision is a testable hypothesis to explain every last detail of history
Now you are just spewing nonsense so you can avoid presenting a testable hypothesis based on blind and undirected processes. And what is there to learn? You don't have anything...Joe_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

No, I think when you sit by and shut up while the crap that happens at AtBC (‘the other place?’ antievolution.org – what’s wrong with mentioning it?) goes on, there’s a problem. Especially when we’re talking about people who were squealing about unfair treatment.
Liz hasn't squealed about unfair treatment. She has simply shrugged, announced her website and departed with her usual grace. 26 posts at AtBC since 2007 - including those indicating her removal, and some, ironically, defending herself against criticism because she didn't do X, Y or Z here! She was not exactly a regular. Yes, there is loutishness and nastiness at AtBC. It isn't supposed to be the acme of scientific and philosophical precision, and civil discourse. And people are two-faced. Are you without sin in this department, before you cast that stone?
‘what you associate yourself with and tolerate speaks ill of you, sapping me of any respect I have for you – and I need respect to regard someone as worth my time’
As to earning your respect? Well, why should anyone care to? Who are you anyway, Mr "Outside the Christian church there is no salvation"? If someone is not worth your time, you ignore them. I ignore plenty of people here, and there are others that I probably ought to but don't. Chas out.Chas D_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Critics are welcome here. What isn't welcome are blatant misrepresentations of ID and nonsensical evo propaganda.Joe_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

The way to criticize ID is to show how the alternative scenarios do it- that is how the theory of evolution goes about presenting A) testable hypotheses and B) supporting evidence for those. So the anti-ID people who complain about my behaviour need to take a good, long look in the mirror.
That is the very definition of a non-sequitur, Joe. Evolutionary theory is built upon testable hypotheses, and a vast array of supporting evidence has been accumulated. You simply refuse point-blank to appreciate it, or make any effort to understand the science. Yet ID is not anti-evolution - 'tis you who utters this mantra a dozen times a day, after all. What evolutionary theory seems to lack in your distorted vision is a testable hypothesis to explain every last detail of history - a testable hypothesis regarding the precise sequence of genetic changes from land-based artiodactyl to whale, or bats from non-flying rodents, or anything else on which the fossil record and comparative genetics and morphology are silent. Historic record is continually erased, and history cannot be repeated for experimental investigation. You regard that - issues arising from absence of specific genetic historic records, which ironically plagues "your side"'s efforts to demonstrate interference by a Designer - as a justification for your oafish approach, and your complete refusal to learn anything?Chas D_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

@William J Murray,
Those that come here and, even in good faith and with civil tongue, reiterate misrepresentations of ID corrected in the FAQ, or rhetorical characterizations of ID and anti-ID argument/positions, or offer only patently absurd, uninformed and unexamined materialist, atheist, or moral relativist commentary & propaganda as if it were reasoned argument, should be quickly shown the door.
I don't have a problem with this as a policy. UD just hang a sign on the door that critics aren't welcome and that's that. I run into that policy regularly, but the owners have the guts to be upfront about it. It's totally UD's prerogative to make something like this the policy, and pretend that they are open to criticism, fostering interesting discussion of ID concepts, only to ban them whenever the fancy strikes. Both of those are options. But being upfront about the policy just avoids a lot of wasted time and making hypocrisy a hallmark of the blog's charter. I was recently told elsewhere that non-Christian commenters were not welcome in that area. The forum FAQ says all are welcome, but I'd just missed a "fine print" exception to one sub-area of that forum saying non-Christians are not permitted. It's not a problem a all. Everybody gets the "owner sets the rules". It's the rank hypocrisy that creates a stench.eigenstate_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

IMO: Those that come here and, even in good faith and with civil tongue, reiterate misrepresentations of ID corrected in the FAQ, or rhetorical characterizations of ID and anti-ID argument/positions, or offer only patently absurd, uninformed and unexamined materialist, atheist, or moral relativist commentary & propaganda as if it were reasoned argument, should be quickly shown the door. A reasonable, ethical host is not obligated to suffer the rhetorical, blathering nonsense of materialists, atheists, determinists and moral relativists in his own home ad infinitum just because his guests are polite and believe they are being honest and well-meaning.William J Murray_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

A fair proportion of my contributions are politely ignored!Axel_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

The way to criticize ID is to show how the alternative scenarios do it- that is how the theory of evolution goes about presenting A) testable hypotheses and B) supporting evidence for those. So the anti-ID people who complain about my behaviour need to take a good, long look in the mirror.Joe_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Strange that all these non-ID friendly can't just ante-up and refute ID te proper way- by actually presenting evidence that blind and undirected processes can account for what we observe. Heck as Elizabeth has proven those scientists cannot even produce a testable hypothesis pertaining to blind and undirected processes. IOW it is obvious your position does not operate within the realm of science. And THAT is what bothers IDists- and we cannot call on any expert witnesses as your position doesn't have any.Joe_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Well she just posted so that made it easy. It also made it easy to review all her posts on Atbc. There are very few (25 since 2007)- many of these in the last few days discussing her ban. None of them appear to be offensive and some of them are her defending her policy of being polite. Anyway I look forward to you picking up on any insulting behaviour by any party on UD.markf_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

@kuartus, If you read back over the exchange StephenB and I had over quantum physics and superposition, StephenB's position is that, as he puts it, our minds must "correspond to reality", meaning that there is some transcendental reason (and this is God having created the universe, and our minds just so, in order to match it) why Nature must be exhaustively intelligible, why it all must fit into an {a|~a} set of semantics, else... or else, well, it just simply must be, for him. If reality, via our observations, and experiences, is problematic in that area, well reality is simply wrong. The now-banned champignon points out that superposition doesn't require denying the LNC per se, but difficulties like the reality of our experience with quantum mechanics introduce a refined understanding which invokes the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), which is problematic along similar lines as problems with the LNC. I can see champignon's point, but in any case, understanding QM's basic dynamics requires means of understanding that the kind of brittle and simplistic view of LNC as something cosmically imperative or reality defining just can't handle. So, StephenB supposes that problematic areas like this require either a deferral,again to this magical view of the LNC, literally something created of God, a part of God's design for our rationality, invincible against all phenomena if we are just willing to have faith in it (and thus this supernatural God), rather than a reasoning tool, the LNC as a form of intelligibility, which is exactly as useful as our effective use of it, no more and no less (and that's a lot, because it's impossible to speak and communicate propositionally without relyiing on the LNC. That's the difference I'm getting at by "magically" -- that the LNC is not just a ubiquitous tool for reasoning, a transcendental for propositional statements and discourse, but something magic, having a supernatural, transcendent (vs transcendental) ontic status that harmonizes the minds of men and Nature all around us per the Divine Design of God.eigenstate_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

@eigenstate, "I just dont have a magical belief in its powers" What? What does that even mean?kuartus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

@StephenB,
I don’t want to be unduly harsh here, but I don’t take you seriously any more, especially after having discovered that you reject the law of non-contradiction.
Here, just in your first response to my comment on time wasting, you're showing the problem st work. As you read from me before, I don't reject LNC, and couldn't make the points I've made without it. I just don't have a magical belief in its powers. You've had this put to you, and yet, you bring this. It's facile, it just a cheap way to waste my time. It's not cognizant of what I've said, and now I've got to distract myself and this point in the conversation to go put this ridiculous strawman to rest. Maybe I have to go quote what I've said, repeatedly, that shows your response here to be a time waster? You are embodying the very problem you decry. One of the mockers at AtBC may use rough language and rude images, but he/she would have more respect than you have for my time in dealing with the substance of the conversation. It's a much more rude way to proceed than any of that. I get it, I hear your message -- FU, eigenstate, you aren't even going to get the use of your time to be addressed on what you said, as you said. Here's a not-even-pathetic strawman I'll put in the path of anywhere this might have been going to "keep you busy" so I can further just avoid, eigenstate. I get it. I don't understand why you think no one else can see you doing precisely what you just announced as the "most uncivil thing". I could count up the number of times the LNC is implicitly being invoked here in this post of mine, and neessarily relied upon for what I have said. But it's no different than what I've already said. Now it's just a matter of how much time of mine you will waste, how much waving of your middle finger at me and this conversation you will indulge before you deign to look at the substance, if you are going to do so at all.eigenstate_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

F/N: My worldview grounding primer is here on in context. I know, I know, short book length. Ever done a serious course and looked at the length of a typical textbook chapter? KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Re ES, just above:
Ask any of the critics, they will tell you that it is an impossible task to get UDers to sustain a serious, substantial exchange over the “methodology of ID” as science. Your [SB's] posts are a very good example, predictably poisoning that well with “worldview” style critiques, and all the cultural phenomenon stuff you say you want to keep separate . . . . KF will by by momentarily to work on my ‘worldview correction’, scratching the itch for that that he regular has, but proving my point . . .
I cite this as a capital example of how ever so many of the UD critics routinely and with a straight face make false and/or highly misleading assertions, which they know or should know are false, and hope to profit by creating the perception that these willful falsehoods are true. And yes, that is directly related to a key short word, and what is beginning to look like a habitual pattern of irresponsibility, willful blindness to truth and contempt of the other (perceived as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked) that creates a self-reinforcing, and in-group enabled barrier against what would otherwise be rather obvious truth. Let me note in steps, in response: 1 --> To establish falsehood, simply cf the post series UD foundations, as well as the onward linked. This (which happens to be the major cluster of contributions I have made at UD over the past year) is not to be seen or dismissed as a unique exception, this is typical of a major focus of design thinkers. 2 --> The just above linked should substantiate that design thinkers, in general, and here at UD in particular, do spend considerable time on matters of methods, analysis, facts, observations and the like. So, to sustain the sort of talking point we see above in the teeth of easily accessible facts like that, is to be willfully deceptive by refusal to carry out duties of care to truth and fairness. 3 --> Just as a concrete example, reflect on how, in response to the assertion that the CSI concept was meaningless [through an invited opposition post], a considerable discussion over the course of months happened from last march on, and ended in serious analysis of the defects of genetic algorithms and a derivation of the summary expression of a log reduced form of Dembski's Chi metric applied to the case of functionally specific organisation and information: Chi_500 = Ip*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold. 4 --> When objectors got around to trying to discredit this, they first tried to object to a threshold metric but ran into the problem that Einstein's Nobel Prize was won on such. there was a challenge to the definition and measure of information, which has been addressed on properly understanding the Shannon type metric. Since then, there has been an attempt to deride the notion of a dummy variable assigned a value on judgement of specificity, addressed through the issue of objectivity and the creation of a pool of paradigm cases accessible to critical review, noting that the default is that S = 0, i.e. things are explicable on chance and necessity. The latest seems to be an objection to the specificity, which has been addressed by noting the requisites of multipart complex functional organisation, on abundant exemplars that start with text or code strings, which of course are just what we see in DNA. 5 --> I have just summarised a YEAR of methodologically focussed discussion, which has formed a major focus of UD in that period. And since we have anti UD sites that monitor the process, as well as categories here, it should have been fairly easy to establish the untruthfulness of the above assertion, and a responsible person would have checked before making a false and potentially damaging assertion. 6 --> But there is not just willful and direct falsity here, there is misdirection and there is misleading of the naive. For, scientific methodology is NOT a scientific issue, but a philosophical one, in epistemology, with underlying metaphysical issues -- metaphysics is first philosophy, i.e. its hard core -- lurking. thus, so soon as one is discussing scientific methods, there is a context of philosophical issues and worldview questions that cannot reasonably be avoided. 7 --> But, since a major part of what is going on, is that we are addressing the improper and question-begging, analysis-distorting injection of a priori evolutionary materialism into the very definition of science, as can be seen from what the US NAS, NSTA and many others have done and said, a major part of the rhetorical effort directed against UD and contributors, is meant to distract attention from that philosophical sleight of hand. 8 --> As the Appendix on methods in the linked educational site will show [and that has been two clicks away all along over these months and has been cited many a time], the problem is that unless science is about seeking the truth through empirically anchored investigation, it becomes little more than applied atheism. So, the following, historically and epistemologically better supported description of science as it should be, has been offered:
science, at its best, is the unfettered — but ethically and intellectually responsible — progressive, observational evidence-led pursuit of the truth about our world (i.e. an accurate and reliable description and explanation of it), based on:
a: collecting, recording, indexing, collating and reporting accurate, reliable (and where feasible, repeatable) empirical -- real-world, on the ground -- observations and measurements, b: inference to best current -- thus, always provisional -- abductive explanation of the observed facts, c: thus producing hypotheses, laws, theories and models, using logical-mathematical analysis, intuition and creative, rational imagination [[including Einstein's favourite gedankenexperiment, i.e thought experiments], d: continual empirical testing through further experiments, observations and measurement; and, e: uncensored but mutually respectful discussion on the merits of fact, alternative assumptions and logic among the informed. (And, especially in wide-ranging areas that cut across traditional dividing lines between fields of study, or on controversial subjects, "the informed" is not to be confused with the eminent members of the guild of scholars and their publicists or popularisers who dominate a particular field at any given time.)
As a result, science enables us to ever more effectively (albeit provisionally) describe, explain, understand, predict and influence or control objects, phenomena and processes in our world.
9 --> that is in paragraph 2 of the just linked, led up to by: "So, let us give a working definition of science as it should be (recognising that we will often fall short)." Here is paragraph 1:
Part of the reason for the complexity of Origins Science studies lies in how it sits at the intersection of several distinct disciplines: science, forensics, historiography, education, philosophy, theology, and maybe more. That means that if one carries out a research or field investigation project, particular attention needs to be paid to methodology and related grounding/ warranting of knowledge [[epistemology] issues.
10 --> In short, if the objectors do not know why epistemological and related phil issues are inextricable from discussions of grounding scientific methods, it is not for want of opportunity to learn why. 11 --> So, we can see that the direct assertion is willfully false and misleading, and is made in the teeth of abundant facts and opportunities to correct before making false and unfair assertions. And yet, routinely, we see this, typically backed up by a mocking and contemptuous subtext here at UD, and raw, blatant hostility and rage driven smears and mockery elsewhere. We have to ask, why is that, and why is it that smears are persisted in, month after month, year after year, in the teeth of well warranted correction? 12 --> The answer is not pretty. We are dealing with hostile closed-mindedness driven by manipulative indoctrination centred on the so-called New Atheist movement led by Dawkins and ilk, but also backed up by a "kinder gentler face" (e.g. the NCSE et al and fellow travellers) that reflects a massive socio-cultural agenda or radical secularisation on what are seen as the indisputable, established- beyond- reasonable- doubt, findings of science. And of course, if you disagree, regardless of reasons and evidence, you "must" be irrational, by way of being ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." Hence the bigotry that we so often face. 13 --> In short, we are dealing with massive ideological polarisation and a culture struggle, where the design inference and the evidence that warrants it has become a flashpoint for ruthless trench warfare, usually -- but not always -- initiated from the materialist side. The very meaning of what science is about and how it works is at stake, and we are dealing with those who in too many cases operate by Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals. For instance, from the book of that name:
5. "Ridicule [that is, cruel mockery -- just look at Anti Evo's UD pasge and the like] is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." . . . . 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'.... "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." [that is, demonisation]
14 --> So, we again need to listen carefully to Philip Johnson's correction [--> and notice, the attempt to turn "correction" into a target for mocking dismissal, a thought termination tactic] to this, in his response to Lewontin:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
15 --> Why am I confident in this analysis? Simple, this is the fourth time in my lifetime that I have seen this sort of thing in action, and how it works: political messianism politics in my youth in my native land, Marxism in my early campus days, a certain fast spreading destructive religious group that targetted campuses in my later college years, and now the ideologisation of science as applied materialism. Ironically, a good reading of Proverbs 1 - 10 or so, would save us all a great deal of grief, this sort of stuff has been around since like, forever. I am utterly unsurprised to see Plato having to deal with it in The Laws Bk X. 16 --> I know, I know, I am indicted of making long point by point rebuttals, etc etc. But, one of the things I realised over time is that there is a multi-tiered ideological programming and no one-shot magic bullet exists. There is need for detailed, comprehensive eradication of fallacies involved, just as you need to take the full course of antibiotics to get rid of all the bugs, or else the most resistant strains will come back and cause a relapse. 17 --> Yes, for those not truly hard hit, a Pareto principle 20-80 regimen may work. Y'know, the 20 percent of effort or points that has 80 percent impact. But when that last 20% is going to resurge and recolonise making the last state worse than the first as there is now a resistant strain at work, you have to go for the full treatment. If you want the 20% go here for an overview. For more, follow up on the rest of the pages there. And there is far more across the web. My own initial notes linked through my handle, will give more. 18 --> And, please be patient, one cannot hit ALL the talking points in one paragraph or section -- I have seen at least one dismissal that tried the trick of saying well science has been about explaining by natural causes for centuries [Judge Jones' blunders taken wholesale from NCSE and ACLU lurk just beneath the surface] so we need not read further. I even saw one dismissal that because the UD FAQ used the less acceptable term Forward not Foreword -- since changed in response -- we need not go further. 19 --> That's thought stopping, a cultic technique to cut off doubts and dismiss those who challenge the system. 20 --> And that signals where I have now come out, on the interactions over the past week or so. I now think New Atheism is a pseudo-intellectual cult, a quasi [anti-]religion that recruits the vulnerable and locks them into a system of manipulative persuasion and ideological control. 21 --> This, in reinforcement of personal and sociocultural agendas, presented under the mystical label science. Once that tag is attached by the cultic leaders, critical self reflection ceases, and indoctrination begins, with strong doses of polarisation to isolate from the out-group. In this case, the rage, party-line talking point and slander tactics are highly diagnostic.
(I use indoctrination in specific distinction to thought reform under closed group, highly structured and manipulative environments, the sort of thing that goes to the next level, out and out brainwashing -- and BTW, gun to the head, sleep deprivation and torture techniques are actually the less effective forms, useful only in circumstances where intimidation and control for prolonged periods is needed and you want a nicely intimidated force of hopeless captives. the sort of in-group join the elite techniques used to make cannon fodder for terrorist movements etc, is far more effective, as there is no overt coercion. Even flirty fishing works better than gun to the head intimidation, though the Stockholm syndrome can have astonishing effects, like with Patty Hearst.)
22 --> But of course we can predict the rebuttal: see you deviated, you are not staying on our designated sidetrack for you in this context, responding to methodological issues, while we proceed with atmosphere poisoning by polarisation, of course. And the second trick is like unto the first, YOU are the one doing what you describe, i.e the turnabout false accusation. 23 --> to the first, my response is, we have to clean out the whole infection, not just part of it. If the phil roots are not exposed, the distortion of sci problems will simply spring right back up. 24 --> To the second, I simply retort: nope, I am EXPOSING the problem and the easiest thought stopper trick for that is to shoot at the messenger. "He hit back first" sounds silly, until we realise how often we are taken in by it. 25 --> What about the issues on IS-OUGHT gaps, religion, Bible, Christianity and the like, even the questions on Homosexuality and whether you are just spouting disguised Bible talking points, revealing your own indoctrination?
a: We are dealing with a worldview issue, and questions of morality and the grounding of morality are significant, so it is important for us to realise that if your worldview does not have a foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, forever after, ought is a matter of an ungrounded injection, subject to manipulation and intimidation. b: religion, the Bible and Christianity more often come up because of the objector talking point that design thought is creationism in a cheap tuxedo, and if we correct it, the very fact that we address the matter is taken as "proof." the proper answer is that design theory is an empirical investigation of whether there are reliable signs that point from observation to design as cause. If objectors would stick to that, we could to, but they don't, so their other talking points need to be addressed. c: Similarly, new Atheist objectors spend an inordinate amount of time trying to trash the Christian faith. They should not be allowed a free pass to do so, simply because they can trot out talking points to try to smear their opponents as religiously motivated and so suspect. new Atheists, of course, are often motivated by irrelegion, or even patent antichristian bigotry, so "sauce for the goose . . . " d: the faith = 9/11 smear is a virulent, slanderous and uncivil form of this. Such objectors need to understand the structure of warrant in argument and the issue of first plausibles, the presuppositions we all have at the root of our worldviews. e: The real issue is to have a reasonable faith, not whether one can live and think without faith. Turtles all the way down or turtles in a circle cannot work, so we have to have a final turtle, sitting on a ground of first principles and plausible facts that we accept without further proof. f: So the proper pursuit is to assess alternatives on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. And that is not original with me nor is it a dubious talking point spread like a virus to those I have influenced; this summary or its near synonyms is a commonplace of those who have reflected seriously on what it is to have a worldview and to have a reasonable framework to have that one in a world where many such views exist or are possible. g: Hint: start from first principles of right reason, such as the implications of the Royce/Trueblood point: Error exists. It will then help to think about the reason behind principles such as: a thing cannot both be and not be in the same sense at the same time, or that which begins to exist is contingent and has a cause. h: In response tot he injection of a hot button issue distractor on homosexuality, I referred the challenger to the principle that a man's saliah is as the man, pointed to the Is 5:20 principle of facing down a willfully inverted view of objective reality and morality, and called attention to a specific reference on the empirical evidence, My genes Made Me do it. this was to break the programming by talking points that wanted to assign genetic responsibility for moral choice, and to highlight that the scheme of trying to drive wedges between Jesus (who taught within the Jewish consensus on the moral order of creation and family life, e.g. in Mt 19 as also referenced) and his authenticated apostles, is wrong headed. This is not just spouting memorised Bible verses used as indoctrination, especially in the context of the pivotal authentication of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and the transformation of life for millions by encounter with the risen Christ; including BTW, many trapped in same sex habituation and attraction, among many other challenges. (Remember my recent remarks on the transformed murderers I know and have known.) i: I chose to respond in these terms, to underscore that what is going on here is appeal to prejudice and willful atmosphere poisoning by use of hot button issues and loaded strawman talking points.
26 --> I trust these in-brief rebuttals will suffice to show that the matter is not at all as the talking-point streams would suggest. 27 --> Returning to the overt, designated "you must only speak to this point" cited above, I will say in closing that one is never wise to let an opponent set the terms of a discussion in ways that lock out addressing material issues that would correct key errors. _______________ I trust the above will suffice to show why. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

I don't think it's on the up and up for me to reveal that, but really, it's damn obvious. Go look. It's not like UD either. All the crap in question is comprised to a single thread, not multiple posts that are scrolling off the main page on any given day. So 'well maybe she just never saw this stuff' won't be flying.nullasalus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

I have occasionally commented - but I don't follow it closely. I prefer to debate with people who have different opinions from mine. What ID does Liz use when participating at AtBC? I can't see any evidence that she follows it any more than I do.markf_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

But you seem to be saying that Liz exceeded some quota. I’m sure that’s not what happened – I think there has simply been a change in approach, which may have been in the wind for a while, or triggered directly by the DrREC Affair No, I'm replying to the absurd claim that UD snuffs out dissenters for dissenting. I think 1000+ posts by one poster alone, not to mention months of presence by active (and in some case, pretty low-quality and snarky) critics, dashes that on the spot. 'Aside from allowing those hundreds of posts from ID critics over the months, UD snuffs out all dissent!' I suppose will be the new line. As regards behaviour in ‘the other place’, taking an ID at a forum does not mean that you thereby endorse the sentiments and behaviour of every poster there. Nor are you under any obligation to get the house in order. What kind? Legal? Ethical? No, I think when you sit by and shut up while the crap that happens at AtBC ('the other place?' antievolution.org - what's wrong with mentioning it?) goes on, there's a problem. Especially when we're talking about people who were squealing about unfair treatment. That's my own standard - I don't set the rules here. And if I saw happening here what happens at AtBC, I'd complain, and if it persisted, I'd walk. Again, this isn't trash-talk on TF2. This is about people targeting, screaming about, and mocking the very people being discussed with, in pretty nasty terms. So, forcing someone to get a house in order isn't possible. But 'what you associate yourself with and tolerate speaks ill of you, sapping me of any respect I have for you - and I need respect to regard someone as worth my time' is a reasonable rule. Call it 'electing to get one's house in order'.nullasalus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

I’ll note again: 1000+ comments. That’s pretty substantial. In fact, in terms of allowing critics to speak, it’s extremely tolerant.
Up till now, I have been quite impressed with UD's tolerance of criticism. After all, having scientific theories batted around critically is the thing that strengthens them in scientific circles. But you seem to be saying that Liz exceeded some quota. I'm sure that's not what happened - I think there has simply been a change in approach, which may have been in the wind for a while, or triggered directly by the DrREC Affair. As regards behaviour in 'the other place', taking an ID at a forum does not mean that you thereby endorse the sentiments and behaviour of every poster there. Nor are you under any obligation to get the house in order. I note that there is never a word raised here against Joe, for example, by the pro-ID side. Nor when K/F suggests that he may physically chastise a lady with "Mr. Leathers". That appears to have changed, Joe has been warned and I welcome that. But I don't tar anyone here with the behaviour of anyone else - guilt by association.Chas D_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

Then you, apparently, don't hang out at AtBC. Good on you.nullasalus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

Sorry what fisting comment? I don't understand.markf_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

I don't want to be unduly harsh here, but I don't take you seriously any more, especially after having discovered that you reject the law of non-contradiction.StephenB_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

So you think that people should be banned not for what they write on this forum, nor for what they write on other forums, but for failing to admonish people on other forums? "Should be"? I don't set policy here, and I didn't engage in any bans here. I'm entirely comfortable with, say... Jerry Coyne's "silently and quickly snuff anyone he dislikes" policy. His blog, his rules, run it how he wants. But yes, I don't even have an ethical problem with someone who decides such a person, and such a group, are not worth talking to. Further, that wasn't Joe - it was Gil. And sure: as kf said, I think that went too far and he should walk it back. Now, go compare it to what happens at the cesspool. Where do you stand on the fisting comment, Mark, or the rest?nullasalus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

Nullasus So you think that people should be banned not for what they write on this forum, nor for what they write on other forums, but for failing to admonish people on other forums? This is indeed a very strict policy. I don't notice you admonishing UD supporters such as Joe who accuse people of being "mentally ill, perhaps a drug addict".markf_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply