Debating in the post-wedge world
by KrauzePaul Nelson has an account of his debate with Sahotra Sarkar up at ID the Future. Some events worth noticing:
- For years, Paul Nelson has been saying that intelligent design is not ready for public schools (as have we at Telic Thoughts, by the way).
- In an extensive e-mail correspondence prior to the debate, Paul Nelson told Sahotra Sarkar that he didn't think that intelligent design was ready for public schools.
- The night before the debate, over a couple of beers, Paul Nelson told Sahotra Sarkar that intelligent design wasn't ready for public schools.
- During the debate, Sahotra Sarkar by his own account succeeded in wringing a confession out of Paul Nelson that, indeed, intelligent design isn't ready for public schools. As Paul comments, "Sahotra has one whopper of a public school science curriculum obsession."
Welcome to the debate format of the post-wedge world. As it becomes obvious that there is no threat of intelligent design being taught in public schools, the talking points of ID critics like Sahotra Sarkar will be seen as increasingly desperate, as they're based on fears that are no longer relevant (if they ever were).
March 17th, 2006 at 9:57 am
1. It's rather evident from Paul's piece that ID=evolution NO!. In this sense, nothing has changed. The Post-Wedge World is no different from Wedge World, where anti-science advocates clamor to corrupt, dilute, or remove the teaching of evolution in schools. (Note that Paul does not take a position on the badly-flawed "teach the controversy" movement. Nor do the bloggers here. A heartening closing of the ranks, perhaps?)
2. Paul starts to bring to the fore another interesting trend in ID thought. ID proponents are almost universal in their embrace of Paleyism ('it looks that way to me, thus design"). Paul, like the bloggers here, would add Pascalism to the ID toolkit. Pascalism, in this venue, means the adaptation of Pascal's Wager to the ID case. ("But what if life were designed by a twelve-headed lizard from Uranus? Methodological naturalism doesn't allow us to study this, so science would never be able to reveal the truth…") If there were any doubts that ID is not only bankrupt scientifically but also metaphysically and philosophically, the embrace of Pascalism by ID proponents should lay these questions to rest.
Comment by Art — March 17, 2006 @ 9:57 am
March 17th, 2006 at 11:33 am
On behalf of the 12-headed lizards of Uranus (T.H.U.), I hereby lodge a formal protest against Art.
Comment by Bilbo — March 17, 2006 @ 11:33 am
March 17th, 2006 at 11:43 am
So how many pitchers of beer did Paul and Sahotra have?
Comment by Bilbo — March 17, 2006 @ 11:43 am
March 17th, 2006 at 11:46 am
And Art, when did you start reading philosophy? Did I inspire you? Huh? Huh? Did I accomplish at least one good thing in all those years at ARN?
Comment by Bilbo — March 17, 2006 @ 11:46 am
March 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Art, if you're going to try to wade into philosophy, please actually learn something about sound philosophical argumentation instead of BSing that you know what you're talking about. Otherwise, stick to the biology. Lame polemical cracks don't generally make sound logical arguments.
Comment by Deuce — March 17, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Art, your ideological commitment is abundantly clear. That illustrates the true nature of this debate very nicely, thanks. The fact that ID can't be taught in public schools (a precedent which will stand until and unless ID is accepted by science proper) doesn't smudge your war-paint one bit. Forrest would be proud!
Yet even you must admit that your metaphysical /philosophical issues with the idea of teleology in life aren't science. I mean, these were the very issues of motivation used to defeat the Dover school board's policy, were they not?
Comment by Joy — March 17, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Hey, let's not smack Art down, when he's trying very hard to wax philosophical. He gives us all a break when we try to talk about biochemistry. C'mon, we have to encourage him. Help him along the yellow brick down, or down the rabbit hole.
Comment by Bilbo — March 17, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Hi Art,
"It's rather evident from Paul's piece that ID=evolution NO!. In this sense, nothing has changed."
Your subjective opinion is well known.
"The Post-Wedge World is no different from Wedge World, where anti-science advocates clamor to corrupt, dilute, or remove the teaching of evolution in schools."
People are always going to use their rights as citizens of a democratic society to influence public policy. Instead of looking at intentions, let's survey the consequences. As Mike pointed out:
"Since Dover, the Ohio Board of Education removed its "Critical Analysis of Evolution" model lesson plan (as I expected) and the South Carolina Board of Education rejected its "critical analysis" proposal (as I expected). Or just follow the NCSE's web page and keep track of the defeat after defeat experienced by the Wedge proponents."
"(Note that Paul does not take a position on the badly-flawed "teach the controversy" movement. Nor do the bloggers here. A heartening closing of the ranks, perhaps?)"
There you go again, drawing inferences from what we haven't written, without bothering to ask us for a comment first. Despite it having been brought up numerous times, you have never taken issue with Dawkins claiming that a religious upbringing is a kind of child abuse. At what point should we start drawing inferences as to your belief in the matter?
However, to borrow a line from Mike, I'm willing to walk that extra mile. Despite the fact that you frequently ignore questions put to you, I'll spell out my position on "teach the controversy". In my post, "Don't teach ID in schools", I wrote:
"If intelligent design is ever included on high school science curricula, it should be at the request of the scientific community, not politicians."
Now, try to apply this to the "teach the controversy" idea. If the government is going to force teachers to teach criticism of various theories, it should do so only at the request, or at least agreement, of the scientific community. Since there is at present no such request (and many scientists are actively opposing the idea), there is no reason to force teachers to "teach the controversy".
"If there were any doubts that ID is not only bankrupt scientifically but also metaphysically and philosophically, the embrace of Pascalism by ID proponents should lay these questions to rest."
Yes, your subjective opinion as to the nature of intelligent design is well known.
Comment by Krauze — March 17, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Wow! Art is effectively saying that anyone who considers hypothetical scenarios for the sake of conceptual clarification is committing what he's called "Pascalism." Wierd.
An argument would fall under "Pascalism" maybe if it has this simple structure "there might be X, the payoff of you believing that X is true is infinitely positive, so you should believe X."
But no one at TelicThoughts is asking you to believe that design is true and some of us aren't even convinced that it is true ourselves. We just think it's worth pursuing. We're not saying 1) Design might be true 2) the payoff of design being true is infinitely positive so 3) you should believe that design is true.
All we're saying is 1) "design might be true" and 2) "it is worth considering what we might expect to discover about biology if design were true"
How's that Pascalian?
Comment by bipod — March 17, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Here is a sample of debate in the post-Wedge world
If you see the video, you'll notice that IDists are spoken of respectfully even by the debaters on the negative side.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 17, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
March 18th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Art:
Not quite. The most you can get from "Paul's piece" would be that Paul's view of ID is ID=evolution NO!. Someone else could read something from Krauze, for example, and argue, "It's rather evident from Krauze's piece that ID=evolution YES!"
ID=evolution NO! is just Art's cute way of spreading the ID=Creationism meme. I have already written several essays that critically analyze this meme. Not to mention that it should be clear to any objective reader that a hypothesis that speculates about ways evolution was influenced by design (front-loading) is not evolution NO!
One more thing. When asked for the type of data that he would consider as evidence of ID, Art wants ID=evolution NO!. In other words, he ridicules the very thing he demands.
Look, we live in a pluralistic society where a majority of people want to see "equal time." In fact, over 50% of Kerry-voters wanted to see creationism taught along with evolution. Some of this majority then participates in the democratic process and get elected to local school boards. That's how the system works. The same majority is also taxed heavily to support school systems, but are often told to "butt out" when it comes to seeing how their money is spent. The system is thus front-loaded to spawn these nuisances. What matters is whether any of it really will seriously damage science or establish a theocracy. It won't.
This is another example of innuendo. No Art, I do not support the "teach the controversy" movement. Not only do I agree with Krauze, but I have made it clear for years that I am not politically motivated or involved. But we all know this is not good enough, as you want "the bloggers here" to become political activists in the real-world. Do you raise such innuendo simply to show us how easily you can move the goal posts?
It depends what you mean by "thus." If someone thinks design has been established or proven simply because it "looks that way to me," they have obviously jumped the gun. But there is nothing wrong with the argument, "it looks designed, thus I suspect it may have been designed." We know this for several reasons.
First, Nobel Laureate Francois Jacob spells out the first steps of any scientific investigation: "To produce a valuable observation, one has first to have an idea of what to observe, a preconception of what is possible. Scientific advances often come from uncovering a hitherto unseen aspect of things as a result, not so much of using new instruments, but rather of looking at objects from a different angle. This look is necessarily guided by a certain idea of what this so-called reality might be. It always involves a certain conception about the unknown, that is, about what lies beyond that which one has logical or experimental reasons to believe."
You have to "have an idea of what to observe." Looking at objects from a different angle. The "look" is guided by a certain idea of what reality might be. Certain conceptions. If you take away the "looks like" approach, you have taken away the crucial key to any investigation.
Second, Art himself pays tribute to the "looks like" argument, as one of his main arguments against ID is that life doesn't look designed. According to him, for example, life is too sloppy, too wasteful, etc. to be designed.
Third, Art also pays tribute to the "looks like" argument in his own beliefs. He believes, for example, that a non-biotic RNA world once existed, because it looks like it once existed when you look at the cell from a particular angle.
Fourth, one could argue that all of science and human reasoning boils down to "it looks that way." Why do you think science articles so highly value visual demonstrations, such as figures, graphs, and tables? It's all about coming up with details to flesh out particular perspectives. Data and "evidence" don't help us escape the "looks like" approach to reality, they simply strengthen it.
So the problem with "Paleyism" (as Art calls it) is not that it is inherently flawed, but that it only becomes flawed when the "looks like" conclusion is not sufficiently supported and fails to address alternative perspectives.
This is a faulty analogy. We have plenty of experience with intelligence and design. We can take that experience and then, with the proper caveats, apply it to biotic reality. On the other hand, we have no experience with twelve-headed lizards from Uranus.
Paul is simply pointing out the real-world implications of the ground rules. If the ground rules exclude ID as a serious explanation from the start, then of course the investigation will come up with some other explanation that can be propped up indefinitely with promissory notes. Add to this the socio-political dimension, where a vocal minority of respected investigators loudly preach that any open-ended investigation into ID will result in the downfall of Science and the establishment of a Theocracy.
It is my contention that the Ground Rules, coupled with the real-world socio-political dynamics, are more than strong enough to mask ID if the evidence for ID is subtle and must first be approached as Jacob explains how to approach any new observation. Art's posture nicely encapsulates it. Something that looks wasteful is good enough to count against ID, but for something to count for ID, you need something as extraordinary and sensational as evolution NO!. And if you don't have something extraordinary and sensational in hand, expect to be the target of innuendo and gossip. By discouraging and intimidating the pool of investigators, you shut down the investigation.
Comment by MikeGene — March 18, 2006 @ 10:42 am
March 18th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Bilbo:
It's twelve-headed lizards from Uranus, not 12-headed lizards from Uranus. You might as well wear a Bucky Dent Fan Club shirt to Fenway.
Deuce:
I think the first mistake one could make is to confuse the "philosophy" associated with ID with serious and truly scholarly philosophical work. IOW, let's try to keep things in perspective here.
Joy:
As usual, you make no sense. Maybe occasionally you can try and make your responses to my comments actually pertinent.
Krauze:
Thanks.
Bipod:
I don't understand what you are saying. My reference to "Pascalism" (I'm expecting someone to rip out my liver for making up this term) is in relation to the last page of the paper of his talk at Austin that Paul posted. I think the similarities to Pascal's Wager are very clear. (Sorry if that wasn't clear.)
To understand the flaw in Paul's reasoning, start by asking yourself "“ is the dichotomy Paul poses (between MN and design) really accurate or complete? Is "intelligent causation" the sum total of all possibilities that fall outside of our knowledge of physical causes circa March 2006??
If the answer is yes, then how many different sorts of "intelligent causation" might there be? (If the answer is no, then the ramifications are obvious.) Are any of these inherently incompatible with others, in that they yield different causes and explanations for any given "phenomenon to be explained"? More importantly, is there an iota, a scintilla of independent empirical evidence for any of the myriad of possibilities that one may logically posit?
Hopefully, you can see where this leads, and why "Pascalism" in this case fails utterly to lend insight into any "phenomenon to be explained".
Comment by Art — March 18, 2006 @ 10:54 am
March 18th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Hi Art,
"If the answer is no, then the ramifications are obvious."
Why don't you spell them out for us?
Comment by Krauze — March 18, 2006 @ 11:01 am
March 18th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Bucky Dent? Isn't he that sociopathic cat in "Get Fuzzy" On behalf of Dodecaheads everywhere, I say, "Let's have another pitcher of beer!" It's the only way to discuss ID civilly.
Comment by Bilbo — March 18, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
March 18th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Thanks, Krauze, for the link to that PWW thread. Quite a nice retro look! Wow, did I ever write long posts some time ago! Guess there's other things to do now than correspond about TT's PWW-ID project.
BTW, is the PWW project succeeding? Did the Dover decision verify/validate your or Mike's hope/prediction? Will ID never be taught in US schools as a result?
Aside from the Court prediction, that thread certainly displayed some interesting thoughts.
And did I really use the word "˜not' four times in a single sentence?? (-:
Why not a PWW II thread?
G. Arago
Comment by g arago — March 18, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
March 18th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Hi G. Arago,
"Did the Dover decision verify/validate your or Mike's hope/prediction?"
Well, as Mike mentioned elsewhere, we've seen several attempts to influence science teaching fail, so my answer for that would be "yes".
"Will ID never be taught in US schools as a result?"
Several months ago, I wrote: "If intelligent design is ever included on high school science curricula, it should be at the request of the scientific community, not politicians."
Can I say that there will never come a day when the scientific community demands intelligent design to be taught? Of course not. But I think that attempts to force intelligent design into schools without the participation of the scientific community are facing a very bleak future.
Comment by Krauze — March 18, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
March 20th, 2006 at 1:58 am
Mike Gene has often said that scientists are not authorities when dealing with the truth of ID. He says the scientific community is incapable of processing teleological explanations behind biotic reality (for philosophical and sociological reasons). I agree. I therefore reject the view that ID shouldn't be taught in school until it is embraced by the scientific community. That will never happen. I agree that ID isn't ready to be taught as a full-fledged theory but without a slim inclusion the government is force-feeding students philosophical naturalism which is tantamount to a religious perspective.
Comment by Jack — March 20, 2006 @ 1:58 am
March 20th, 2006 at 2:47 am
Hi Jack,
"I therefore reject the view that ID shouldn't be taught in school until it is embraced by the scientific community. That will never happen.
As I said to Arago, we can't be sure that something will never happen. Throughout history, the definition of science has often changed in response to new developments, including views that were previously regarded as "inherently unscientific" (Newtons theories of gravity and the Big Bang being good examples). As William Provine says, "Some science becomes tomorrow's non-science. Some non-science becomes tomorrow's science."
"I agree that ID isn't ready to be taught as a full-fledged theory but without a slim inclusion the government is force-feeding students philosophical naturalism which is tantamount to a religious perspective."
If that was the case, the solution should be to remove the first religious perspective, not to add another.
Besides, I think you're forgetting the social aspect. Let's say that there existed perfectly good constitutional and rational grounds for teaching intelligent design in the manner attempted by Dover. Currently, a vocal minority of ID critics are trying to sell the scientific community on the idea that intelligent design constitutes a threat to science and democracy. If schools across the US started teaching intelligent design, it would give the fear-mongers good arguments for increasing the hostility towards intelligent design, discriminating against ID-friendly researchers, etc.
What good is it going to do little Johnny to have a ten-minute statement on intelligent design read to him in high school, if he goes on to college and finds his interest in intelligent design being opposed at every turn?
Comment by Krauze — March 20, 2006 @ 2:47 am
March 20th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Hi Krauze,
You are right. One should never say never. The thought in my head when I wrote that was: I doubt we will see any change in our lifetime.
Moving on to your next point. You said: "the solution should be to remove the first religious perspective, not to add another." How about showing students how a teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing? Anything religious about that?
In response to your last point. I'm not arguing that teaching ID in the public schools will turn out to be a good thing for ID advocates in the long run. I'm just saying that I see no logical or constitutional grounds for not allowing students to learn how a teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. I would like to see the scientific community try to rebut that.
Comment by Jack — March 20, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 8:44 am
Hi Jack,
"How about showing students how a teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing? Anything religious about that?"
No. I deliberately said, "if that was the case", i.e. if the purpose for inserting intelligent design in schools was to 'balance' a religious viewpoint.
"I'm just saying that I see no logical or constitutional grounds for not allowing students to learn how a teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. I would like to see the scientific community try to rebut that."
Of course, there's a difference between "allowing" students to learn something and mandating that they must.
Comment by Krauze — March 21, 2006 @ 8:44 am
March 21st, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Hi Krauze,
Do you think what is currently taught in public school science classes about origins is philosophically and theologically neutral?
Comment by Jack — March 21, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Hi Jack,
"Do you think what is currently taught in public school science classes about origins is philosophically and theologically neutral?"
Let's say I don't. How should we solve this?
Comment by Krauze — March 21, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Hi Krauze,
I don't have a solution but here's a scenario. A school board proposes a three day course showing students how a teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. Teaching it is voluntary as is attending the class. Things start slow but gain momentum as teachers learn there is not a hint of religion, creationism or anti-evolutionism in the course, it's strickly empirical. Nevertheless, the ACLU files a lawsuit. The case goes to court. The court recognizes the course as having a secular purpose, namely, to show students how to use a teleological approach to generate testable hypotheses that have the potential of providing a better understanding of biotic reality. After the decision school boards all over the country start similar courses. Millions of students along with their teachers learn the utility of ID. Some of them become scientists, teachers and judges.
Comment by Jack — March 21, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Hi Jack,
As I see it, the problem with your scenario is that three day courses on intelligent design don't come for free. Those teachers teaching it must be paid, both for the time spent teaching it, as well as for the time required to study intelligent design. And does this course take place at the same as regular classes? If so, would those attending the course miss those lessons? Or, if the school cancels all education for those days, when are those lessons going to be taught?
If I was a parent and heard that my child's school was blowing all of that cash on a course on some fringe theory, I'd rightfully want to know why they're not spending it teaching my kid some basic skills.
And remember, intelligent design isn't the only unconventional view that some scientists think is useful. Some physicists, for example, believe that working on cold fusion provides interesting insights. So should we also have a three day course on cold fusion?
So what should we do to keep the school expense-free? Obviously, we could schedule the course on a weekend so the kids didn't miss out on school. Then, we could ask for volunteering presenters - I'm sure there are lots of people who'd like to get the chance to talk about intelligent design. If the state has laws that allows school districts to make their buildings availble to community groups after school hours, the courses can be held there, but otherwise, they'll have to secure rooms elesewhere. However, now we've ended up with a scenario that's already possible: Rent a room, make arrangements with some presenters, and advertise for the event in newspapers and school bulletin boards.
Comment by Krauze — March 22, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Hi Krauze,
I refer you to what recently happened in a small school district in California where they were going to teach a course called "Philosophy of Design". What shot it down had nothing to do with cost. The course was dropped due to a lawsuit by The Americans United for Separation of Church and State that claimed the school district was promoting creationism. And unfortunately that is what they were in fact doing. But what if this school district taught a different course, one showing students how a teleological approach can run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing? What do you think would happen then?
Comment by Jack — March 22, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:24 pm
First, I wanted to say that I thought Mike Gene's response to Art was excellent and insightful. I regret that Art hasn't responded, but maybe he dislikes getting too far away from biochemistry for too long.
Second… well, I've got to run. Maybe I'll get back to this later.
Comment by Bilbo — March 22, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Choose carefully your friends and even more carefully your enemies.
I would have spit in Sahorta's beer. Obviously, I'm not a good Christian like Paul Nelson.
But I would have saved a lotta wasted effort at coming to some "mutual understanding." He would have instantly and unambiguously understood exactly what I meant, w/o a lotta wasted words on my part. LOL Not one word!
You IDers are way to polite. Too "Christian." LOL
Comment by Rock — March 23, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
March 24th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Too Christian?>? Uhhh…apparently not Krauze, Steve or Mike G!
Don't worry Rock, your politeness will excuse you from being put into the ID-Critic category, at least for now.
After all, we're not really talking about 'design,' are we?
Comment by g arago — March 24, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
March 25th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
The problem with spitting in your opponent's beer, is that he might spit in yours, out of some irrational desire to get even. What a waste. Better to wait until after you've downed your own beer, thenspit in his beer. So what probably happened is that Paul and Sohotra were busy trying to drink their own beer as fast as they possibly could, so they could spit in the others'. Since Paul admits that they had multiple pitchers of beer, we can conclude that they must drink their beers at relatively the same speed. Eventually they passed out and had to be taxied home. After the debate, they decided to go at again. Since Paul never tells us who ultimately won, I'm guessing Sohotra did. And now Paul is trying to pretend he was a good Christian. But for those of us who can see through his thin veneer, the real story is obvious.
Comment by Bilbo — March 25, 2006 @ 5:25 pm