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

Oh I have no doubts that you are correct on that point, BA77. I'm just wondering what folks are going to chat about here if there is no one to offer a counter POV? UD: Doveton's out. Anyone else?Doveton_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth has been banned? Why? Anybody willing to give a reason? http://tinyurl.com/7hb67zaPeter Griffin_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Don't fret, Doveton. They'll all be back under new accounts soon enough. We should take bets on what closeted I.D. researcher Robert E. Collins new username will be.Jammer_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Well Doveton I sincerely doubt that the internet will run out of 'new atheists' any time soon. Though the thought does have a wishful appeal to it! :)bornagain77_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

These matters have enormous implications for society and the whole globe - they are ultimately matters of life and death. Perhaps I am mistaken but the impression I have is that the loss of atheist input here would not be missed. It is a place for encouragement of the scientists and others who are not on friendly terms with the corporate scientific establishment. Dr REC might well be employed by a department built and funded by a large US corporation. Maybe not. But that should give us an idea of the depth to which academia has sunk: Oxbridge and the Ivy League firmament. You need to consider the possiblity, queasy though it makes you, that there are scientists - off the top of my head, e.g. Dr Mengele - who are not beacons of integrity. It happens, and physicians who work for national, black-ops torturers. If people get the inmpression that you are somewhat lacking in intellectual integrity, are they to remain silent about it, and allow your arguments and what they perceive as their implicit motivation, to go unchallenged? We may try to make it a vicars' tea-party, but surely only gutter expletives (to which, alas, I am prone in my private life) and invective, should be proscribed. I don't believe that impugning a person's integrity for its own sake, and not extrapolated from what they say, is indulged in here at all. When people say, "You don't know me. You don't know anything about me" I think of the Freeway Blogger's response to hate-radio jock, Michael Savage: http://www.freewayblogger.com/funwithhateradio.htm#Michael%20SavageAxel_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

"one assumes". You know what happens when you assume? You make an ASS out of U and ME! (my boss loves this phrase).Barb_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Casey Luskin has posted a must-read article regarding peer-review, specially the dogmatic nature of it. Intelligent Design Is Peer-Reviewed, but Is Peer-Review a Requirement of Good Science? A sampling:
"Another example is Günter Blobel, who in a news conference given just after he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, said that the main problem one encounters in one's research is 'when your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old ideas.' According to the New York Times, these comments 'drew thunderous applause from the hundreds of sympathetic colleagues and younger scientists in the auditorium.'"
Jammer_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth you are a dyed-in-the wool, incorrigible 'company man' (generically-speaking) for whom the establishment can never be at fault. You get away with so much casuistry, because you sprinkle your posts with minor demurrals and quasi-concessions. I regret that it sounds so disparaging, but the term that springs to mind is, 'effortlessly slippery'. There was another Elizabeth, an Edinburgh woman, soi-disant, highly-accredited, you remind me of a lot. She argued on Democratic Underground that the exit polls of the US presidential election in 2000 could not be relied on. I warned her that the truth about it would come out and she and her side-kick, OTOH, would be utterly humiliated. It transpires that many millions were disenfranchised by the machines - quite apart from the suppression of minority voters and students. I put my re establishment authority in the second of these posts on DU - #73 and'#77 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=432402&mesg_id=433219 She sometimes conceded that the perpetration of fraud by the Republicans was a distinct possibility, yet seemingly was enormously exercised by something which, even had she been correct, was a distracting taradiddle For your information, a good lawyer would understand the corrupting influence of power, its corridors, its motivations, its goals, etc, far better than any scientist, at least, below the greatest innovators. It's the lawyers' speciality, and is why they, in contrast to scientists, preponderate among politicians. Your speciality is pedantry in relation to the study of the measurable, i.e the basest of all the dimensions of human existence. You would do well to leave such matters to others.Axel_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Bullwinkle says he is hopelessly befuddled as to the difference between the obscenity directed at me and the phrase "sad and pathetic." In light of that I decided he would be happier not commenting on this site. Anyone else want to push me today?Barry Arrington_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

The scientists are unanimous. Scientists are wonderful. Thanks.
So ... we should take our rebukes lying down, then? Of course they aren't wonderful, any more than all lawyers ... but nor are they all incapable of the same approach to objective, rational thought that is the subjective experience of the ID-proponent. Do ID-ers have a stranglehold on objective, non-agenda-led evaluation? Hardly. But dismissing the thinking of an entire class due to some misperception of their motivation is intellectually lazy. People drift by here to argue out of interest and subject enthusiasm. I actually enjoy having my viewpoint challenged - but preferably on some rational grounds, not just because I'm one of 'them' and so fit into THIS box here. ID wishes to operate within the realm of 'science' - and then complains, bitterly, because there are all these darned scientists cluttering the place up with their non-ID-friendly methodology and their standards and their many-years-studying-the-subject. You don't wish your science to be held up to the standards of science. It could just be about the arguments, but if you present an argument on - say - genetics before a geneticist, a bus driver and a mathematician, who would be best placed to evaluate it? Do you never call on expert witness?Chas D_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Trust Mr. Arrington. As a lawyer, he has expertise in such things.Geoxus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

No, kf, the fallacy here is a straw man from your part. markf didn't dismiss any argument from Johnson in his post, he contradicted ba77's claim about lawyers being idoneous for analysing evidence and following the logic of scientific arguments.Geoxus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

BW, if you don't see the significance of a warning from the blog owner, then either you are being incredibly unaware, or you are pushing a talking point game. G'day. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Hello Barb - I was responding to Mr. Arrington's statement, "it is also sad and pathetic that another PhD cannot see the obvious point you made." He is here characterizing Dr. Liddle (one assumes). Only persons can or cannot see obvious points, and therefore in failing to do so can be "sad and pathetic." And certainly Gil was offering a personal characterization when he characterized DrRec as "mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict." Those comments, juxtaposed with DrRec's banning, are the basis for my question, "What's the principle?"Bullwinkle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

"Sad and pathetic" came from me, and I'm not part of the administration on this site. Also, sad and pathetic referred to his comments, not to the person making them. Try to refrain from baseless and outright invalid assumptions, which result when you don't have all the facts.Barb_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

I see. Well, no I don't see. While there are instances of Joe being chastised now and then, "mentally ill, perhaps a drug addict" and "sad and pathetic" appear to pass muster. So, what's the principle?Bullwinkle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

BW: Kindly note the following post above, from 1 hr, five minutes before the time stamp on your own:
6.1.1.1 Barry ArringtonFebruary 10, 2012 at 9:05 am I agree with KF Joe. You are warned.
KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Mr Arrington: This scientist disagrees with the overly rosy picture that is being painted. The characterisation that Dr REC used above was an insult beyond the pale that invited the equivalent of a punch in the nose,* but in fact arrogance is one of the major occupational hazards of the bright and highly educated, including in my direct experience, any number of scientists and members of related disciplines. As well as members of many learned professions. Something we all need to be on guard about. Let me give two cases in point from the dean of the New Atheist School, Dawkins: those who differ with him and adhere to the Bible are regarded by him as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (never mind the weasel words he used). The God of the OT is a moral monster, with direct implications that those who believe in God are beyond the pale. His treatment of Dr Craig fits in with both these attitudes. Would you think it appropriate to look someone in the eye and say, in effect regardless of your qualifications, if you disagree with me you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked? Doesn't something jar here? As to profs gently nurturing students who break with the pack, it depends a whole lot on many factors. There are indeed profs who will back an upcoming star, but when especially wider worldview issues at one extreme or at the narrow end, if you pick the wrong prof to cut across, trouble can easily follow. What I would say is if your antennae warn you that this is a PC-ish environment or a bit of a hedgehog personality, keep heretical ideas to yourself, jump through the hoops, get the pieces of paper squared away, get tenure or security elsewhere, and then speak what you have on your mind. Look, Einstein famously ended up cadging a job as a patents clerk, and then ended up struggling for the better part of a decade in the academy. AFTER he published his Nobel Prize winning papers in Annalen der Physik. Human nature has not changed noticeably in the past century. KF * F/N: I think we need to suggest the punch in the nose rule on web speech: if you are about to say something online that would invite a punch in the nose or the polite equivalent offline, if the person was in reach, back off. That is a minimal rule of civility, I think.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Chomsky described infants deducing the grammar of language from the imperfect spoken samples all around them. Likewise, I'm struggling to deduce the administrative position on civility here. "Arrogant prick" doesn't fly, I get that. But "mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict," doesn't draw a comment from the administration, and "sad and pathetic" comes from the administration itself. These are all personal characterizations. So, what's the deep structure vis civility at UD? Empirically, it appears to be "We require civility, modulo who your position on ID, and who you are addressing."Bullwinkle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Exactly Barb. And it is also sad and pathetic that another PhD cannot see the obvious point you made.Barry Arrington_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

The scientists are unanimous. Scientists are wonderful. Thanks.Barry Arrington_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

I agree with KF Joe. You are warned.Barry Arrington_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

WJ: Now that I had a pause that allows me to see from outside of the frame of trying to douse the first embers of a flame war, I find your post as a very sound and sobering addition that should be taken very seriously indeed, by all of us. From all of our diverse points of view. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

And can we expect this new moderation policy to be applied to all who call others names, or is this privilege only to be extended to moderators, or just you personally?Prof. FX Gumby_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

So, Barry, will you please update the moderation policy to the effect that those who call you names are subject to outing? That would at least be honest if not respectable or ethical. You might also clean up all the funny typos there while you're at it.Prof. FX Gumby_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

"And it’s “downright scary” that someone who uses a rude word in an internet discussion should have a PhD?" Well, it's surprising. That much education and all he can come up with is a junior high school level insult? It's not so much scary as it is sad and pathetic.Barb_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

This scientist will have to be content without being a maverick and repeating some of the same things Elizabeth has already said.
Academics in particular are fond of students that attempt to prove their professors in error, or that their whole way of thinking about a scientific issue is flawed.
Why yes they are, in my experience. All but the really bad lecturers at any rate. When students question and try to find mistakes in things, that means they're thinking. That's what academia is all about. Oh, and some challenging discussion in the lecture theatre helps liven things up and makes the class more interesting for the prof. Your other comments (e.g. "pecking order") really show little understanding of how scientists work and see themselves. You seem to see a scientific field as a rigid monolithic hierarchy with clear winners and losers. Scientists are widely dispersed as small teams and individuals throughout the world. Oftentimes in a university, a professor will be the only one present in his specialty, plus his team of postdocs and research students, and his collaborators and competitors will be away in the next similar university. Except for those employed by companies, today's competitor for funding and making that next breakthrough will be tomorrow's collaborator.
Your opinion and conclusions as a scientist carry no weight in an argument about the validity of the heuristic structure you employ because your opinion and conclusions as a scientist are generated by that structure.
So you as a non-scientist have all the understanding required to make well-informed criticisms as to how science is conducted, but us scientists have to stay in the box? Strangely enough, I would agree with the second part of that, but not the first. However, I suggest you do not really understand the structure of the box or how scientists understand and operate within it as scientists.Prof. FX Gumby_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

WJ: Pardon me, I think I spoke just a tad too fast there, on that first bit of response. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Glad to. If someone comes onto my site and calls me that name, they can expect to be identified so that the whole world can know who's dispicable behavior is on view and then banned.Barry Arrington_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

WJ: Pardon, but if you can show that someone has said what they know or should know is false, hoping to gain from its being thought true, then we should correct the act. I am not at all sure that it is fair to characterise a person with a stigmatising brand by what may be an uncharacteristic slip-up. Save, where that person is so persistent that he needs to be marked as of no credibility, i.e has shown a habitual and defiant problem. Notice, how I and others have spoken of Wikipedia in such terms, only after many corrections have failed, indeed have been resisted. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply