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

You work in the field? That’s nice. Who cares?
Nobody need care at all, but if you are interested in a scientist's experience of the incentives in science, then I am a datapoint.
The extent of your input here has been to paint a picture of scientists which is frankly absurdly idyllic, and to do so in the form lecturing. I’m sure William J Murray’s gruffly dismissing your depiction of scientists gets your guff, but honestly, you bring it upon yourself.
It doesn't get my guff, especially. I obviously have a thicker skin than Barry. And I do not, and have not painted an "idyllic" picture of science. Indeed, I have pointed out the problems of the incentive structure - it's just that the problems are the exact reverse, AFAICT, of the ones Barry sees. Too much incentive for novelty, not enough for solid replicative work, no incentive for publishing null findings.
It’s right up there with “politicians want to represent their constituents as best as possible, and never make personal advancement or agendas their priority! I should know – I’m an elected official and I’m friends with several!”
No, it isn't anything like that. I entirely agree that scientists are as ruthless as anyone else when it comes to advancement. It's just that what leads to advancement isn't supporting the status quo, it's the opposite.
And that would be truly “scary”, if true, as,like DrREC, I do, in fact, hold a PhD.
Again, that’s nice. Who cares?
Nobody need care a fig. But Gil apparently cared that DrREC had a PhD and also used the words "arrogant prick".
Your PhD means squat in this conversation, aside from being able to offer up some personal experience
And that is the entire reason I offered it.
Most of us, even those of us who aren’t scientists (why, we don’t even have PhDs!) have our own experience with scientists. Personally, or through reading their research articles, or generally watching how they conduct themselves.
Fine.
However, to be fair, you do serve as a datapoint. Sadly, the data you provide isn’t what you think it is.
How do you know?Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

Well, it’s a little arrogant to insist that a lawyer is right and a scientist (me) wrong about what the incentives are in science. Not because I carry any authority, but because I actually work in the field and try to get grants and publish papers, and I have direct experience of what succeeds and what fails. You work in the field? That's nice. Who cares? The extent of your input here has been to paint a picture of scientists which is frankly absurdly idyllic, and to do so in the form lecturing. I'm sure William J Murray's gruffly dismissing your depiction of scientists gets your guff, but honestly, you bring it upon yourself. It's right up there with "politicians want to represent their constituents as best as possible, and never make personal advancement or agendas their priority! I should know - I'm an elected official and I'm friends with several!" Anyone who said that, or numerous variants on such, would not only be told off. They'd deserve to be so. And that would be truly “scary”, if true, as,like DrREC, I do, in fact, hold a PhD. Again, that's nice. Who cares? Your PhD means squat in this conversation, aside from being able to offer up some personal experience tinged by your track record here. Most of us, even those of us who aren't scientists (why, we don't even have PhDs!) have our own experience with scientists. Personally, or through reading their research articles, or generally watching how they conduct themselves. However, to be fair, you do serve as a datapoint. Sadly, the data you provide isn't what you think it is.nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT}

He certainly did. sheesh.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT}

So banning someone is justifies breaking their anonymity? Are you serious? On what possibly ethical grounds?Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

What?Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Well, it's a little arrogant to insist that a lawyer is right and a scientist (me) wrong about what the incentives are in science. Not because I carry any authority, but because I actually work in the field and try to get grants and publish papers, and I have direct experience of what succeeds and what fails. And "pushing the envelope" with novel proposals, hypotheses and findings tends to succeed, while replications, confirmations and "incremental" proposals are harder to fund and publish. So at the very least, Barry should regard me as a datapoint, rather than simply telling me my statement is "false". It isn't false. It's the experience of one scientist, not unique (I have colleagues). Unless he thinks I am either lying or mentally retarded, as uncivilly alleged by William J Murray. And that would be truly "scary", if true, as,like DrREC, I do, in fact, hold a PhD.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

Someone who calls someone an "arrogant prick" must be "mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict"? No, Gil. And it's "downright scary" that someone who uses a rude word in an internet discussion should have a PhD? You get a PhD by doing some decent original work and defending it in an extended dissertation. There is absolutely no requirement that you also demonstrate that you never use an uncivil word in anger. Why should there be? And if that kind of incivility (not even used directly, in this case) is grounds for banning, then what about Joe? You guys seem to be gradually banning all the articulate anti-ID posters on this site (DrBot, DrREC, and Champignon, apparently) on what look like spurious "civility" grounds - spurious because comparable incivility coming from pro-ID posters scarcely seem to rate a comment. And by incivility, I don't just mean "prick" and "wanker". I mean the repeated slurs on the motivation, moral and intellectual integrity of people who disagree with them, including the repeated claim that those of us who are atheists have no right to make ethical judgements about anything because our worldview is amoral, nihilistic, and poses a grave threat to society. Frankly, I'd rather be called "an arrogant prick". Well, it's your site, you do what you want. But if you actually want to engage in serious scientific debate with people who find ID less than persuasive (and you should, whether you are right or wrong - if ID is right, then rigorous flaw-checking can only make the case stronger, and if ID is wrong, then presumably you'd rather know), then you need to make your civility rules clear and enforce them even-handedly. And for what it's worth, DrBot was absolutely right on substance. He did not "appeal to authority". He appealed to experience. There is a difference.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

F/N: Looks like it has gone online, folks: Rubber Bible online, here.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: MF probably does not know about the classic CRC "Rubber Bible." This is commonly used as an authoritative reference on physical values, based on compiled research. Now at 92nd Edn and counting. That should tell us something. It is used much like a dictionary or encyclopedia would be. What is the refractive index of napthalene? It's dielectric constant? Density at a given temp, etc? Pull Rubber Bible, latest edn for preference. In fact, 99+% of practical arguments, in science and out of it, routinely rely on authrities. the issue is to autheticate and to use credible ones for the particular references. On non-controversial matters, that is usually no problem. When we deal with diverse schools of thought or controversies, we cannot take the same relaxed attitude. We then need to examine the different views and the factual basis, drawing our own conclusions on strengths and weaknesses. Which is of course precisely the problem when some schools have been lodged as the politically correct yardsticks. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

This isn't directed at DrREC for obvious reasons, but I fail to see why it's "the height of arrogance" for a lawyer - or anyone, really - to comment on scientific conventions. I'd say it seems more arrogant to think scientific conventions should only be commented on by scientists. But then someone will say that sounds arrogant, and we'll be here all day being arrogant.nullasalus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: This is the inverse of the improper appeal to authority, a blanket dismissal of a class or thinkers on tendentious grounds. If Mr Johnson's arguments cannot stand scrutiny, assess them on fact, assumptions and reasoning, do not simply tag him as a lawyer then dismiss what he has to say. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

Barry: it is a pity really, that Dr REC went out on a note like that. That said, lawyers with the right background are well trained in the difference between warrant and persuasion, and do have something fairly serious to say on the way science is being argued in general and presented to the student and the general public in particular. And, the picture we are seeing is not particularly pretty. May I draw our attention, collectively, to what I have increasingly found to be sound though humbling counsel from Simon Greenleaf of Harvard, founding father of the theory of evidence, in his treatise on same, preliminary remarks, Ch 1 vol 1:
The word Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high' degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [ --> he was 100 years too early to know about Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone ; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition [--> direct knowledge], or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to he proved.
In short, evidence about our external world does not amount to demonstration, and we must be cautious in evaluation of empirical evidence, to come to responsible conclusions, but not selectively hyperskeptical where we are disinclined 6to believe where the preponderance of the evidence points, if we do not like where that is. And again, he speaks of mathematics:
Even of mathematical truths, [Gambler] justly remarks, that, though capable of demonstration, they are admitted by most men solely on the moral evidence of general notoriety. For most men are neither able themselves to understand mathematical demonstrations, nor have they, ordinarily, for their truth, the testimony of those who do understand them; but finding them generally believed in the world, they also believe them. Their belief is afterwards confirmed by experience; for whenever there is occasion to apply them, they are found to lead to just conclusions.")
In short, the right lawyer can and does have something to tell us that we should listen to. So also, our ability to warrant truth claims is rather limited, and we are often led to trust authorities and their generally reported findings. But that does not elevate such to the status of unquestionable writ, once The new Magisterium of the Holy Lab Coat has spoken. (That is why I find appeals to scientific consensus on topics that are obviously controversial and open to serious question on how much we do and can know, so tellingly revealing about the underlying mindset. Lewontin's materialist a priorism is a classic example.) 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 on inference to best explanation. GEM of TKI PS: P, knock it off, you are simply showing yourself to be silly.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

BA77 - lawyers are good at presenting evidence they do not have such a good track record in analysing it correctly or indeed following logic. They have a particularly poor reputation in understanding arguments about probability. Consider the many examples of the prosecutor's fallacy.markf_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

As I said in my previous thread, scientists are human and like everyone else will make appeals to authority in informal conversation such as this. I imagine there is a slightly deeper point here. Science when conducted well does not use appeals to authority as evidence. It is also not part of the formal scientific culture. For example, a philosophy or sociology paper will often go to considerable lengths to establish what other important thinkers have said about a subject and this is part of the case to be made. Theology will frequently use quotes from a religous text as evidence. A scientist may want to put their work in the context of other work in the field but that is not part of their case. A physicist does not need to even know what Newton or Eistein said on their subject. All he/she needs to know is what is currently known. It is better to work from a current text than Principia Mathematica.markf_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

cmon Barry you egged the guy on a little.junkdnaforlife_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

Jammer, Be careful, KF will be here any second now to reprimand you regarding your invasive bully-boy tactics in 3..2..1...paragwinn_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Yes, Mr. Arrington, you have deftly demonstrated the point of Dr REC's comment. Well done indeed.paragwinn_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

WOW! He is an ID scientist and doesnt even know it! :-)kuartus_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Well done Mr Arrington! ;-)Blue_Savannah_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Jammer, now THAT was a very interesting!!! Who would a thunk? :) Perhaps placing 'rational' before design he, in his own mind, self-deceived himself into thinking that what he is doing, intelligently trying to design proteins to meet a specific goal he has in mind, is NOT REALLY intelligent design! LOL, This is just so, so, ironic that this would even be on his very own description. LOL,, Too funny,,, It could almost be persuasively argued that this whole episode was 'intelligently designed' from above! :)bornagain77_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

For those interested... Jane Coffin Childs Fund Fellows 2010-2013
FELLOW: Robert E. Collins Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry Yale University / New Haven, CT My research involves the engineering of protein binding modules from Tetratricopeptide repeats using both selection from randomized libraries and rational design. Our goal is to design low cost medical diagnostics, for example, a CD4 test practical for the management of HIV+ patients in the developing world. Early in my freshman year of college, I began my career in science working in laboratories, taking on projects ranging from the enzymatic bleaching of paper to the studies of pathogenic nematodes and complex carbohydrates. In graduate school at Emory University, mentored by Xiaodong Cheng, I focused on the structural biology of the "histone code.” At Yale, in the lab of Lynne Regan, I have turned to an engineering approach, using rational structure-based design and library selection to develop new, inexpensive diagnostics, and also to investigate fundamental questions of protein-ligand interaction. Long-term goals involve development of model systems to probe the molecular/structural evolution of novel interactions and their enhanced affinity and selectivity in directed evolution experiments.
Fascinating.Jammer_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

This guy actually got a Ph.D. at Yale? That's not just bizarre; it's downright scary. This poor soul must be mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict.GilDodgen_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

It is asking “what the hell do you know you arrogant prick?” A prick is a penis in popular parlance. How could a penis be arrogant? I suggest, DrRec, that you get immediate anger-management counseling. These services should be available from evolutionary psychologists in your area. Interestingly, it was brilliant attorney Phil Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial, that was in some ways instrumental in my realization that Darwinism is unsubstantiated materialistic philosophy passed off as "science." Phil points out the rhetorical tactics used by Darwinists to obfuscate and redirect legitimate challenges into areas that are completely irrelevant concerning scientific evidence and logical analysis. The elephant in the room is design, and no amount of penis argumentation will make it go away.GilDodgen_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

I find it very interesting that the person who is considered the 'father' of the ID movement itself, Phillip Johnson, was a lawyer. It was precisely because of his expertise in examining evidence from multiple diverse fields (as is exactly the case in examining the evidence for and against Darwinism), and analyzing that diverse evidence, and the logic behind the arguments made to defend and dismiss that diverse evidence, that he was able to see thru the arguments and bring to light the sheer poverty of evidence that Darwinism has going for it. You may see him give a lecture on his method here:
Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) - lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw
bornagain77_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Sorry, it is the height of arrogance for a lawyer to comment on scientific convention. It isn't an appeal to authority. It is asking "what the hell do you know you arrogant prick?" There is a distinction you should think on there. UD Editors: Dr. Robert Collins of Yale, who goes by DrREC on this site, will no longer be commenting here. Dr. Collins, is that how they taught you to do it at Yale? DrREC_{February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply