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

I don't see condemnation above. Only lukewarm, provisional tutting.Prof. FX Gumby_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

If it was.
What else is it? Publishing someone's real identity without their permission is outing. I appreciate you are extending the benefit of the doubt; however, it is misplaced and far more than you have extended to others here who have used your real name. If you are waiting for Arrington to publish an email from DrREC saying "please out me when you eventually ban me", you will be waiting a long time.Prof. FX Gumby_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Joe: Pardon, but if you have been speaking in that way [and it looks like the clips are accurate, from your responses . . . ], I suggest you will find it best to dial back your tone a few notches. We in the main need to focus on issues not personalities. Controversial matters are best addressed in that way, otherwise the sidetracks will tend to derail serious discussion. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

the rest of us are doomed to reading the same bad logic and absurd statements in every. single. debate.
Phew. Motes and beams once more. I can hardly claim to be a detached observer (is there such a beast?) but would you not agree that a great deal of absurdity and bad logic is peddled here in defence of a Personal-Creator view of origins? I'm not sure how you manage to rise above the intellectual shackles that grip us lesser mortals, and generate meta-rationalisations that appear to perceive 'Natural' Science as deeply flawed (because it is a human endeavour, marred by ideology and tenure-jockeying) yet your own 'Personal-Creator' science is an honest, unprejudiced curiosity to simply "follow the data where it leads". To me, one fundamental distinction is the 'text'. You are given a manual that last changed so long ago it is as if set in stone. Making the world fit that text, as best you can, involves numerous contortions depending upon the degree to which you are prepared to allow metaphor - ie, the text is static, interpretation more flexible. But you have a compelling reason to make that effort: salvation. The 'text' of science may be hard to shift sometimes, but shift it will, if data or better interpretation forces it. But the consensus is a consensus for a reason, and ideology is far from compelling as a basis for that reason. There is a curious implication in your post that scientists are not to be trusted with their own data. They formulated the hypothesis, carried out the experiment to test it, and presented it to their peers at conference or for publication ... but it needs dispassionate examination by ... ooh, let's say a lawyer or a mathematician, unfamiliar with the field - before we can really interpret it correctly!Chas D_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Abduction seems the pivotal explanatory move in science, and eval of best current explanation takes in a pretty wide swath. I would be cautious on playing the extraordinary explanations card too: designers are not exactly exceptional, and that they leave characteristic signs is not either. What would be, is to win an unwinnable lottery! KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

GCU: Really! Please see above.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Pardon me, I was not thinking of this as an "outing." If it was. That is indeed a step beyond what should be done, if it was that. (Remember in my case my handle is not for concealment of identity, indeed the TKI part is my work personality.) I do not of course have editing power on this thread -- as the colour of the comments will hint. Perhaps, Mr Arrington will explain himself? KF PS: P, as you know, my use of a handle mainly has to do with spamming and the like web plagues; we all know how serious that is getting; it's not just those funny banker widows from Nigeria anymore. However, your attempt to retaliate against an uninvolved third party says something about you, and it is not good.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

It is interesting to point out, in getting beyond all the rhetoric, posturing, ones-up-man-ship, and name calling, in this post, and many other posts on UD, what the 'science', which everyone seems to be paying lip service to as the ultimate authority with final word, but not ever really directly addressing, actually has to say about this matter. The burning question of science, which neo-Darwinists never directly address, but implicitly always assume is true, is this. 'Is the atheistic/materialistic molecular reductionism model for the foundation of reality, upon which neo-Darwinism built, true, or is the Theistic Logos-information theoretic foundation for all of reality true? It turns out when this most important question of science is asked, that the answer completely undermines what is implicitly assumed by all Darwinists in their arguments. i.e. it undercuts the assumption that reductive materialism-molecular reductionism is true! Here are a few notes to that effect:
God is the ultimate existence which grounds all of reality https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yHEwK2ZOlyiobVOJ9i-_FiFz37pVj0sQ-viPZu9V_dA/edit Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universe https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
Moreover, in Irony of Ironies, is the fact that 'science', as much as neo-Darwinists trumpet their 'expertise' in the area of science over the rest of us mere mortals, cannot even be grounded in the materialistic framework in the first place,,,, whether reductive or non reductive materialism!:
The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
This 'lack of a guarantee', for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism (reductive materialism itself;
Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind
Thus as far as the science goes, which neo-Darwinists seem to take such pride in being such experts in, the fact is that 'science' refutes materialism as the true foundation of reality, moreover, it is shown that even if materialism were true, as they falsely presuppose it to be, then science would not even be possible in the first place: Further notes to that effect:
Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit
bornagain77_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Which demonstrates your difficulty with basic logic. Because you are not 10 years old or younger, and because I assume you have an IQ over 80, and because I’ve excluded “naivety” from the explanation, you think I’ve indicated you must be a liar. I have indicated no such thing. Other commodities (besides deliberate deception) that causes many honest and otherwise intelligent people to make profoundly implausible, self-serving, logically baffling statements is ideological blindness, a deep a priori bias that contorts one’s perspective and interpretive capacity, or a simple lack of understanding about basic logic and philosophy.
I accept that alternative characterisations of me implied by your post are: "ideological blindness, a deep a priori bias that contorts one’s perspective and interpretive capacity, or a simple lack of understanding about basic logic and philosophy." Thanks for the clarification. Not.
Yes, it’s in the interests of the average scientist to be a maverick – to attack and attempt to bring down those theories that others have established long, fruitful careers and reputations upon. There’s nothing that specific scientific communities embrace like those who reveal most of their work as flawed or entirely erroneous. 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.
Yes, this is true, in my experience.
Peer-review editors absolutely LOVE it when some young buck sends a manuscript down the pike that renders most of their personal publications obsolete and demonstrates their long-held views invalid. It’s not like they care about their position in the pecking order; it’s all about the truth. This is why there is such a long history of the institutional status quo warmly embracing new scientific ideas; it’s not like scientific mavericks have a long history of being ridiculed and attacked by the status quo.
Well, you probably wouldn't send a manuscript that disparaged a particular scientist's pet theory to a journal edited by that particular scientist, sure. But the peer-reviewers include, of course, those "young bucks" themselves, and, as I said, most journals invite you (some require it) that you nominate reviewers you think are suitable. And yes, it's all about the truth. I can think of one specific example where a paper was criticised (in some ways fairly) by a reviewer, who, unusually, was not anonymous, and the findings of that paper were later confirmed by that very reviewer. The original paper was published in another journal, after some revision, which improved it. And I'm not just talking about my own experience. I lived for nearly forty years with a scientist who has hundreds of scientific publications. The peer-review system is not flawless, and sometimes good work gets more hassle than it should, while, oddly, less good work sometimes gets straight in. And it is certainly true that findings which, if valid, would make a great impact, tend to receive more rigorous scrutiny than findings that just support the consensus, but that is as it should be. The pay-off is that it's likely to be accepted in a much fancier journal. This is why scientists do not have a vested interest in the status quo. The big rewards are in upsetting it, not supporting it.
These debates aren’t scientific per se – we’re not challenging physical facts, nor even generally data collected via research. What is being challenged is the epistemological and ontological basis for interpreting those facts as the status quo insists on interpreting them, and the logical chain of inference that arrives at particular conclusions.
I agree that they are often not scientific. I understand that you are challenging the "epistemological and ontological basis for interpreting those facts". I think your challenge rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific epistemology. So we will have to agree to differ.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Unless he thinks I am either lying or mentally retarded, as uncivilly alleged by William J Murray.
Which demonstrates your difficulty with basic logic. Because you are not 10 years old or younger, and because I assume you have an IQ over 80, and because I've excluded "naivety" from the explanation, you think I've indicated you must be a liar. I have indicated no such thing. Other commodities (besides deliberate deception) that causes many honest and otherwise intelligent people to make profoundly implausible, self-serving, logically baffling statements is ideological blindness, a deep a priori bias that contorts one's perspective and interpretive capacity, or a simple lack of understanding about basic logic and philosophy. For example, your statement:
And scientists do not have a vested interest in the status quo. They – we – have a huge vested interest in overturning the status quo.
... reveals ideological blindness about science and scientists and the institution of how science actually works in a practical manner. You're willing to throw out a statement that might be preferable ideally, but which is patently and obviously untrue in the real world. Or, maybe we actually live in that ideal world? Yes, it's in the interests of the average scientist to be a maverick - to attack and attempt to bring down those theories that others have established long, fruitful careers and reputations upon. There's nothing that specific scientific communities embrace like those who reveal most of their work as flawed or entirely erroneous. 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. Also, corporations love to employ those scientists that won't bend the truth and fudge the facts in pursuit of the financial goals of the company. Governments love those that won't sign off on, and publicly dispute, research used to validate billions in policy subsidy (and those scientists down the money-chain are especially fond of those who gum up the works). Pharmaceutical companies are particular fond of such researchers. So are tobacco companies. In fact, they prefer scientists that will out their faulty research to the public despite contractual non-disclosure agreements. This is because scientists (and those who employ and fund scientific research) aren't regular people with a priori, ideological biases and careers entirely built on serving corporate production targets or governmental baseline budget increases. There's nothing research and development likes more than sending a scientist or two up to the board that say that the entire project funded for years is based upon a flawed scientific premise. Peer-review editors absolutely LOVE it when some young buck sends a manuscript down the pike that renders most of their personal publications obsolete and demonstrates their long-held views invalid. It's not like they care about their position in the pecking order; it's all about the truth. This is why there is such a long history of the institutional status quo warmly embracing new scientific ideas; it's not like scientific mavericks have a long history of being ridiculed and attacked by the status quo. Dr. Liddle, IMO your penchant for making the most patently absurd and flawed statements has nothing to do with your being retarded or a liar; it has to do (IMO) with something else beyond your recognition or control. These debates aren't scientific per se - we're not challenging physical facts, nor even generally data collected via research. What is being challenged is the epistemological and ontological basis for interpreting those facts as the status quo insists on interpreting them, and the logical chain of inference that arrives at particular conclusions. Referring as you (and others) often do to the conclusions and opinions of researchers as if their conclusions and opinions have merit in a debate about how they are coming to such conclusions and opinions is not a logically sound argument. The physical facts do not tell a scientist how to interpret them or what to conclude about their behavior. Epistemological and ontological axioms provide such heuristics, which is why one must be particularly careful about what axioms they are beginning with - which is why kairosfocus and others keep referring you to that which fatally undermines your arguments and interpretations, and to the philosophically flawed edict of Lewontin. Because a scientist is a scientist doesn't make a case about how, what and why (philosophy, logic) they are assuming, categorizing, pursuing, interpreting and concluding; that is a logical and philosophical debate. What many scientists don't understand, apparently, is that they are simply assuming their philosophy (epistemology and ontology) is true (even if they are unaware of it) because they erroneously believe they are not involved in philosophy and their research doesn't employ philosophy. But it does, which is why reference to conclusion and opinion of researchers about what their research "means" is an appeal to authority - the authority of their particular philosophical perspective on what to assume, how to categorize and interpret, and how inferences should be made. While they may be sound authorities when it comes to employing the scientific method and how to employ their assumed ideology in that investigation, they are not authorities outside of that box when it comes to examining the structure of that box. 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. Since you (and others) appear to be immune to noticing (let alone correcting) the fatal cracks in the foundation of your arguments, the rest of us are doomed to reading the same bad logic and absurd statements in every. single. debate. But, that doesn't make you a bad person, a liar, retarded, or even outside of the norm. Most people (IMO) are completely unconcerned with making sure their fundamental premises serve as sufficient warrant for their beliefs, or even that their beliefs are reconcilable with each other. Most people don't realize that they are saying absurd things in defense of their beliefs, even when it is pointed out, and even when they say such patently absurd things like:
And scientists do not have a vested interest in the status quo.
William J Murray_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

HMM, as to the supposed 'neutrality' of Darwinism, Here is Phillip Johnson commenting on a review of his book 'Darwin On Trial';
David Hull, reviewing Darwin on Trial for Nature, was equally severe with me for refusing to concede that Darwinism has finished off theistic religion for good. Hull emphatically proclaimed a Darwinist doctrine of God: 'What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin's Galapagos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror.... The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.' So much for Darwinism's religious neutrality. http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9203/watchmkr.html
But the 'Bad Design' argument is a theological argument that quickly leaves the field of empirical science and enters squarely into the field of Philosophical, and even Theological, debate. Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg In fact, it has been pointed out, by many people besides Dr. Craig, that the whole neo-Darwinian argument is, at its core beneath all the rhetoric, a theological argument: Here are peer-reviewed papers which point out the fact that many arguments for Darwinian evolution turn out to be, at the end of the day, primarily theological arguments at their core that have nothing to do with the scientific evidence: The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/ Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html Evolution and the Problem of Evil - Jay Richards - video http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/06/evolution_and_the_problem_of_e.html From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011 Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html Peacefulness, in a Grown Man, That is Not a Good Sign - Cornelius Hunter - August 2011 Excerpt: Evolution cannot even explain how a single protein first evolved, let alone the massive biological world that ensued. From biosonar to redwood trees, evolution is left with only just-so stories motivated by the dogma that evolution must be true. That dogma comes from metaphysics, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/08/peacefulness-in-grown-man-that-is-not.html Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his 'excellent' lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would be expected to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue to support a supposedly well supported scientific theory: Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw And the theological 'bad design' argument, which Darwinists unwittingly continually use to try to make their case, is actually its own independent discipline of study within Theology itself called Theodicy: Is Your Bod Flawed by God? - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Theodicy (the discipline in Theism of reconciling natural evil with a good God) might be a problem for 19th-century deism and simplistic natural theology, but not for Biblical theology. It was not a problem for Jesus Christ, who was certainly not oblivious to the blind, the deaf, the lepers and the lame around him. It was not a problem for Paul, who spoke of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain till the coming redemption of all things (Romans 8).bornagain77_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Well Peter if people would just take a look at what I am responding to they may be a little more enlightened. But thanks for proving what i already knew about you...Joe_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

What has changed since Planck's day (and I'm not convinced Planck was right, even in his day, about this) is the ferocious rate of scientific research and publication. The number of journals is many orders of magnitude greater than it was, and the transmission of new findings also orders of magnitude faster. I can, using the university electronic journal subscriptions, access research papers that sometimes haven't even been finally proofed, and I know of their publication, because journals can spam my inbox with the press releases. And those journals know that what will induce me to click on the link is a novel finding, not an "as you were, guys, same-old, same-old". And the competition between teams is just as great as it ever was (check out The Double Helix for a historical account), but the number of teams is now huge, and the incentive for journals to publish the most exciting findings still huger. Even in my short scientific lifetime, the number of submissions to the big journals has increased by an order of magnitude or two, and they select what sells the journal, and that isn't boring consensus-propping stuff. Nature makes its living from what gets reported in the science blogs and pop science mags, and science bloggers don't report "Natural selection shown to work in another batch of fruitflies". They report: "New Theory Of Everything" - even if it turns otu to be junk. Which is why even the big journals look askance at junk, however new it is.
What’s more, “the goods” are not necessarily “good, solid science!” but “useful science”. Sometimes the use is practical – better technology.
Yes. And my point is that if anything, the prejudice is against good solid workaday replications that allow us to make practical improvements to people's life based on reliable evidence. Or, still more important, against good solid workaday studies with the statistical power to say: there is no good evidence that this drug is useful, or that that procedure is harmful".
The fact that you suggest that neither biology nor cosmology are policitized speaks volumes about you, and not very well. I’m sure this will come down to some narrow and idiosyncratic definition of ‘politicization’ from you, and apathy from me.
Well, I agree that all research with commercial and policy implications is politicized in an important sense, and that certainly includes biology, so I retract that claim. But I'd still like to know what you actually mean. Certainly grant-giving bodies, in the UK anyway, prioritise "translational" research - research likely to result in practical benefit for people, so if that's what you meant, I agree. But that seems to me to be how it should be. So can you explain what you mean by "politicised"? Or don't, if you don't want to. There is no obligation on you to respond to my posts, after all.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

In other words, Barry grants my direct experience as a scientist, yet assumes that he, a lawyer, knows better.
Actually, I'm tempted to agree with Barry. Like you I'm a scientist, not a lawyer, so I guess that means that when it comes to law - we both know better than Barry ;)GCUGreyArea_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

KF, your failure to condemn this poisonous outing behaviour is clearly evidence that you support such acts. ;)GCUGreyArea_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

This poor soul must be mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict.
Well I have felt tempted to say the same about some ID supporters on this site - but uncivil language like that would get me banned. get your double standards here folks!GCUGreyArea_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Barry's point was not valid. DrREC was not appealing to authority. He was merely pointing out that Barry's assumption that his experience as a lawyer trumps mine as a scientist is when it comes to the practice of science, is well, arrogant. Barry wrote:
In a comment to a recent post Dr. Liddle wrote: “Scientists do not appeal to authority; they appeal to evidence and argument, and all their conclusions are provisional, not absolute.” I will grant that Dr. Liddle’s statement summarizes fairly what scientists should do, but I am astonished that anyone – much less someone who has been around the scientific block a few times as Dr. Liddle obviously has – would believe that is what scientists actually do.
In other words, Barry grants my direct experience as a scientist, yet assumes that he, a lawyer, knows better. He may be right, of course. But DrREC's question: "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?" is not an "appeal to authority" as Barry claims, but exactly what it says: he is querying what experience Barry has that gives him the grounds on which to say the conclusions I base on mine are "astonish[ing]"? Nowhere does DrREC appeal to my authority. He merely asks why the experience of a scientist should "astonish" that of a non-scientist when it comes to an evaluation of what scientists actually do. And my experience is that "scientists do not appeal to authority; they appeal to evidence and argument, and all their conclusions are provisional, not absolute", as I said. They are of course also competitive, sometimes jealous, sometimes prejudiced, sometimes too enamoured of their own hypotheses to give a fair hearing to evidence that seems to conflict with them, but out of this soup of co-evaluation, the winners are the exciting novel ideas that are well-supported by evidence and argument, and if that upsets the status quo, well, long live the new status quo.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

And I leave you with my rebuttal. "rebuttal", anyway. ;) Can you give an example? One within the last fifty years? Why the time limit? What's changed since Planck's day? Since then, we've had everything from Lysenkoism to Einstein's (and others') reactions to quantum physics to philosophically driven Big Bang fights to more recent issues involving multiverse speculation, string theory and otherwise. Sometimes it's an issue of dealing with a dominant theory. Other times it's an issue of staying within a broader philosophical or political paradigm. What's more, "the goods" are not necessarily "good, solid science!" but "useful science". Sometimes the use is practical - better technology. Other times - often, in fact - the use is ideaological. Lysenko's boys delivered "the goods". They weren't the stuff of good science or reasoning. They didn't have to be, at the time. That’s certainly another dimension. But what’s political about biology? Or cosmology? The fact that you suggest that neither biology nor cosmology are policitized speaks volumes about you, and not very well. I'm sure this will come down to some narrow and idiosyncratic definition of 'politicization' from you, and apathy from me. True enough. But obviously if you don’t tell me, I can’t evaluate it. It's almost as if I don't really put much stock in any evaluation by you! Anyway, I'm sure you'll have a reply to this within two minutes, since - as usual - you're camping here and frantically reloading the screen looking for replies for hours on end. Do have fun, now. ;)nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Are you kidding? I already said it was the link where Murray commented.
But that wasn't an "idyllic picture". I just said that scientists didn't have a vested interest in the status quo. I didn't say they didn't have vested interests. They do. It's just not in the status quo.
Don’t ask me to go point by point in an argument with you, because as I’ve made entirely clear in the past, I don’t like wasting my time.
Hit and run, then?
I’m not too keen on spending over a week with someone who wildly equivocates and freaking camps on this site on a daily basis. You jumped in with a reply when I wasn’t addressing you, I’ll state what I see and leave it at that.
And I leave you with my rebuttal.
And the context, in scientific publishing and funding, is that success goes to those with novel ideas.
As long as those ‘novel ideas’ fit within the proper paradigm, or (if they don’t) are backed up with so much data that it’s impossible to ignore or explain away – a rarity.
Not the "proper" paradigm. But sure, if the novel ideas conflict with the current consensus paradigm, they need to be backed up with good data. Obviously. You can't just say, hey I found a faster-than-light neutrino, take that Relativity.
And even then, it can take generations to overturn the consensus.
Can you give an example? One within the last fifty years?
Not because “that’s just how thorough scientists are!” but often because, as Planck said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Well, that may have been truer once than it is now. Science is extremely competitive, and if one group produces the goods, another group isn't going to stop it because it upsets their paradigm. And, interestingly, most journals now actually ask you not only to suggest referees for your paper, but to nominate any that you think the paper should NOT be sent to. Obviously editors are not bound by this, and may even do so deliberately, but will take known hostility by reviewers into account. As I hope I have made clear, science is no idyll, and scientists are as prone to lust for success as anyone else. And it is true that some ideas can be blocked for a bit if the leaders in a field are vehemently opposed to it. But with the number of journals now, and the number of scientists in each field, I'd say. But it's possible to publish anything things somewhere if your argument and evidence are up to scratch (and even if they aren't, actually) - the bar to getting papers in journals with high impact factors isn't some Old Guard, but the perception that you aren't offering something novel. That's why the classic line in the covering letter begins "For the first time, we show that...."
And this before getting to the actually politicized subjects.
That's certainly another dimension. But what's political about biology? Or cosmology?
Not without presenting your data you aren’t.
Uh, no, I’m “doing science” regardless. If I form a hypothesis, engage in repeated observation and research, but I don’t bother telling Lizzie, whatever science I engaged in doesn’t become “not science”. As nice as peer review is. True enough. But obviously if you don't tell me, I can't evaluate it.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

Careful paragwinn, there was a certain aunt jemima around these parts who was banned for doing precisely what you seem to be close to doing.kuartus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Your double standards are showing UD. Why is it that Joe can say such things as these and get away with it?
And context is important and obvioulsy you are too stupid to understand the context of what I posted even though I was responding to you. . And I answered you stupid questions- what part of my answer didn’t you undersatnd? Heck I have been asking questions of evos for decades and you chumps still can’t answer them. that is false. you are clueless and dishonest. Chas spaz, wanker tanker. Nice strawman. IOW you lied. As for lying, well it is a lie to say the theory of evolution produces testable hypotheses and you say that all the time. You are truly demented and a liar to boot. Again your ignorance is amusing. BTW I never said mutations are all there is YOU are a LIAR and a coward. Only an ignorant liar would say such a thing. Again, your ignorance is meaningless here. As for cloud cover- again you have to be a moron not to understand how that works. Yes it appears that “scientific academia” is just too stupid to realize that their pet project was stillborn 150+ years ago. Weirdly I explained why Tiktaalik isn’t a prediction and obvioulsy you have some mental issues and cannot grasp reality. Strange taht you choose to whine as opposed to actually putting up… Sounds like a personal problem to me. So perhaps you need to figure out your problem. Why are you even here seeing that you don’t have a bleeping clue as to what is being debated even though it has been spelled out many times over many years? Wait, what are you smoking, Nick?
There is plenty more like that, and if you want even harder stuff just go to his blog which is linked to on every post. There you can find gems like:
I guess it makes it easier for him to lick his prostrate so that he can blow his load without stroking- saves on the ole wear-n-tear. When you lick your boyfriend's anus are you giving him a rimmer or a ... I know it isn't funny that you like licking around your boyfriend's anus. Lick my asshole while I shit, OM. Do that for me and I will do as you ask
http://tinyurl.com/8435sm6 I'd say something about a mote and a beam but I doubt you'd get it. Will you now be banning Joe and telling us all his true identity, as far as you have worked it out?Peter Griffin_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

Gil: Pardon, but I think that "drug" reference was a clear step too far. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

cmon Barry you egged the guy on a little.
Only through DrREC's own actions / words. Barry made a valid point, and DrREC then proceeded to insert his foot a substantial way into his mouth. Perhaps DrREC can be allowed to return if he apologises to Barry? To be fair to him he has generally been a levelheaded contributor here on UD -- pretty well lost his head on this one though LOLStu7_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

Science is not a new magisterium to be kowtowed to, but it should instead be an ever provisional and progressive, open minded pursuit of understanding the truth about our world and how it works in light of empirical evidence and reasonable analysis
Of course it should.
on inference to best explanation.
That's only one inferential method, and if using it, it is important to bear in mind Peirce's own maxim: "Facts cannot be explained by a hypothesis more extraordinary than these facts themselves; and of various hypotheses the least extraordinary must be adopted".Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

Where did I paint an idyllic picture of scientists? Link please. Are you kidding? I already said it was the link where Murray commented. Don't ask me to go point by point in an argument with you, because as I've made entirely clear in the past, I don't like wasting my time. I'm not too keen on spending over a week with someone who wildly equivocates and freaking camps on this site on a daily basis. You jumped in with a reply when I wasn't addressing you, I'll state what I see and leave it at that. And the context, in scientific publishing and funding, is that success goes to those with novel ideas. As long as those 'novel ideas' fit within the proper paradigm, or (if they don't) are backed up with so much data that it's impossible to ignore or explain away - a rarity. And even then, it can take generations to overturn the consensus. Not because "that's just how thorough scientists are!" but often because, as Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." And this before getting to the actually politicized subjects. Not without presenting your data you aren’t. Uh, no, I'm "doing science" regardless. If I form a hypothesis, engage in repeated observation and research, but I don't bother telling Lizzie, whatever science I engaged in doesn't become "not science". As nice as peer review is. ;)nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

Seriously, kf, if you have editing privileges, you should redact the personal identifiers from this thread. And if not, it should be made clear somewhere on the site that if a person is banned, their identifying information may be published.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

And yes, you have. It was pretty absurd on your part, but hey, keep telling yourself otherwise.
Where did I paint an idyllic picture of scientists? Link please.
Not at all. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. Just like in politics, really. The context, clearly, is important
And the context, in scientific publishing and funding, is that success goes to those with novel ideas. There is, of course, the important constraint that those ideas are well-supported by data and sound argument.
Observation from repeated incidents. I guess I’m doing some science.
Not without presenting your data you aren't.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

And I do not, and have not painted an “idyllic” picture of science. Scientists, not science. Not the same thing - though some scientists often forget this. And yes, you have. It was pretty absurd on your part, but hey, keep telling yourself otherwise. It’s just that what leads to advancement isn’t supporting the status quo, it’s the opposite. Not at all. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Just like in politics, really. The context, clearly, is important. How do you know? Observation from repeated incidents. I guess I'm doing some science. ;)nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

What? Champignon was banned? And we were having such a nice conversation too back at the WLC thread. :-(kuartus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

G____n E. M______s, I dont find hypocrisy to be silly. I find it very irritating, as you so far have demonstrated.paragwinn_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply