Here's yet another interesting article that takes on Mr. Card's ID article. This one's from biologist/squid-lover/lefty atheist P.Z. Myers. He's a just a tad critical, if you hadn't guessed....
posted
I think it's OSC's use of the truly weird word "Darwinist" to mean "radical atheist non-scientists." Because most people opposed to ID would probably as a reflex include themselves in the "Darwinist" category, if those are the only two categories available, and thus think he's viciously misrepresenting their motives.
OSC has a tendency to rail against the small minority of people who might meet his narrow, focused definition of a term that would otherwise be applied to a broader audience, which often opens him up to accusations of having created straw men. It's as if someone were to start an essay saying "Now, those people who say they worship Christ but like to eat the flesh of the heathen -- let's call them Christians -- are obviously monstrous. I think we as a society owe it to ourselves to track down Christians and imprison them, for their sake and for our own."
People who self-identify as "Christian" -- or suspect that other people might identify them as Christian under another definition -- might rightfully be upset by this.
In the same way, OSC's use of the word "Darwinist" to mean "bad scientists" when he presents no third option means that most evolutionary biologists, reading his article, will instantly perceive it as an attack on their group.
It doesn't help that Card has previously voiced his support of ID, and in fact very prominently plugged Behe's Darwin's Black Box when it came out; it's not difficult to recognize, especially since he doesn't spend any time attacking ID supporters as dishonest, lazy, etc., that his sympathies lie with that crowd.
As the link above points out, his generalities apply to, if anything, a vanishingly small percentage of people in the field -- and are far MORE true of the IDers he's previously endorsed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ID movement's principle goal is that ID be taught as science. ID claims that it is science.
From the article (emphasis added):
quote:There might be several or even many other hypotheses. To believe in Intelligent Design is still a leap of faith.
quote:But if the Designists are right, and there is no natural explanation, no process of mechanical causation that can possibly lead to the automatic evolution of complex biochemical systems, then at that moment the subject ceases to be science at all, and becomes either history (what did the Designers do and why did they do it?) or theology (what does God mean by all this?). That's fine. There are lots of subjects in this world that are worth studying, and in which true and valuable things can be discovered, which are not and cannot be science. But when you purport to teach science in school, the subject you teach had better be science, and not somebody's religion in disguise.
quote:Real science does not in any way impinge on a belief that God (or some other Intelligent Designer) created the world and everything that dwells in it. At the same time, real science does not -- and never can -- prove or even support the hypothesis.
These are direct contradiction of ID's central claim - that science can provide support for the existence of a designer.
It clearly does not support ID.
The problem is that's it's unflattering to "Darwinists" and somehow people are interpreting it to mean he supports ID.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
That's only true if you define ID's "central goal" to be "teach Intelligent Design as science." That's no more accurate than Card's definition of "Darwinists."
Part of the problem here is that the bit that you care about -- Card's acknowledgement that ID is not science -- is so blatantly obvious to most scientists that it doesn't come as news. You're asking readers who've just been insulted to recognize the signal honor that he's doing them by admitting the obvious.
But that is, I suspect, the issue with the article: the article seems to be aimed to persuade supporters of Intelligent Design; he goes out of his way to make lucid arguments of a sort they might recognize. In so doing, it dismisses and insults those who already think Intelligent Design is a crock, and I suspect it does so deliberately.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I see that as important because I'm more truly in the middle: I'm not a believer in ID as science, but I have seen insults heaped on religious believers by scientists and (more often) non-scientist science types who try to extend science beyond its true subject matter.
And that portion of Card's attack on "Darwinists" is one that needs to be clearly made - often.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you are getting good at this! You are absolutely right and knowing your audience is the first rule to writing editorials.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do the unforgiveable: I separate evolution (which is obvious) from the belief in natural selection as a sufficient explanation of evolution, which has problems (problems that were partly addressed by serious scientists with the punctuational model, etc.) Everything I said is true enough - but if widely understood, would separate the aggressive, hostile Darwinist believers from sober and necessary science. Since they depend on being able to wrap their faith in the mantle of science, this is regarded as a grave challenge.
However, I was underinformed about one key point, which explains some of the hostility. I did not know that the phrase "intelligent design," which I think is a huge leap of faith anyway, has been adopted by the same old lying pinheads who created "creation science." CS was and always has been dishonest about what actual science is, and it deliberately misrepresents evidence. I have been informed since writing my essay that the same old CS trash has been repackaged using "intelligent design" as a catchphrase. So the legitimate questions originally raised by the earliest IDers have been swamped by the deceptions of the Creation Science people.
Still ... when people get as angry as the Darwinists are, you know I have trodden on their sacred faith; and since they have long smugly believed, in the fashion of most religious fanatics, that their beliefs are TRUTH and all others should bow before them, any challenge is regarded as heresy which must be stamped out, with vigor.
It's what I expected when I wrote the essay. People would respond, not to what I actually said, but to what they have to believe about anyone who challenges their faith. The nice thing is that rational people will realize that I have stated a formidably MODERATE position that basically says, would you all shut up and let the schools teach SCIENCE. But the fanatics are never content as along as anyone, anywhere does not concede the perfection of their doctrines.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do the unforgiveable: I separate evolution (which is obvious) from the belief in natural selection as a sufficient explanation of evolution, which has problems (problems that were partly addressed by serious scientists with the punctuational model, etc.)
Not only that, you completely fail to point out what you think these problems are. It is perhaps forgivable for a scientist to get just a minim testy when told that the framework of his subject has 'problems' by people who do not identify said problems. And I think it is also natural that he will suspect that the problems in question are of the form 'this theory does not involve a god.' Of course, I am entirely prepared to be corrected on this point.
quote:However, I was underinformed about one key point, which explains some of the hostility. I did not know that the phrase "intelligent design," which I think is a huge leap of faith anyway, has been adopted by the same old lying pinheads who created "creation science." CS was and always has been dishonest about what actual science is, and it deliberately misrepresents evidence. I have been informed since writing my essay that the same old CS trash has been repackaged using "intelligent design" as a catchphrase. So the legitimate questions originally raised by the earliest IDers have been swamped by the deceptions of the Creation Science people.
I would be most interested to learn who you think these 'earliest IDers' are. Because if it is Behe and Dembski, then they are affiliated with the Design Institute, which - as you pointed out - is just another Creationist group.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'know, I posted some fairly substantial responses on Mr. Myers' site, and barring a few exceptions, pretty much all I got back was barely-disguised verbal attacks on Mr. Card. I can't even quite tell if some of the people even read my responses before becoming annoyed with me. Kinda depressing.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny thing is, a fundamentalist starts a site, with his own strong opinions about subjects posted on it, and almost everyone disagrees with him. But these liberals post hateful essays on their own site, flaming religious people with opions because "they're irrational". And all their replyers agree with them.
"When a person finds Joseph Smith more convincing than Charles Darwin, there really is no need to go into the details. They're just mad I tell you. Mad."
posted
OSC, I'd venture to say that you seem to many to be underinformed on more than one key point (and there are those, myself included, who wonder how you could possibly ignore things like the Dover trial and still expect to describe the situation accurately). Most of the negative reaction I've read centers on your use of the word "Darwinist" and the vilification of those who, in your mind, meet this label.
As far as I can tell, "Darwininst" is a term most often associated with the ID movement as a label they use to refer to pretty much everyone who opposes them. If there are significant groups that self-identify as Darwinists, they don't seem to have made much impact on the public consciousness. So, from the start, your choice of label suggests that you're coming from a less than respectful or fully-informed place.
And then you attribute to this group - as a whole - a very low character and history of behavior, which would be fine, were it true, but it simply is not. I've no doubt that there are some people who fit under some defintion of the term "Darwinist" who also fit the pernicious accusations of simplistic and dismissive opposition to ID, but this is by no means a fair characterization of all of the opposition to ID. In fact, were we talking about the "elite", the prominent scientists who do the direct work on evolution and such, then this group is well represented by people who have argued in a much more measured, fair, detailed, and above all, effective manner than you seem willing to credit.
Many people are angry, more are just dissappointed (and many are not at all suprised). You've written an essay that seems to be designed as a piece of demogoguery to reinforce the religious activist community's notion that their opponents are all stupid, bad people who have little reason besides their own arrogance for their positions. And you use what appear to be blatant falsehoods as the main pillars in your argument. So, I can see how people have a low opinion of your essay.
quote:when people get as angry as the Darwinists are, you know I have trodden on their sacred faith
Scott, I'm not sure this explains all the anger you're seeing. While I'm sure that part of it -- for some people -- is investment in a sacred cow, a lot of the anger I've seen here, on Ornery, and on other blogs is directly tied to your tendency to paint with a very, very big brush.
You use "Darwinist" in your article to refer to supporters of natural selection, differentiating them from Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design advocates. You then go on to list "seven mistakes of Darwinists," implying that these mistakes are common in or even inherent to the "Darwinist" position. The problem is that a surprisingly small percentage of actual "Darwinists" fall into any of those traps, and almost no Darwinists are guilty of all of them.
Had you, like Brin, merely pointed out that here are potentially hubristic problems that should be avoided, I don't think you would have offended anyone but the thinnest-skinned readers. But, then, I don't think you would have gotten all the hits, either.
By creating two categories for the "creationist" position -- Intelligent Designers and Creation Scientists -- and attacking only one of them, but then lumping ALL "Darwinists" into the same vilified category, you do "Darwinism" a disservice. Imagine if you had not made a distinction between creationists and IDers in your article; that's roughly what you did to "Darwinists."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you have to go out of your way to view that article as a defense of intelligent design. I think you've got to be sticking your toe into the crowded hallway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about the idea of ID, then I agree. OSC is pretty clearly not defending that. However, I think you can make a strong case that it is a defense of the people who are pushing ID. They come out of the essay looking like the good guys and the people who oppose them as the bad guys.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, to me, a lot of it seems to be saying, "Sure these people, to whom I'm sympathetic, may be wrong, but they might also have some valid points, but they are being shut out by these people over here, who are arrogant in their own knowledge."
Most of the arguments I've seen here seem to take issue with how open that latter group is. Many feel OSC hasn't effectively differentiated that group out, or even sees anyone who could be differentiated.
posted
I thought Myers was pretty rude (but I gather he's done this sort of thing a lot, so he's probably sick of it); but this article of his to which the OSC article linked has a good explanation of how irreducible complexity can come about through evolution. It doesn't show that every irreducibly complex system came about that way, but it might make it possible to assume in general that irreducibly complex systems in nature arose naturally and that we just don't have all the details yet.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do the unforgiveable: I separate evolution (which is obvious) from the belief in natural selection as a sufficient explanation of evolution, which has problems (problems that were partly addressed by serious scientists with the punctuational model, etc.)
See, this is where the problems start. You imply that PE is primarily a criticism of and an answer to natural selection as a mechanism. But it's not: it's a critique of phyletic gradualism.
I also think you grossly misunderstand the critiques being made of ID, but I doubt I'll convince you of that directly unless you come to that realization yourself without feeling you have to defend your article against a critic of it.
quote:Everything I said is true enough - but if widely understood, would separate the aggressive, hostile Darwinist believers from sober and necessary science. Since they depend on being able to wrap their faith in the mantle of science, this is regarded as a grave challenge.
That is one possibility, certainly. But there are plenty of others which I happen to find more plausible. Put shortly, I don't think there are lot of "Darwinist believers" who "idolize Darwin." Can you point me to any as an example? I don't think I've ever met a biologist who wasn't eager: EAGER, to point out that Darwin was amazingly wrong and ignorant about any number of things (most spectacuarly his model of heredity) or that science is never complete or finished. Your article is thus either attacking people that don't exist, or trying to smear a whole lot of people with a broad brush, which understandly makes them a little angry. I mean, you basically accuse of them of highly dishonest and fallacious argumentation.
Do you regularly remain calm when someone claims that you are dishonest and argue in fallacies?
quote:Still ... when people get as angry as the Darwinists are, you know I have trodden on their sacred faith; and since they have long smugly believed, in the fashion of most religious fanatics, that their beliefs are TRUTH and all others should bow before them, any challenge is regarded as heresy which must be stamped out, with vigor.
For someone that made a big deal over alleging that others were making fallacious arguments (without every giving a single citation or naming any names), surely you recognize that trying to emotionally characterize your critics (as "angry" or "fanatic") so as to cast doubt on their arguments is not exactly a gentlemanly tactic itself, no?
quote:It's what I expected when I wrote the essay.
The same statement is often made by those that pen defenses of astrology or suggesting that Sylvia Browne can predict the future. The fact that you got criticism for harshly criticizing others is, I'm afraid, not a very exciting prediction.
quote:People would respond, not to what I actually said, but to what they have to believe about anyone who challenges their faith. The nice thing is that rational people will realize that I have stated a formidably MODERATE position that basically says, would you all shut up and let the schools teach SCIENCE. But the fanatics are never content as along as anyone, anywhere does not concede the perfection of their doctrines.
But as far as I can tell, the responses you got, while they ranged in tone from vicious to straightforward, all drew attention to substantive misrepresentations of science in your article (I pointed out a problem right at the outset). More importantly, they pointed out that you made accusations about what you claimed "Darwinists" were using as arguments against ID... without citing examples or even specifying who "Darwinists" were: you even used the term almost interchangably with critics of ID in general. As such, you basically attacked a bunch of straw men and ascribed those straw men to a vague category of people using a term that Creationists and ID proponents alike use to characterize all scientists that do not agree with their claims.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Funny thing is, a fundamentalist starts a site, with his own strong opinions about subjects posted on it, and almost everyone disagrees with him. But these liberals post hateful essays on their own site, flaming religious people with opions because "they're irrational". And all their replyers agree with them.
"When a person finds Joseph Smith more convincing than Charles Darwin, there really is no need to go into the details. They're just mad I tell you. Mad."
Well, this is my biggest problem with "liberalism." I vote democratic most often, and subscribe to an agenda that would sure label me a "liberal," but the thing I hate most is listening to other likeminded people who don't have the grace or taste to pick battles they can WIN. This is one reason that the Democratic party is in such poor shape politically, we have opinions, and they're substantively different, but we couch everything in this absurd way where we either claim the world is ending, or is going to end tomorrow if things don't go exactly our way. We as in both parties, but in different ways.
Rather than say, argue against a group like the IDers in the way OSC has done, identifying their belief as being misrepresented (not 'wrong'). This is his true opinion, and a demonstrable fact, ID is not SCIENCE. The problem is that yes, he looks like an equally intolerant name caller when he turns around and couches the "darwinist" viewpoint as this intolerant fascist psuedo-religion. Now HIS viewpoint is all muddy; is he intolerant? Is he understanding of people who simply look at the scientific evidence, hear the facts and say, 'hmmm' darwinism makes sense. He probably is one of these people, (though he doesn't say) and yet he doesn't want to be labelled within the SAME group he has just vilified.
The really POTENT irony in this is that the counter-argument from this jerk is as full of generalizations and pointless 'othering' as anything OSC wrote, and less aware of its own blow-hardiness.
I wonder if people like OSC (or Myers) didn't spend their time constructing strawmen to burn over issues like this, they might not be encountering a bunch of prickly adversarial science types. I believe I have heard similar sentiments from OSC himself, and yet through a myriad of threads, he fails to acknowledge that this point holds any water.
Hmm, there seems to be some good points in OSC's article, but I don't want to be labeled a "Cardist"
posted
At least Myers is directly responding to actual claims made by someone, rather than railing against imagined claims made by no one in particular, but aimed by implication far and wide. That at least allows us to know what specific claims are being attacked and whether Myers' characterization of those claims is accurate. Most of Card's characterizations seem to be a case of misunderstood contexts or caricatures of actual arguments.
quote:But the problems that the Designists raise with the Darwinian model are, in fact, problems. They do understand the real science, and the Darwinian model is, in fact, inadequate to explain how complex systems, which fail without all elements in place, could arise through random mutation and natural selection.
quote:The irony is that there are plenty of Darwinists who are perfectly good writers, capable of explaining the science to us well enough to show us the flaws in the Designists' arguments. The fact that they refuse even to try to explain is, again, a confession that they don't have an answer.
Orson Scott Card has magnaminously admitted to one mistake, the mistake of not knowing that "that the phrase "intelligent design," which I think is a huge leap of faith anyway, has been adopted by the same old lying pinheads who created "creation science."" Apparently he also does not know that Behe, whose work he endorses, is a member of the same organisation as some of those "old lying pinheads", nor that Behe co-authored the adaptation of "Of Panda's and People" from a creation science textbook to a Intelligent Design textbook by the happy expedient of replacing the word "creator" with "Intelligent Designer" and in other respects leaving the text largely untouched.
But as my quotes clearly demonstrate, OSC straightforwardly endorses Behe's criticisms of Darwinism as genuine problems. They are not. They are pseudo problems supported by rhetoric. Taking OSC's favoured example we can note, for example, that Behe's argument is of the form of a dilemma. As I wrote in another forum:
quote:He allows that there are direct evolutionary pathways, and indirect evolutionary pathways. In a direct pathway, the system increases complexity over time while maintaining the same function throughout. In an indirect pathway the system may change function as it evolves, or may decrease in complexity, or may co-adapt. (There are four or five types of indirect Darwinian pathways known, depending on how you classify them.) Darwinists expect that most complex systems will have evolved through several different types of indirect pathway at some time in their evolution.
Now Behe defines an interesting property, Irreducible Complexity. It is interesting because no IC system could evolve by a direct darwinian pathway. So if we find an IC system (and there are many), we know that it either evolved through one or more indirect darwinian pathways, or that it did not evolve by darwinian means. To draw the second disjunct as a conclusion, Behe must show the first disjunct to not be true. BUT his only argument to that effect is that he personally finds it improbable that anything could evolve by an indirect darwinian pathway. It is clear when he describes a potential indirect pathway that what he has in mind when he makes that assessment is not a darwinian pathway at all, ie, a pathway involving only small, high probability transitions. Thus Behe dismisses the primary routes to complexity in Darwinian systems with an argument from incredulity, and apparently without even understanding the theory he thus dismisses.
This core problem - his reliance on a subjective probability estimate as his only argument to establish his second horn of the dilemma - is not the only problem with Behe's "problem" for Darwinism. He is guilty of vague definition, of ignoring counterexamples, and of presenting as examples of Irreducible Complexity systems which in fact are not IC by his own definition. What is more, there have been copious responces by Darwinists to Behe's argument. Examples include:
(The third is a talk origins faq which in turn links to four other Darwinist responces.)
And this brings us to the my second quote from OSC's article. It is simply not true that Darwinist's have "refuse even to try to explain" the flaw's in "the Designists' arguments". In addition to numerous internet articles, several articles in Philosophy of Science magazines, articles in popular magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist, there are also a range of books written explicitly to discuss the arguments of the "designists".
This brings me to my own dilemma. OSC was either ignorant of those writtings when he wrote his article, or he willfully ignored them. In the first case he is guilty or purporting to an informed comment on a subject he had not researched, or researched in the most biased way. Even a simple Google search on "Irreducible Complexity" turns up five Darwinist critiques of IC on the first page, all of which link to yet more Darwinist critiques. The only way OSC can have avoided this mass of critiques is if he had confined his reading to designist sources alone, or not bothered to research at all. The alternative is even less savoury, for it would represent deliberate deception. Card is guilty of either pontificating without knowledge, or deliberate deceit.
No sin, however, is unforgivable. If Card had honest intent, then he is quite capable of demonstrating that fact by retracting his errors. Not just in an obscure forum, but in their original venue. Failing such a retraction, however, I see no reason to give Card's opinions any regard other than disdain.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The most ironic thing is that evolution proper is an EXTREMELY contentious field. There are arguments so nasty and vicious that they are shocking. Yet all of this is within a particular scope of discussion, and by and large it's not disputes over things with which most people are familiar. It is only by misrepresenting the nature of these debates to the public that PR movements like ID make any headway in convincing people that evolution is a "theory in crisis" or other such unscientific nonsense.
Evolution is a scientific explanation. That means it lives or dies on its ability to be consistent with the evidence we have and to continue producing productive lines of inquiry. So far, it's getting along just fine, which is the best any scientific theory can ever do. And that's that.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congratulations, Mr. Card. You have just downgraded yourself from "Tool" to "Useful Idiot".
Before the creationist lobby got in on the act, there was a small but valid ID movement both in Theology and in Science. Mostly it sat around theorising. Back then there wasn't much of a controversy (or rather most of the controversy in evolutionary biology was elsewhere). The entire controversy you are commenting on was stirred up by the creationists
And as for your take on things, your essay started with
quote:My first exposure to Intelligent Design theory was Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. While disavowing any Creationist agenda per se, Behe pointed out serious problems in the strict Darwinian model of evolution.
At that point, you are defending the creationists (including a co-author of the revised "of pandas and people") by name as well as defending their cover. You then produce seven beliefs about the behaviour of scientists (you can probably find a very few examples where the middle five hold - but not many). You yourself admitted the last one to be true (and now admit the first one to be true).
You then wonder why you are about as welcome as someone wearing a black shirt in a Jewish neighbourhood is when he starts loudly defending National Socialism, even if what he means by National Socialism is that the belief that every country should look after itself and all members of that country.
The icing on the cake is your statement that If Darwinists persist in trying to tar the Designists with the Creation-Science brush, then it is bound to appear, to anyone who has actually examined both, that the Darwinists are trying to deceive us. - when, now you have examined both you admit that most of the Designists are in fact thinly disguised (and more media savvy) creationists. To quote what you claim about the "Darwinists", they’re apparently counting on most people to not care enough to discover the difference.
And seemingly it worked for a while...
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, I am a fan of some people like David Brin, though not so much OSC. However, while I find the idea of Uplift that Brin wrote about interesting, I know enough biology to conclude that I could probably design better "code" than found in DNA on this world. Hell Microsoft could write better code. There simply isn't any scrap of evidence for any kind of design. Worse, the only people who where able to codify ideas like Irreducible Complexity, and some really bad mathematics from Dembski, are all members of the same organization that brought us the theory of Noah soup. You know, the one where some imaginary intervention prevented a global flood from boiling every living thing on the planet, including the boat, Naoh and everything on it. In other words, not only are the arguments invalid, they are predicated on the need to invent something sciency, to undermine science. None of those arguments for ID arose from the prior ID movement. They can all be traced back *directly* to the Discover Institute's think tank, whose sole and only goal is to replace over 200 years of critical thinking and analysis with, "Some things we will never know, and God did those!"
Here is a suggestion, find *any* argument for ID that isn't directly tracible to the DI think tank or fundimentalist nonsense. Then, if, which I find unlikely, you find one, present a theory about how to test the idea. OSC is right in the sense that the idea was hijeacked, by people with the resources, influence and well paid think tank needed to invent superficially believable arguments and who had a press corpse with the power, influence and ability to promote it, through ignorance, our failing science classes, human gullibility and vast infusions of money from those same gullible people. The only way ID can regain credibility is to, ironically, abandon its original name and disassociate itself from anyone remotely connected to DI. OSC however misses the point that ID without DI to think up arguments for it, is no more tangible than the numerous bits of wishful thinking found in books about pyramid power or the Burmuda Triangle. A lot of wishful thinking, misunderstanding of science and an unwillingness to give up an idea that seems compelling, no matter how much evidence suggests the believer is wrong and their understanding of the science involved inadequate to knowing why they are wrong.
I don't think Francis D's implication is exactly accurate. I think OSC has gone from totally clueless or mere fool. Fool in this case meaning one prone to walk over cliffs in the dark, because they are simply ignorant of being near a cliff. Ignorance can be cured. Behe and Dembski are true idiots, because they are literally unwilling, and possibly simply unable, to recognize that they are ignorant of the subject, gaps exist in their understanding and they can be or are wrong. This is a whole hell of a lot harder to cure.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, a bunch of insulting or highly-critical posts made by new members after a rebuttal essay is cited on someone else's webpage?
What a surprise.
Francis, your introductory line goes WAY outside the standards of civilized discourse. Seriously, tone it down, or you will not even begin to fit in here.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Card is actually very tractable and reasonable in a discussion when you engage him respectfully, as an equal.
These attempts to personally denigrate him, call him names, and insult his intelligence, however, will not accomplish anything at all, besides pissing people off.
If you think he doesn't know some key piece of information, you might try saying, "Mr. Card, this fact may interest you. Bearing this fact in mind, I think that THIS position might be more accurate than the one you have expressed."
Going up to him instead and saying, "Mr. Card, you are obviously an ignorant tool because you clearly didn't know this particular thing," smacks of third-grade social posturing, rather than intelligent discussion, and ought to be beneath anyone who engages in a discussion like this.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Say, Puppy, what happened to your complete dismissal of the thought that a small retraction might be in order? OSC's post here looks pretty much like a retraction to me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I blame myself, fool that I was for thinking that since Brin and Card came to roughly the same conclusions, after reflection, that Creation "scientists" had hijacked ID for their own demagoguery, that the topic could be of interest on Brin's blog just as much as here. So I referred to it in full, over there.
I thought it would spawn interesting discussion to bring those there together with those here.
Instead, two of the more vocal knee jerkers from over there came here to call OSC names. I suppose he takes it with equanimity; I know I've been called worse, myself, just not since the ninth grade...
Personally I think the use of Card's *prior* writing to rebut a retraction written *later* was fallacy not worthy even of junior varsity debating, and succeeded marvelously, along with Myers, in making Card's original points about stupid arguments by dogmatic Darwinists, far better than he did himself.
I dearly wish people were above the juvenile stuff, because I think the subject is remarkably interesting, that both Card and Brin bring viewpoints that make it more interesting (and you'll note that even though Brin used Card's stuff mostly as a springboard for his own case, he did *not* treat Card to immature namecalling or dismissal of ideas. Instead he, as Card did, allowed for the possibility that he could be wrong, and thought about it, and responded to critics with *refinements* instead of *rejections*.
Posts: 89 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally I think the use of Card's *prior* writing to rebut a retraction written *later* was fallacy not worthy even of junior varsity debating, and succeeded marvelously, along with Myers, in making Card's original points about stupid arguments by dogmatic Darwinists, far better than he did himself.
I don't understand what you are referring to, here. Could you explain?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Say, Puppy, what happened to your complete dismissal of the thought that a small retraction might be in order?
It was a rejection of the possibility of a retraction "[b]ased on an expression of contempt by you."
quote:OSC's post here looks pretty much like a retraction to me.
A retraction based on additional research and information, not the contempt.
The contempt portion confirmed OSC's opinions expressed in the majority of the article which he did not retract. With good cause.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all honesty, I do not see where that particular post of mine was contemptuous. Are you sure you're not reading my known opinions of religion into what I said about ID?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'm forced to concede that in light of what has been said in this thread, King of Men has been downright respectful
Though requesting a retraction is generally bad form in a discussion, in my opinion, and suggests a level of umbrage at the original statement that didn't seem justified by the problems King was trying to raise.
In other words, go ahead and disagree. Go ahead and persuade him to change his opinion. But requesting a retraction was really just weird in that context.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Francis, your introductory line goes WAY outside the standards of civilized discourse. Seriously, tone it down, or you will not even begin to fit in here.
...
You know, Card is actually very tractable and reasonable in a discussion when you engage him respectfully, as an equal.
When Card actually takes the time to look at both sides of the argument fairly, and does that before wading in then I will engage him respectfully, as an equal. Unfortunately he did not do this and therefore gains reproof, as from an adult to a child.
His notions of ID appear to be taken from Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". This demonstrates that he has not done much background reading on the subject - that book has been thoroughly debunked. (A simple google for Darwin's Black Box gives a good debunking as the third link (the first after Amazon.com). The first link on a google for Behe is also a debunking. In order to describe ID as a scientific theory, Behe has to use a definition that makes astrology a scientific theory ( http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178&feedId=online-news_rss20%22 ). None of this is hard to find.
Therefore, by offering Darwin's Black Box as a serious exhibit, Card demonstrates he has not done much background research. Instead he lists seven "Darwinist" responses. The first he calls name-calling because Behe's section of the ID movement were equated with Creationists. Even Card now admits that they are Creationists.
This was well known long before Card wrote his essay. There has even been a fairly comprehensive legal ruling with a fair amount of media coverage that found precisely this. Therefore Card did not check his basic facts before he considered himself expert enough to write an article on the subject.
Steps 2-6 all happen sometimes, but are definitely not universal. There is probably a good essay in there on Science Communication and what Science Communicators can learn from the ID movement. But that is not what Card wrote. (Incidently the reason that IDers are better at communicating to a lay audience is that most scientists are busy doing professional research - there are no articles in peer reviewed journals that argue for the intelligent design of complex mollecular systems. The IDers are entirely focussed on communication - meaning that they damn well should be better at it than the average scientist).
And without Behe's writings (debunked more thoroughly than even Erich von Daniken's writings - AFAIK Daniken was never pulled apart in court), and without the accusation of lying against the "Darwinists", all Card has left in the essay is a few criticisms of the approaches used by scientists to debunk creationists - and for every case I have seen where any of these applies, I can I have seen several where it does not. He has also contributed to the zeitgeist that the ID people are not creationists (for one thing, many many more people will read the essay than will read the retraction on the forums) thereby lending support to the Creationists.
Card received such forceful corrections because he has a reasonable amount of standing - and did not feel that this meant that he should do any basic background research before exposing his ignorance of the issues, and his willingness to pontificate despite this for the world to see.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. Well, in some sense, if you make a post disagreeing with someone, you are sort of automatically requesting a retraction - presumably, your goal is to get the other guy to say "Ok, you're right, I was wrong." So in that sense, it was perhaps a little redundant.
But I was not referring only to this forum, but also to the wider audience reached by OSC's columns. It is really rather unfortunate when respected authors say things that are just plain wrong, especially as comments on debates with wide-ranging implications. Whether he likes it or not, OSC has just given the ID-ists (and indirectly the Creationists) lots of ammunition. Of course, even if he does post an "I was wrong" column, it's quite unlikely that the ID-ists will stop referring to his first one - look at what they did to Anthony Flew's retraction. But still, it would be better than nothing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When Card actually takes the time to look at both sides of the argument fairly, and does that before wading in then I will engage him respectfully, as an equal.
Francis, you've come to HIS site. You're struggling to attract HIS attention. You have, as far as I'm aware, won no Hugo awards.
You're not his equal. There is, from the point of view of the average observer, an enormous power discrepancy between the two of you, and it's not in your favor.
But let's leave that to one side.
What do you lose by addressing him respectfully right off the bat? What do you possibly hope to gain by insulting him with your very first post -- by treating a successful, intelligent grown man as, in your own words, a "child" -- that you could not gain more easily by being civil?
--------
Look, man, I'll level with you: I tire of having my own attempts to get Card to tone down the rhetoric now and then completely undermined and shotgunned by rabid critics who come on here and act like the exact sort of brash, self-obsessed fanatics I keep trying to convince him don't exist in great numbers in the real world. It doesn't help me persuade him that "Darwinists" are a rare and exotic species, completely unlike real scientists, when all these "Darwinists" crawl out of the woodwork the instant he taps the wall.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I disagree. The column refers to 'The Darwinists', as though everybody knows who this is. Now, it's certainly possible that OSC had some particular people in mind. But I do think that most people, on reading that, are going to see it as 'the scientists'. If that was not the intention, then it should have been made clear.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
You disagree with my contention that Card did not claim they were universal?
quote:Now, it's certainly possible that OSC had some particular people in mind. But I do think that most people, on reading that, are going to see it as 'the scientists'. If that was not the intention, then it should have been made clear.
Apparently you don't disagree with my contention. So the proper criticism, based on your contention, is that OSC was less than clear as to whom he included in the "the Darwinists." Which means that "Steps 2-6 all happen sometimes, but are definitely not universal" is still a strange criticism.
If one wants to come to an author's board and criticize him, one would do well not to make up criticisms that rely on a word ("universal") that, as best I can tell, OSC didn't use.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arguing about interpretations with a lawyer is probably not very bright. Nonetheless, I do think OSC claimed, intentionally or not, that these patterns were universal among those scientists engaged in the ID debate. And I am certain that this is how the ID-ists will read it - after all, they've been making these claims since forever.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See - your criticisms, even if I disagree with them (I'm not sure if I do or not), are at least on point. It's not hard to do.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There just isn't any way to read the article as refferring to only a subset of people doing bad things. None of the language works out that way: the whole first section is presented as: here are THE criticisms made of ID by its critics (and there is no specification of any particular subset of them) and then he proceeds with some straw men that vaguely caricature some arguments made by what I'd consider to be legitimate critics, with no references or citations. All but the one _I_ (Card) recognize are bupkiss (straw men knocked down for the count!)
If you knew nothing about the debate and read Card's article, you'd come away thinking that the only scientist or critic of ID who understands science is himself. At the very least, it's some very sloppy polemicizing.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee wrote: Good, then you won't mind if you receive a reproof for your uncivil tone and poor manners.
No I won't. Particularly as I have been far more civil than Card here. I have only made criticisms about his actions, and the consequences of his actions. He, however presumes the motives of others (and gets them wrong in many cases).
To illustrate:
quote:Everything I said is true enough - but if widely understood, would separate the aggressive, hostile Darwinist believers from sober and necessary science. Since they depend on being able to wrap their faith in the mantle of science, this is regarded as a grave challenge. ... Still ... when people get as angry as the Darwinists are, you know I have trodden on their sacred faith; and since they have long smugly believed, in the fashion of most religious fanatics, that their beliefs are TRUTH and all others should bow before them, any challenge is regarded as heresy which must be stamped out, with vigor.
Ignoring the fact that not everything he said is true (for instance his claims that there is anything wrong with exposing the ID movement as creationists and his use of Behe), I for one am not an atheist. I (and all the vocal and vehement critics of ID that I know - almost all of whom are Christians (the Dawkinsites are actually very rare - and most of them point and laugh rather than getting involved)) object to the blasphemy involved in intentionally lying about God's creation - which is a different issue entirely. It's not the critique that's the issue - it's the critique on behalf of a movement that lies through its teeth, brings both science and Christianity into disrepute by their lies and has nothing constructive to offer.
In short, in his partial retraction, Card has another set of myths to offer, once again distorting people he knows little about in order to set up a strawman to bash. And, for arguing using facts, I'm the one being accused of incivility.
quote:
quote:Steps 2-6 all happen sometimes, but are definitely not universal.
As OSC did not claim they were universal, this is a strange way to criticize him.
I was acknowledging where he was (sometimes) right. Unfortunately, once you remove Behe and accept that IDers are Creationists, that is almost all he has to offer. If you read it (as plunge says can't be done, King of Men sees as contrary to what OSC claimed (whether intentional or not) and I see as extremely dificult) as things that sometimes happen, it can be boiled down to "Those opposing ID are human too and sometimes get exasperated and make arguments that aren't sound." I don't think anyone denies that.
quote:What do you lose by addressing him respectfully right off the bat? What do you possibly hope to gain by insulting him with your very first post -- by treating a successful, intelligent grown man as, in your own words, a "child" -- that you could not gain more easily by being civil?
That depends on the way he reasons and debates. If he enjoys overblown and slipshod rhetoric but can not take strong and precise rhetoric when aimed at him and correcting his misapprehensions, he is a bully. And a hypocrite. If he actively enjoys being met on his terms (and there are quite a number who use forceful rhetoric who do - including me) then it's not a bad idea to do so. Now, where does benefit of doubt go here?
quote:Look, man, I'll level with you: I tire of having my own attempts to get Card to tone down the rhetoric now and then completely undermined and shotgunned by rabid critics who come on here and act like the exact sort of brash, self-obsessed fanatics I keep trying to convince him don't exist in great numbers in the real world.
When he ceases to use shotgun techniques himself, and actually engages with the issues, fire will stop being returned.
Oh, and
quote:Dagonee wrote: See - your criticisms, even if I disagree with them (I'm not sure if I do or not), are at least on point. It's not hard to do.
Find a single one of mine that isn't.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I guess that's one way to start off life at new forum -- criticizing someone you know nothing about for a statement not directed at you. That's to be expected, though, from someone who suggests Microsoft could improve the way our DNA is coded.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So he made 7 criticisms, and 5 of them are accurate, and for this you will treat him as a child?
5 criticisms that are sometimes accurate and that he presents as the rule. Also 5 generic criticisms that can be applied to defenders of almost any position. And, as I said, this would appear to be almost the sum total of his essay that was useful. Also not going into the reasons behind the positions. (Point 5, for instance, I have only ever seen raised as an opposition to the teaching of ID in school, where it is relevant (particularly given that his point 1 is plain wrong), and Point 4 is just returning fire as the ID movement has nothing more substantial than sniping).
If he had produced a half side of essay saying that "Sometimes the opposition to ID makes the following mistakes", I would not have treated him as a child. I would just have thought he was simply pointing out the blatantly obvious and ignored him.
However, he chose to mask five points that are occasionally accurate with a lot of evidence that showed he had not actually investigated the issues before writing.
Do you really want me to show the rebuttals for the five points I let lie? I said "sometimes" because they are the sort of issue where he has a point, but he appears to think that he has an entire sword.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are entirely missing the point. You are being rude, inaccurate, and uncivil.
There are many forums where this kind of behavior is acceptable. Here it is not. The mods will probably not do anything about it, because they are fairly forgiving, but that doesn't stop us from commenting on it. You are not accused of incivility because you are "arguing using facts" but for doing so incivilly.
If you can't see why, look at the first line of your first post and your insistence on pretending to be acting as an adult.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are entirely missing the point. You are being rude, inaccurate, and uncivil.
There are many forums where this kind of behavior is acceptable. Here it is not. The mods will probably not do anything about it, because they are fairly forgiving, but that doesn't stop us from commenting on it. You are not accused of incivility because you are "arguing using facts" but for doing so incivilly.
If you can't see why, look at the first line of your first post and your insistence on pretending to be acting as an adult.
OK, I'm being uncivil when confronted by an entire pile of badly researched tripe that makes broad brush accusations that are plain wrong, casts false aspersions upon the motives of those disagreeing with the author and seems to be unrepentant about having been fooled.
My apologies. I thought that these were Mr. Card's forums and therefore I should uphold the standards of civility he set. I have been far more civil than the standard he has demonstrated recently would dictate.
Now, if you have any rebuttals to the facts presented I shall be delighted to hear them. Until then, I have already admitted to being uncivil and explained my reasons. Your attempted defence of Mr Card's actions has failed, so you appear to have gone back to the incivility issue.
And, FWIW, you accuse me of having been inaccurate. You have yet to demonstrate a single instance of this without misreading my comments (such as by not taking into account the word "sometimes"). Perhaps you'd care to provide concrete evidence of what is otherwise an un-supported ad-hominem attack?
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:My apologies. I thought that these were Mr. Card's forums and therefore I should uphold the standards of civility he set. I have been far more civil than the standard he has demonstrated recently would dictate.
You keep saying this, but it just ain't true.
Sweeping generalities != Personal attacks. And who are you that you speak for other people's motives? It seems like that's eerily similar to what OSC did that got you so hot and bothered.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your attempted defence of Mr Card's actions has failed, so you appear to have gone back to the incivility issue.
The incivility issue is the one I care about. If your apology is sincere and you plan on stopping your incivillity, then I am happy.
quote:And, FWIW, you accuse me of having been inaccurate. You have yet to demonstrate a single instance of this without misreading my comments (such as by not taking into account the word "sometimes").
I pointed out the inaccuracy. You have attempted to explain why it's not actually an inaccuracy.
quote:Perhaps you'd care to provide concrete evidence of what is otherwise an un-supported ad-hominem attack?
Perhaps you should look up ad-hominem and reconsider this, because saying your statement is inaccurate is not an ad-hominem attack.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
