Another Hoax
by MikeGeneOver on Panda's Thumb, Nick Matzke blogs about an apparent hoax that has ensnared Kelly Hollowell.
On June 13, I received the exact same e-mail (the author found me through my web page). I dismissed the letter as a hoax for a variety of reasons. Anyway, for what it is worth, the old, dying, ex-professor who is willing to donate his revolutionary ideas to fight the spiritual battle, uses one of those free yahoo e-mail accounts and registered with a name that google does not pick up.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:20 am
Hi Mike,
Matzke's post is titled "Lenny Flank, this is for you…", alluding to "PT commenter Lenny Flank [who] often asks for IDists to present an actual theory of intelligent design." I was curious as to what Flank (who signs himself as " 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank") would actually say. Here's what he wrote, in its entirety:
"Okayyyyyyyyyy . . . Gee, all this anonymous genius has to do is submit his, uh world-shattering science to "Nature" or "Science", and that next Nobel Prize is his/hers for sure . . .
No wonder everyone thinks IDers are idiots."
So, presenting a theory will in itself not be enough - it should also be published in one of the two leading scientific journals, and presumably also be awarded the Nobel Prize. Now, since the Nobel Prize is only given for discoveries that have won the acceptance of the scientific community (and even then, staunch reactionaries have sometimes prevented the prize being awarded for discoveries they disagree with), Flank's 'innocent question' is really a demand for him to be shown that the majority of scientists accept ID.
Comment by Krauze — June 20, 2005 @ 3:20 am
June 20th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Krauze, have your read the "theory". Flank's sarcasm is well justified.
His insult to IDists was not warranted by the fraud, however. Only one IDist is known to have been even partially taken in; although it does speak very poorly of Kelly Hollowell's scientific understanding that she would even consider publishing such junk.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 20, 2005 @ 11:10 am
June 20th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Hi Tom,
"Krauze, have your read the "theory". Flank's sarcasm is well justified."
I've read the letter, and I agree with Mike that it's probably a hoax. However, the interesting thing about Flank's reply is that he could write the same, no matter the contents of the theory. In fact, "publication in a peer reviewed journal" is a common criterion raised by ID critics.
Comment by Krauze — June 20, 2005 @ 4:38 pm
June 21st, 2005 at 12:57 am
My impression is that that is not Flank's standard response. My impression is that he enjoys picking to pieces those "theories" that are put up before him. Of course, I have only ever glanced at his discussion group once, so I could not say for sure.
I notice that you say "he could write the same", rather than "he would write the same". It's a wonderful word, is "could". It leaves just enough suggestion that Flank would behave so despicably, but doesn't actually say it. If all you have to say is "he could" then you have nothing to say, and are best of not saying it.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 21, 2005 @ 12:57 am
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Hi Tom,
"It's a wonderful word, is "could". It leaves just enough suggestion that Flank would behave so despicably, but doesn't actually say it."
I wouldn't myself go as far as calling it "despicably". However, you do have a point: I don't know how Flank would react, and my experience with critics with ever-moving goalposts may have biased me. But, if a critic ever does make the demand that an ID theory should get submitted to Science or Nature before being considered a theory, I can trust that you'll be right besides me, criticizing this demand?
Comment by Krauze — June 22, 2005 @ 2:53 pm
June 22nd, 2005 at 7:47 pm
In logic, a theory is a set of propositions and the inferences that can be deduced from those propositions. Obviously ID has a theory in this sense. The question is whether it is a scientific theory.
Having a scientific theory does not depend on having jumped through any particular peer review hurdles. Rather, it requires that your theory (in the logical sense) make currently testable emperical predictions; and that you actively pursue those testable predictions, both by illucidating what they are, and by actively pursuing observational tests of those predictions. It also requires that you do not immunise your theory from emperical or logical criticism by a "conventionalist strategy", either by redefining terms on the fly to evade criticism, or by simply evading contrary evidence by ignoring it, or pretending it is other than it actually is. (As good Lakatosians, we do not have deal with "anomalies" immediately, but we need to at least acknowledge their existance as "anomalies".)
In my opinion, ID fails on both these counts. They have no positive theory that leads to emperical predictions. They have two proposals for emperical inference patterns which, in addition to clear logical difficulties, have been refuted by emperical counterexample, refutations that are evaded by conventionalist strategies. They have a number of counter Darwinian arguments that fail due to contrary emperical data, data which is again evaded through a conventionalist strategy.
As to whether I would ever speak up if an ID critic argued that ID doesn't have a scientific theory if it has not been published in one of the leading scientific magazines - not necessarilly. I have plenty of demands on my time, and am only able to comment on a fraction of the fallacious arguments I encounter on the net. But I have, and will, criticised fallacious arguments by ID critics before, and no doubt will again.
Will you, however, take care to distinguish between two superficially similar, but logically different arguments? The argument: ID has not been published in well respected, high impact scientific journals; therefore it does not have a scientific theory is nonsense. The argument: ID has not been published in well respected, high impact scientific journals; therefore it has not been accepted by the scientific community as a scientific theory; therefore, prima facie, it is not a scientific theory, is valid (but weak). If used by some one uninformed on the issue, it shows correctly that the burden of proof lies with ID advocates to show that they do in fact have a scientific theory. (Obviously, it justifies requiring ID advocates to present the evidence; but not dogmatic refusal to look at that evidence.) If used by someone knowledgable about ID, it had better be the lead in to a detailed discussion of why ID is not science; or in the brief communications of blogs or discussion boards, it had better be backed up when challenged by detailed discussion of why ID is not science. Otherwise it is argument from authority as a substitute for cogent reasoning.
Finally, feel free to quote my opinion on the subject - but if you do, could you let me know
Comment by tom_kbel — June 22, 2005 @ 7:47 pm
June 22nd, 2005 at 9:23 pm
Once again Tom, I have shown you how ID does indeed make empirical and testable predictions. I've also asked you several questions which you still have not answered with regard to your confusion on basic concepts of ID. Do not repeat these assertions unless you are willing to back them up and retract several statements that you have already made.
Comment by Guts — June 22, 2005 @ 9:23 pm
June 23rd, 2005 at 5:14 am
Hi Tom,
As I've said before, I don't think ID is science, and I don't think a theory of ID exists. Of course, that might change in the future, and then it's nice to know where people will stand.
Comment by Krauze — June 23, 2005 @ 5:14 am