Ambiguity Tolerance
by MikeGeneIf the ability to detect design necessarily entails a subjective element, then any investigator should be aware of the subjective obstacles that can come into play. And for those who have noticed, I have been laying the groundwork not only in The Design Matrix, but also here on Telic Thoughts.
I have tried to get people to understand that we all don't see and think alike. I have spoken of naïve realism, disconfirmation bias, stereotypes, maintaining an open mind, and confirmation bias.
Let me now add another concept from psychology "“ tolerance for ambiguity. I myself have a very high tolerance for ambiguity, as can be seen in The Design Matrix, but also in most areas of my life. But what is ambiguity tolerance? that Let me just quote from the short Wikipedia entry on this phenomenon.
Ambiguity tolerance is the ability to perceive ambiguity in information and behavior in a neutral and open way.
Ambiguity tolerance is an important issue in personality development and education. In psychology and in management, levels of tolerance of ambiguity are correlated with creativity,[1] risk aversion, psychological resilience, lifestyle,[2] orientation towards diversity (cross-cultural communication, intercultural competence), and leadership style.[3]
Wilkinson's Modes of Leadership is largely based on ambiguity tolerance. Mode one leaders have the least tolerance to ambiguity with mode four leaders enjoying and preferring to work in ambiguous situations. In part this is due to what Wilkinson calls 'emotional resilience'.
The converse, ambiguity intolerance,[4][5] which was introduced in The Authoritarian Personality in 1950,[6] was defined in 1975 as a "tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat."
June 7th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Odd synchronicity: as I wrote the following even days before and only dressed it up for the present moment that finds its celebration. There was mention of computers, Star Trek, and now tolerance; dress ups given by [brackets].
——————–
You might recall the Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk convinces a computer automation of an inherent error in its calculation. The computer, having been convinced of the authenticity of revealed ontic meaning, is found repeating the following mantra in increasing frequency leading to a screech and breakdown: " Error! Error! It does not compute! Must sterilize! Self destruct! Self destruct! Beep!, Beep, beep! Beep, beep, beep!" Then there was smoke, sparks and fire.
A contrivance is some abstract contortion that is said to describe reality, except that the contrivance comes with a felt emotionality that may invite deeper revelation, or the emotionality may come off as deceptive. That is, the felt contrivance can be concealed (the suspicion that we might feel), or revealed (Kirk's computer that realized its own mistake). The contrivance is seen to hold a function, and it is recognized by its inherent design. Therefore, contrivance relates to our capacity to form interpretations. But when the call is made to reveal a contrivance, what we find is not the extinguishment of the contrivance. No, what is discovered is that the contrivance transforms into the intelligently designed agenda that is fully disclosed. And so Kirk's computer need not self destruct, had it lived in the real world. Nevertheless, it is the case that truth is revealed as we come to discover ontic meaning by full disclosure, and this disclosure is shared in a transpersonal sense.
The odd thing is that calls are being made to conceal a full disclosure in the name of a pure science, at least in my view. Edmund Husserl (the discoverer of these concepts) will have us note that even science requires its purification; to strip away pregiven assumptions, to arrive finally at the ontic meaning that is revealed upon full disclosure. For example, the contrivance that finds itself calling to conceal intelligent design also requires a full disclosure to reactivate the conditions necessary to discover ontic meaning. The contrivance that calls us to conceal the intelligently designed agenda is itself a felt contrivance that carries its own intelligently designed agenda; i.e., it carries an equivocation that is found contradicting itself, like Kirk's computer. We expect no less of a struggle for any science that claims to have defined away the deeper secret behind our interpretations.
This is how evolution proceeds in my view; by a two-sided tension that reveals [strongly ambiguity tolerant] and conceals [strongly ambiguity intolerant], but the tension can only be resolved by full discloser. And the tension that seeks concealment ends up betraying itself by full disclosure, falling victim to Hegel's "cunning of reason" [given the absence of significant risk aversion]. However, upon full discloser we find contrivances that while fully disclosed are stable enough to call an intelligent design that was found necessary for life. This gives us an intuitionist definition of intelligent design, and such design is indeed open to scientific study.
Life could not function if life was unable to share its designs; and so error recognition and design are implicated in self recognition and in the discovery of ontic meaning given sufficient disclosure. Otherwise, we hear Kirk's computer saying: "Self destruct! Self destruct!"
A Logic that is in-itself and for-itself (as Hegel demanded) is most remarkable. A logic that is merely for-itself comes off as unashamed advertisement; the vital instinct emerges that the nakedness must be covered up (the call is made to conceal). Alternatively, a logic that is merely in-itself is entirely grounded in full disclosure (a call to reveal). Free speech acts as a middle term that pushes between the two, and what is remarkable is that this is the very dynamic of psycho-energetic vitality. A Logic that is in-itself and for-itself is entirely self-consistent: the motivation for free speech is grounded in full disclosure. A lesser logic cannot make this claim. A lesser logic fails, and finds itself based on deception, concealment, or calls to censor otherwise free speech. A lesser logic falls for Hegel's "cunning of reason." A lesser logic finds itself calling to censor those voices it cannot tolerate, and when faced with this realization a lesser logic must follow Kirk's computer into oblivion.
Comment by Stephen — June 7, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Hi Steve,
You used a lot of words, but your attempt rings hollow.
It is religious entities which tend to be ambiguity intolerant. Or more precisely intentionally blind to ambiguity. The term "faith" means to believe despite ambiguity in the evidence.
It is religious entities which don't waste their energies and resources looking for answers, instead they organize and make goals to prompt and forward a predetermined answer.
Goals like….
link
No one expects the ambiguity intolerant to self destruct. History has shown time and time again the human ability to believe whatever they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Thought provoker, I only note that you feel something that could be said to be ambiguous. But rather being provoked by your own thoughts, I challenge you to articulate your feelings in such a way that is fully disclosed, or in a way that does not conceal a hidden agenda. My view is that your present articulation requires additional levels of vetting, where said equivocations must be brought under one roof, these are activities that lead to error recognition.
You could say the same thing about me, except that I already admit that I carry my own equivocations that cry out for further rounds of vetting. Such vetting could be followed by a dialectical exchange, but the challenge is being made to correct our own errors without help from the opposition; and that challenge can only be met by silent reflection, in my view. In any regard, it is my vitalistic system that is finding its vindication; as if the words of Hegel and Husserl are as lowly as my words.
Comment by Stephen — June 7, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
TP:
In that case TP we all have faith in something. The belief that the world is divisible into two camps- one of religious people blind to evidence and the other of objective types who see reality, is another example of intolerance.
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Hi Stephen,
I have been posting on Telic Thoughts for over a year and a half.
I have clearly revealed my motives and agenda. I have no reason to hide them.
Besides, my arguments are not based on me being an authoritative source.
I don't even try to impress people with the extend of my vocabulary.
I use simple plain logic.
It is telling that in your last comment you attacked me and my motives rather than making a counter argument.
Care to try again?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Hi Bradford,
I understand and accept Ken Miller's position.
He accepts NOMA and deals with the conflicts of faith and science by keeping them separate.
I understand and accept Young Earth Creationists' position.
They reject NOMA and refuse to hide or deny their faith.
I understand and accept the Richard Dawkin's position.
He rejects NOMA and refuses to hide or deny his lack of faith.
My philosophical position is to embrace NOMA and accept that I don't know the Truth.
I will accept that you may very well know a Truth that I don't know but I will not play your cat and mouse game of demanding that I must respect something that you won't earnestly present or defend.
Either present your case and defend it or don't.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 7, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I'll echo this TP by asking a question that remains unanswered. We have discovered that life does not exist in the absense of molecular messaging systems containing a coding convention. What philosophical predisposition compels one to accept this as evidence of unidentifiable prebiotic chemical reactions as oposed to evidence of cognitive actions matching mechanisms to outcomes? If this is a matter of epistomological preferences then you are entitled to yours and me to mine. One thing we might agree on is that science has nothing to do with the belief opted for right?
Comment by Bradford — June 7, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
That isn't a discovery, it is a forced definition.
Why is mold considered life and rust is not?
Life inherently needs a messaging and coding system. Even if you consider AI programs life.
I understand that scientists have identified chemical reactions that could lead to life. The controversy is over what actually did lead to life on Earth as opposed to what can lead to life in general.
My scientific suggestion is that life is dependent on interconnected quantum effects. I don't consider this a PHILOSOPHICAL predisposition and find it telling that you think it important to have a philosophical predisposition instead of just a plain old scientific hypothesis.
You want this to be about faith, don't you?
Like I said, it appears that you want this to be about faith.
Suggesting a powerful being created life on earth 6000 ago is years ago is a scientific hypothesis. I respect those with the conviction to openly and honestly present their beliefs and defend them.
I suggest what you are doing credits neither your faith nor your science.
But that is a "matter of epistomological preferences" you are entitled to.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 1:05 am
June 8th, 2008 at 2:31 am
TP, you need to articulate the said attack that you feel, because I don't see what you are pointing at. Or we could look at the merits of disclosure in a positive sense. For example, providing disclosure that natural selection is context dependent avoids many of the misunderstandings that occur with the religious minded; but rarely is this disclosure given. Disclosure is a way to avoid attack when dealing with the ambigous, and that is what I have suggested above.
Here is an example of disclosure: Natural selection is context dependent, but despite this dependency there are some that prefer to see the watchmaker of blind.
Comment by Stephen — June 8, 2008 @ 2:31 am
June 8th, 2008 at 9:41 am
We have discovered that life does not exist in the absense of molecular messaging systems containing a coding convention.
Celluar life is real. Protocells imaginary. I'm not forcing anything.
Maybe because rust molecules result from a chemical reactions inducing two elements to form a compound and life is about self-replicating systems?
So rust would not fit this definition but how do we go about determining what laws of chemistry explain the origin of messaging and coding systems?
Nice propaganda ploy which even the organization that spawned it has since abandoned.
No, but all science has philosophical underpinnings. Every discipline, science and non-science, does.
If this is a matter of epistomological preferences then you are entitled to yours and me to mine. One thing we might agree on is that science has nothing to do with the belief opted for right?
How you see something that has not yielded to empirical confirmation entails a subjectve response. I'm being honest about mine. Critics point to empiricism even when it gives up no answers. BTW, faith is about acting on something you have a reasonable basis for belief in. It's meaning has been distorted by the anti-religious crowd.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 9:41 am
June 8th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Hi Stephen,
You wrote…
No I don't since it does nothing to further the topical debate.
You also wrote…
And there are some who think science should be based on emperical evidence instead of popular opinion.
It doesn't matter what scientists believe, it matters what they can demonstrate in repeatable and reproducable experiments.
This is why Theistic Evolutionists can do quite well in their field of study even though they openly question the blindness of the watchmaker.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 11:23 am
June 8th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Hi Bradford,
To my reference that scientists have been able to demonstrate possible protolife, just not with the conditions available on ancient earth, you responded with…
Because no one cares.
Those who accept the probability have already accepted that it is a given. Those who point to the artificial nature of it will continue to say it is artificial.
Your position is percarious and/or self fufilling. On one hand you suggest it is impossible on the other hand you suggest any positive experimental results are just artificial ploys.
Predicting your reaction to any positive progress in OOL research is obvious to anyone who cares to understand your position. Even if in the far future they reproduced the origins of life on a planet modified to exactly match ancient Earth, you would continue to claim there is an artificial informational link to a designer and that the origin of messaging and coding systems still absolutely require the intervention of a designer, be it human or divine.
It is your epistomological preference to believe what you want to believe no matter what.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 11:43 am
June 8th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
TP, a call for disclosure is made to bring us all closer to a tolerance that treats the said ambiguity. And so you noted that "Theistic Evolutionists can do quite well in their field of study," and I only stipulate that this level of tolerance is at least partly due to the disclosure I posted.
It is interesting that noting that something is ambiguous may be considered initially an attack, but an attack (that on second thought) that "does nothing to further the topical debate." And so we discover that reflecting on the call for disclosure leads again to a level of mutual tolerance.
Nevertheless, there is debate topic to be furthered. What I noted as ambiguous relates to the usage of "scientific materialism." B. Alan Wallace, in "Embracing Mind," notes that scientific materialism comes with five metaphysical assumptions: objectivism; metaphysical realism; the closure principle, universalism; and physical reductionism. These five assumptions should be disclosed whenever scientific materialism is referred to, either in the negative or positive (in my view).
It is so much clearer to disclose the five assumptions, and say: "admittedly scientific materialism comes with five assumptions, but there is still limited value to be found in scientific materialism if it is seen as a scientific tool." This clarification can relieve much of the confusion that the religious minded might have toward scientific materialism, but rarely is this clarification offered.
Rather than merely assert truth, a different avenue seems available to disclose pre-given assumptions. Therefore, disclosure is a way to enhance tolerance toward the ambiguous; it is not that one's feelings are to be attacked. The feelings are what they are; they are to be tolerated and permitted their articulation. Nothing more need be said. Rarely do debates lead to one side agreeing with the other; rather what is found is that full disclosures are made, sometimes made under the disguise of heated arguments. However, when the disclosure process is complete, the debate falls silent even with much disagreement remaining.
The fact remains that scientific evidence does not stand independent of the opinions and interpretations of scientists. The metaphysical must be considered and the opinions vetted to further science, in my view. But this vetting leads to ambiguity, and hence there is a need for tolerance and disclosure.
Comment by Stephen — June 8, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
To my reference that scientists have been able to demonstrate possible protolife, just not with the conditions available on ancient earth, you responded with"¦
Nice propaganda ploy which even the organization that spawned it has since abandoned.
I'm suggesting the current aproach is fatally flawed. A change in thinking is needed before results become fruitful.
Wrong. If a series of reactions were pointed to whose end result was a replicating cell I, like everyone else would look at this as genuine evidence for life from non-life. No faith required. Science as it should be.
The freedom to espouse one's views.
Comment by Bradford — June 8, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Hi Stephen,
You wrote…
Why thank you for the suggestion. You first. Please tell us your position (in as few words as possible) on Wallace's five metaphysical assumptions.
objectivism?
metaphysical realism?
the closure principle?
universalism?
physical reductionism?
To give you a heads up my ethics requires that I disclose; I have two sets of metaphysical assumptions. One for when I am discussing science and a different one for discussing philosophy.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Here is Wikipedia's condensed description of the Miller/Urey experiment…
The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.
At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 2-3 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture
I would be interested in hearing your reaction in light of our recent exchange in this thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Fortunately, Wallace's "Embracing Mind" comes with a glossary that contains the five terms that underlie scientific materialism. The definitions are listed below.
Closure principle. A tenet of scientific materialism that denies the possibility of nonphysical entities affecting anything in the natural world.
Metaphysical realism. The belief that the universe exists independently of all modes of subjective inquiry and can be known by human beings as it exists in itself.
Objectivism. One of five tenets of scientific materialism, stating that there is an independent, objective, physical reality outside of our minds and beyond our thoughts, which should be studied without subjective biases.
Physical reductionism. A principle of scientific materialism stating that nature can be reduced to physical entities and their function, each isolated from the rest, having no connections save the patterns imposed by the laws of nature.
Universalism. A tenet of scientific materialism stating that scientific laws, especially the laws of classical physics, apply equally in every part of the universe.
Wallace even has a term for "scientific materialism," and I copy it below:
Scientific materialism. An interpretation of science wherein only physical phenomena are considered real. It is based on five tenets: objectivism, metaphysical realism, the closure principle, universalism, and physical reductionism.
When reading Wallace's book, one should not feel that it is necessary to agree with Wallace on every point. Moreover, I cannot speak for Wallace, because in the end I can only speak for myself. I find myself agreeing with many of Wallace's points, so I am happy to recommend his book (my review of his book is posted on Amazon). Nevertheless, there is a trick here to be noted: with enough tolerance readers are invited to read Wallace's book. And pay attention to your feelings, because every nagging agitation signifies a contrivance that cries out for full disclosure (almost like magic). Therefore, with my call for tolerance and disclosure even readers uncomfortable with Wallace's views can benefit from reading Wallace. This tactic holds the potential to turn an aversion to Wallace's views into a burning curiosity.
As far as disclosure goes, Wallace is unashamed to admit to his Buddhist leanings. Moreover, Husserl's practice of stripping away pre-given assumptions to discover ontic meaning is compatible with Buddhist contemplation, from what I can see. If this is true, then it is logical for Wallace to welcome a critics read.
And my disclosure: I am trinitarian. And regarding my feelings of the five tenets, I have no buring feeling because they are fully disclosed here. It is only when they are concealed that I have feelings of them, almost like magic.
Comment by Stephen — June 8, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Hi Stephen,
You wrote…
That has about as much disclosure as me saying I am an agnostic.
I was curious as to your position on each of the five tenets you brought into the discussion. You chose to offer Wallace's interpretation instead.
In case you are interested, it looks like neither my scientific nor philosophical outlooks would qualify as Scientific Materialism by Wallace's definition.
But enough about me. Like I said, you first. Let me try to help…
Closure principle. Do you think Christ rose bodily into heaven and physically exists in this universe? What about the Father and the Holy Ghost? Or are such things silly to worry about, even though oceans of blood were spilt over them with religious schisms still going strong over the distinctions today?
Metaphysical realism. What is your opinion on the status of the ignorance of man considering he has eaten from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil?
Objectivism. Would it be safe to presume that you consider God's law to be the one and only reality for us all? Would that include an absolute moral code too?
Physical reductionism. If you get past the connotative term "physical", is it possible that your philosophical outlook presumes everything is reducable to God's law?
Universalism. And of course God is omnipresent along with being omnipotent, so it is likely that you share the presumption of universalism with Scientific Materialists. Of course, there is always the possibility that God may decide to be occasionally inconsistent, right?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
TP, you failed to note what I wrote: I said "I have no burning feeling because they are fully disclosed here. It is only when they are concealed that I have feelings of them, almost like magic."
We note that I had to carry the burden to introduce disclosures for said scientific materialism; this is something you did not offer us, and yet you provide no new disclosures given that you claim "neither [your] scientific nor philosophical outlooks would qualify as Scientific Materialism." It remains true that you introduced the term "scientific materialism" to the topic thread, and it is true that your view of scientific materialism could be different to Wallace's.
In stead of carrying the burden to uncover the appropriate disclosures for said scientific materialism you find yourself looking for the appropriate disclosure to reveal my trinitarian background, almost like magic. But the very system we are now using is the very disclosure that is needed, as anything less would be inaccurate; as from the beginning I pointed to the appropriateness of disclosure, and this is something that even you are now doing, like magic.
My trinitarian views grew out of Hegel's Logic, a Logic that I already noted and that is found in-itself and for-itself. Hegel's Logic is without beginning prepositions, as what is there must be discovered. There is no other system that I know of that is without beginning prepositions; and indeed, scientific materialism holds beginning prepositions that cry out for full disclosure. And because Hegel's Logic has no beginning prepositions there is very little to disclose but the system itself.
I have adapted Hegel's Logic for the intuitionist Logic given by Husserl, something I already noted again. The call for tolerance, to strip away pre-given assumptions and to make full disclosure by way of reactivation, is the very Logic we are now using. This Logic is again found in-itself and for-itself, as demanded by Hegel.
The Logic is again found consistent with Brouwer's intuitionist mathematics, where truth is revealed by the mathematical exorcize of derivation. This is contrasted with formalistic mathematics that is derived from pre-set axioms. The problem returns that pre-set axioms substitute for disclosures, and hence if we are looking for the source of truth we are called to look beyond the axioms as Brouwer observed.
The realization returns that disclosures find themself crying out for full revelation, and you have brought this very magic to our awareness. This is the closest thing I know to the trinitarian concept of the Holy spirit, again noting what other Christians have indicated about these type of interactions that are found between two people. Only a trinitarian Logic can deal with a middle term that cannot be reduced into a singular point of view; as something else will cry out, like magic.
And so I find myself waiting to disclose more, but for that future possibility your very useful input is needed (or input from somewhere else is needed). Nevertheless, it cannot be that I will find myself repeating my above disclosures; once is enough, even given the magic that you offer us. At the point of fuller disclosure the debate falls silent. At a certain point the conflict between religion and science is completely internalized, and nothing more need be said given the disclosures that may follow.
Comment by Stephen — June 8, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Hi Stephen,
I hope you are enjoying this dance as much as I am.
It isn't "magic", it is ethical discourse and interest in learning about other people's views.
While you use your vocabulary to hide your plain meaning, I must admit that you write exceedingly well. However, I like to focus on communicating my ideas too much to copy your style even if I could.
You may not have understood that I only introduced the term "scientific materialism" as an example of how the Intelligent Design Movement embodied in the Discovery Institute deals with ambiguity tolerance.
You chose not to defend the DI's actions to your credit. Likewise, I feel no need to defend Scientific Materialism so it probably makes no sense to use it as a template for our disclosures.
Meanwhile, I agree that it is my turn to offer more disclosure.
I tend to be a simpler man with a philosophy that goes back to Socrates.
It is the wise man who knows that he doesn't know.
To me, philosophical discussions inevidably boil down to arguing how much we don't know as opposed to what we do.
While I like the trinitarian idea that only one or two forces are too stable and, therefore, there must be three constant interactions, it is just a fancy way of trying to make sense out of something that is inherently senseless.
I understand Nietzsche's ideas were in contrast to Hegel's.
If I understand things correctly, it would seem to me that Nietzsche was a lot more ambiguity tolerance than Hegel.
I would suggest my acceptance of the existence of multiple Truths is more in line with Nietzsche than with Hegel. But my ethics are less relative than Nietzsche might imply. I expect consistency of actions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Hi TP
It seems that nothing else need be added then. But at the risk of revealing too much promiscuity, and at the risk of being censored by the Thought Police (another TP, unrelated to yourself), perhaps I can add the mere hint of something else. It was such a revealing exposition that led to one of my readers (of my book reviews) to report me to Amazon for seductive advertising. It is that I wrote the book on Trinity. Oddly, the unashamed exposition was transformed into a full disclosure that is now duly noted in all my Amazon book reviews. I was fooled by the ambiguity offered by my "signature," when all I intended was a full disclosure. Funny how I needed the critical eye of an irate reader to catch that, and to prove once again that the trinitarian Logic calls upon itself to be in-itself and for-itself where we find that free speech is properly clothed in full disclosure. This much is clear if you check the comments added to several of by book reviews. Oddly, the irate reader that added so many comments finds himself looking for something extra; but when I speak of the magic he misses the point too. Nevertheless, it is true that I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, who I find too negative on magic. But Socrates' is a philosophy I can dance with, as even Socrates was willing to drink the poison to the point of indecent exposure. Had I only listened to Socrates!
Comment by Stephen — June 9, 2008 @ 12:44 am
June 9th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Hi Stephen,
A long time ago I was moved by a sign on a secretary's desk that read…
"Though the boy throws the rock in jest, the frog dies in earnest."
It was a sweat shop environment and I doubt the secretary's bosses understood the import of the saying, otherwise it wouldn't have been there.
At any rate, I thank you for the exchange and wish you luck with your writings.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 12:58 am
June 9th, 2008 at 11:27 am
On the creationist side there is an interesting situation — some creationist institutions are extremely intolerant of ambiguity and will insist on things being true even on the flimsiest evidence. This is a BAD institutional flaw if one wants to do research and exploration. By contrast the ID culture is far more open….hence I have cast my association with the ID community… I have to admit, I have some trepidation going to the International Creation Conference 2008 fearing I'll have to deal with the authoritarian type personalities that we often see in the creationist community…..
I suppose on the anti-ID side, there are parallels. There are probably some, like PZ Myers, that are fairly intolerant, and others who go un-named that could care less…..
The issue Mike raises appears to transcend which side of the debate one is on, but is rooted in personal psychology…..
As far as the discipline of engineering and information technology….hmm, it seems institutionally, ambiguity tolerance is necessary for success these days….
As far as running churches, it seem perennially indicative of churches to have little ambiguity tolerance, at least in some denominations. Regrettably, imho, creationist organization up until now have been run like churches, not research institutions.
Ambiguity tolerance seems to express itself quite well in David Berlinski. I like David Berlinski!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2008 @ 11:27 am
June 9th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Hi Salvador,
Not to be too antaganistic, I am truly curious that in past threads you seem to have taken the position that there is nothing wrong with the Discovery Institute's wedge document.
Did I misunderstand your position? Has your position changed?
Here is an excerpt that doesn't sound very ambiguity tolerant to me…
Governing Goals
*To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
*To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
link
Now, I will agree that there are quite a few intolerant people defending mainstream science and that Telic Thoughts, as a blog, has proven to be very ambiguity tolerant.
However, Telic Thoughts stands out mostly because of its rarety among ID-friendly blogs.
As for David Berlinski, he strikes me as being very comfortable in his role as puppet master. Do you think he approved of treatment the ID/Evolution subject got in Ann Coulter's Godless? In her credits she indicated that she "…couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski"¦" link
One of the highlights was where she offered…
"Imagine a giant raccoon passed gas and perhaps the resulting gas might have created the vast variety of life we see on Earth. And if you don't accept the giant raccoon flatulence theory for the origin of life, you must be a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes the Earth is flat." link
I will grant you that David Berlinski is witty and probably is a very likable guy, but I am not sure he would be an appropriate poster child for ambiguity tolerance.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 9, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:26 am
My position has not changed.
They aim to win via persuassion, not coercion.
If you've been around creationist circle (I mean REAL creationist circles), then you'll have a different perspective of what authoritarianism is really like. Granted that you may think the Wedge document seems intolerant….if you're around certain creationist circles, you'll have a different appreciation for what intolerance is like. Consider the fact that I'm demonized and denigrated by some elements in these organizations because of my affiliation with ID. ME!
TP, if you really want to blow the whistle on intolerance, there are creationist organizations that probably would fit the bill. The Discovery Institute and the people associated with it are pretty nice and open. Mingle with some real creationists who are lukewarm toward ID and you'll get what I mean. These are the sort of people who won't allow showings of Privileged Planet or allow Caroline Crocker to come speak.
Better yet, apply to the ICR grad school and see if they'll accept you. Consider the fact that I'd probably be expelled from ICR for insubordination or failure to adopt their creeds. Even Darwinist institutions are more welcoming of lil ole me!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 10, 2008 @ 2:26 am
June 10th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Hi Salvador,
Let me offer something to think about.
Could it be possible that creationists could be irritated with unethical behavior?
One of the reasons that I present my views as "most people would think of me as an atheist, even though I'm technically agnostic" is because my openness and honesty engenders respect, even from creationists.
I could honestly say "I'm agnostic" or "I believe in God", but it would be downright dishonest of me to intentionally use such vague language to send different messages to different audiences.
The subject of this thread is "Ambiguity Tolerance". One way to be tolerant is to have personal, specific opinions while allowing for the possibility that you might be mistaken. This is significantly different than intentionally presenting opinions that change with the audience.
Many ID Movement leaders are noted for saying one thing in legal situations, like in court depositions, and something significantly different in religious settings, like in front of church groups.
While I wouldn't be considered part of the club, I suggest creationists would, and have, welcomed me as a worthy opponent in comparing and contrasting personal opinions.
True tolerance is listening and understanding opposing ideas, not just pretending to do so.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
We disclose all our pre-given assumptions, holding back on the self-evident tension that is admittedly sourcing the ambiguity. The declaration may have been revealed in the face of heated passions, like pulling teeth. Nevertheless, progress should be rewarded, otherwise pure negativity will not have the final answer. The passive activity of disclosure is found missing the activity that carried the burden to volunteer disclosure; and so the active party faces the criticism for being so bold, and yet it was through such boldness that so much of what had been concealed is now revealed.
We are close to rediscovery of Scheeling's observation: that primal consciousness pulls away from itself, but only to return later to get a better look at it self. Likewise, birds leave the nest early, but they soon return later looking for the parent that so nurtured them. The said ambiguity is found carrying an innate oscillation: of breaking away, and returning. And with so much revealed we are close to rediscovery of Husserl's ontic meaning that follows the reactivation of history. The source of the ambiguity is near.
Can you feel the tension that sources the ambiguity now with a new feeling? It was rediscovered in a thousand words, and sung in a thousand voices. Listen to the following song, and ask yourself if you can feel it too. Otherwise, I can't spell it out, it only comes with an active realization that carries a new burden.
Comment by Stephen — June 10, 2008 @ 3:01 pm