Freed from the Wedge
by MikeGeneEven though we live in the post-wedge world, some people remain confused about this. They think a truly post-wedge world is one where we would all be non-teleologists and there would be no creationists trying to influence the public school curriculum. But the post-wedge world is not someone's fantasy; it exists as a consequence of a court ruling. Even Wesley Elsberry helps us to appreciate the true essence of the post-wedge world:
Some people thought the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case put paid to antievolution. What it did, and did well, was to blunt the "intelligent design" label, such that it could no longer be the leading edge of the "wedge". But antievolution goes on, seeking to stuff as many of its old, tired, bogus antievolution arguments as possible into science classrooms. (emphasis added)
Indeed. Thanks to the Dover decision, ID has been cut away from "the wedge" and this explains the essence of the post-wedge world. From the perspective of those focused on ID, we are indeed in the post-wedge world. ID was not some peripheral component of the wedge nor was the Dover decision a trivial event. As Elsberry explains, ID can no longer be the leading edge of the "wedge." Thus, objective and reasonable people can no longer view those of us who are interested in ID, and how it relates to biology and evolution, as being part of "the wedge." In fact, if you will recall, many of the contributors to this blog applauded the outcome of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, as it constitutes an important step in considering the concept of ID divorced from the socio-political activity.
Wikipedia has an entry on the "Wedge strategy" that makes it clear ID is no longer part of "the wedge":
Moreover, wedge advocates are now disavowing their own terminology because the term "intelligent design" has become a liability for them since the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Because of the success of the Discovery Institute's public relations campaign to make "intelligent design" a household phrase, and the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that ID is essentially religious in nature more people recognize it as the religious concept of creationism. Having come closest to accomplishing getting ID into public school science classes in Kansas and Ohio where they succeeded in getting the State Board of Education to adopt ID lesson plans, intelligent design proponents advocated "teach the controversy" as a legally defensible alternative to teaching intelligent design. (emphasis added)
But we do not disavow the term "intelligent design," now do we? In fact, several times, critics, who have nothing but our best interests in mind (wink, wink), have encouraged us to disavow the term "intelligent design." Well, this Wikipedia entry should help the reader see the substance of point #4 from one of my earlier blogs.
In the post-wedge world, ID is no longer useful to those seeking to influence public school curricula and is now primarily a concept that can be used to think about biology, evolution, and origins. Since the essence of ID has always been older and deeper than any activist agenda du jour, it currently exists, and will continue to exist, just fine after having been released from "the wedge."
October 6th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Wes Elsberry responds here.
Comment by keiths — October 6, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Apparently, the definition of "wedge" has evolved.
Comment by nullasalus — October 6, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
LOL!!! Oh, my. I much prefer a maul, wedges being too wimpy for the task at hand. Is there an official phobia name for fear of tools?
Comment by Joy — October 6, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
That response was rather Bushesque "if you're not with us then you're with the Wedge", which is of course, simply not true.
Comment by Guts — October 6, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
As you know, I think you should make your independence from the ID Movement more visible. My feelings and motivations are that the ID Movement doesn't deserve you and your support. BTW, I ordered your book a month ago and Arbor Vitae Press sent me a confirmation. End of Nov, right?
I'm not sure how interconnected your book is with the ID Movement. However, what you have been posting on your web site is a "Consilience of Clues" for front loaded information in life, not for an Intelligent Designer.
I think the last time we had this discussion you strongly suggested "human-like" intelligence wasn't a necessary component to Front Loading.
So at the risk of being overly provocative, I still think it would encourage a more correct perception of your ideas to not have it associated with a movement that…
…I'm not too fond of.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 6, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Hi TP,
And how would I do this?
Unless someone is thinking like Bush, I would think it was clear that I don't support the ID movement.
Correct. And I'd sincerely like to thank you for ordering a copy. I truly hope there are at least some parts that you find thought provoking.
It's not connected at all. No one in the ID movement has seen the book or has helped with the book. The book is far more indebted to the people I have met on the Internet.
Of course. As I have argued before, I don't find much use for the designer-centric approach. I'm focused on the design of life, not the designer of life.
I'm not sure it is necessary, but the assumption does help guide the logic of front loading. It's briefly spelled out in chapter 7.
I cannot control other people. If people want to come with me relying on group think and stereotypes, that's not my problem.
Comment by MikeGene — October 6, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
For my part, I'm very glad MikeGene keeps that association with ID-in-general. It goes to show that the concept as a whole goes beyond any individual, or strict metaphysical belief, or otherwise. I've said time and again I'm not personally convinced by the specific claims of Behe, Dembski, or others – and some of the styles of addressing opponents on that side sometimes comes close to the sort trash I've seen Myers and the Myers-like belt out. But there's more to ID and teleology than specific individuals.
I see ID proponents as having had a fantastic starting insight and attitude, while making some political mistakes early on – as in, trying to get involved in school fights at all. But since then, I've also seen it grow and attract new ideas, new ways of looking at and possibly even investigating legitimate scientific questions – the philosophical core is powerful, and the diversity of potential views is considerable. Who knows, maybe that's why some critics just can't stop painting with such a broad brush.
Comment by nullasalus — October 6, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 12:25 am
I found an interesting post at Uncommon Descent from which I quote:
Even in the post-wedgie world, there are plenty who associate ID with socio-political and theological implications, and I have no problem with that. However, I, even in the pre-wedgie and wedgie worlds, have never been interested in such implications.
If we strip away the "fluff" as Mr. Murray seems to do in his post, the question remains: is ID an interesting idea and in some sense support the intuition of ID theorists about the world, wedgie or otherwise?
I think so. That doesn't necessarily mean the idea can be fleshed out in the form of a scientific theory. But at the core, ID can be an interesting way of looking at things. If it is going to make progress, ID will need researchers who embrace the core of the idea, and keep the "fluff" out of the lab.
Comment by Zwischenzug — October 7, 2007 @ 12:25 am
October 7th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Hi Zwischenzug,
Thank you for pointing out that comment in UD. This was in it too…
(emphasis mine)
This was the intent of my Guest Host thread.
Let's do science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 12:41 am
October 7th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Elsberry:
Surprise. There will always be people using the same old tired, bogus antievolution arguments to diminish evolutionary science. Such people existed before any ID movement and will exist after the ID movement. In other words, Wesley has found a way to Keep the Wedge Alive in the post-wedge world. I've explained how wedge-centrism is crucial to so many critics before, so attempts to redefine the wedge (note the quote marks) to keep this zombie animated are to be expected. The critics try to downplay the significance of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School because the critics need some level of threatiness to prop up their position (and sense of self-importance).
But consider my point:
Wes Elsberry's response fails to refute this point.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 8:45 am
October 7th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Wes Elsberry:
Comment by keiths — October 7, 2007 @ 9:10 am
October 7th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Like I said, ID has been cut away from the "wedge." The "wedging" Elsberry speaks of is not relevant to those of us who think about and discuss ID. Objective and reasonable people can no longer view those of us who are interested in ID, and how it relates to biology and evolution, as being part of "the wedge."
Elsberry has failed to refute my point.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 9:44 am
October 7th, 2007 at 9:55 am
[As an aside]
I was reading through the Wikipedia article about the Wedge and ran across this:
The source for this comes from a newspaper article:
Is there any evidence that the document was truly stamped "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution?"
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 9:55 am
October 7th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Hi Mike,
When you asked me how to go about making your independence from the ID Movement more visible, this isn't it. You asked…
Other than Matt Duss' assertion, it doesn't look like it. "As an aside" that has little to do with the issues at hand (except to those interested in applying spin).
By the time the general public heard about the wedge, the Discovery Institute had announced its authenticity. I got introduced to the wedge document as part of the Dover trial. I expect a lot of other people did too.
Let's read what everyone agrees are the goals of the ID Movement…
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.
Five Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
Let's look at some of the five year objectives…
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:
Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory
7. Scientific achievements:
An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory
I would like to focus attention on a few items in view of a suggestion that ID critics incorrectly equate ID with religion…
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
"To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."
"Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions."
And as far as the shield bashing framing that ID proponents aren't the aggressors but merely the victim of a surge in discrimination"¦
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
This last one shines a light on Baylor's reaction to Dembski trying to maneuver his way back on campus.
The goals of the ID Movement appear to be clear. I am a critic of the ID Movement. Because of my NOMA stance, I don't have a problem supporting ID Science, but you can't be overly surprised that ID Critics will respond negatively when you appear to be helping the Discovery Institute apply its political spin.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Hi TP,
But don't you care about truth? The claim is out there that this document was stamped like this. Is that claim true?
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
I don't know the Truth. I don't know the truth behind the Kennedy assassination either. I can only make guesses and assign probablities.
My guess is that Matt Duss had reason to believe the document was special. It may have arrived in a sealed, manilla envolope marked "Not for Distribution". Someone could have said it was "Top Secret". I don't know. I don't think it is important except for spinning it.
So let's spin it…
If the document wasn't in anyway a secret, it defeats part of your argument. Exposing a non-secret changes nothing. The plan is continuing as outlined. Yes, there have been some minor setbacks, but the ID Movement appears to be compensating for them.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
TP says:
Everyone? You label something as IDM, then I guess you deserve the right to define it in a self-fulfilling way. But I'm not convinced anybody has that goal, much less many of the folks who are publicly aligned with ID.
And the claim of "Spin" is a pretty sure indicator that the pronouncer is spinning. Just another way for you to avoid discussing the issue.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 7, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Hi RodgerRabbitt,
First of all, this is a thread about a political issue. Of course, I am spinning this. I am presenting my view on the subject.
Which "issue" am I avoiding?
As for who aspires to the goals outlined in the Wedge document. How about its authors?
Are you suggesting the Discovery Institute never had these as their goals?
Are you suggesting the Discovery Institute no longer has these as their goals?
Note that I didn't provide my interpretation, I mostly presented their goals in their own words.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
The DI is not the IDM. A major player in ID thought and recent history? Sure. But the movement has grown beyond any wedge document and narrow political goals. Hopefully it will continue to do exactly that, and there are encouraging signs it in fact will. People should be happy more and more folks interested in ID are so because of the science and subject, rather than for hopes of another school showdown. Instead, they seem downright irritated. Interesting, that.
Comment by nullasalus — October 7, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Hi TP,
I don't know if it is important or not; I'm just curious. When reading the Wikipedia article, this claim jumped out at me. So I checked out the cited source and it was only the newspaper article:
Yet the scanned documents show no such stamps. And when Tim Rhodes first announced and shared this document (link on the Wikipedia page), he makes no mention of these stamps. So again, is there any evidence this document was stamped "TOP SECRET" and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION?" Anyone?
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I'm not aware of any.
On the other hand, I'm less interested in what a part-time copy center employee had to say about the document, and far more interested in its eye-opening contents — particularly since the Discovery Institute has acknowledged its authenticity.
Comment by keiths — October 7, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Hi keiths,
The content is old news. Here is a historical claim that is made not only on Wikipedia, but the mainstream media. But, thus far, there does not appear to be any evidence to support this claim. Perhaps Nick Matzke might drop by and shed some light on this.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Hi Mike,
An assertion from a part-time copy center employee is evidence. Granted it is poor evidence, but it is evidence. Shall we issue subpoenas and question people under oath?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Hi nullasalus,
I am more than willing to discuss ID science. You might want to read my recent comment to Joy.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Why give a top secret document that could spell disaster if leaked out to a part time copy center employee?
Comment by Guts — October 7, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Hi TP,
LOL. No. But we are still left with the following bit of investigative journalism:
Yet there is no evidence that I know of to support this historical claim. And apparently, no one else has any evidence (thus far).
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
TP says:
So why these comments:
I assume when you brought up the issue of spin, it was because you felt it was something negative. If it is an "Of course", why did you bring it up twice in this thread? That's why you're not very thought provoking.
Reminds me of the Hillary stuff this week:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
And what is she doing? Politicizing science. The irony is delicious. And I'm not saying this just to bash Hillary, because I could very well end up voting for her. The foolish political pronouncements come from both sides. I don't think you understand that very well, if at all.
Who are its authors? Upthread it is credited to "staff". That doesn't tell me much. And since this is "politics" and it goes hand-in-hand with spin, lots of spinmeisters write and say stuff they don't believe. I have no idea if these are or were ever the goals of the DI, nor am I much concerned one way or the other.
Can you explain in simple language why I should be?
I know this seems to be an "A ha!" moment for many ID critics, but the "A ha!" seems to come from their prexisting bias than from anything that shocking in the document.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 7, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Hi Guts,
You wrote…
Are you keeping up with the conversation?
It seems Mike is questioning whether or not the document was secret at all.
After all there doesn't seem to be "any evidence" other than an assertion of the person making the copies which is obviously what the reporters based their report on.
Besides, the Discovery Institude flatly denied they were trying to hide its existance didn't they? Or did they just ask leading questions and make shield bashing innuendo after a few years of silence?
Maybe it is me who isn't keeping up. Do the clearly stated goals outlined in the document "spell disaster" or not?
Let's look at that second governing goal again…
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
Does anyone want to talk about a scientific hypothesis that presumes neither materlistic nor theistic metaphysics?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Guts:
That question will likely go unanswered as will one I have previously posted which asks what palpable damage has been done as a result of the Wedge document? The Wedge is a very overrated story that is kept alive for its political utility.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
If that part of the story behind the wedge document is a lie, it would be very telling.
Comment by Guts — October 7, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Hi TP,
Why not look to science to provide the answers?
BTW, does anyone know if any ID critic has ever expressed any skepticism about the existence of these stamps?
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Hi Mike,
Loaded question. Yes people have asked. Does that automatically mean they are not an ID critic?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Hi TP,
I have never seen a critic express any skepticism about this story. Can you provide a link? Thanks.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Hi Guts,
And what would it be "very telling" us?
That reporters believe their sources?
Like I asked. Is it time to issue subpoenas and question people under oath?
I, for one, would like to get verification that these are a true and accurate statements of the Discovery Institute's 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.
Are you sure you don't want to talk about concepts that have ""¦real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides." (from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Thought Provoker:
It's another example of the "ends justifies the means" strategy.
Thoughts Provoker:
Yeah I do.
Comment by Guts — October 7, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
So I take it there is no evidence for the existence of such stamps?
Comment by MikeGene — October 9, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Let's bring some closure to this neglected issue. According to Wikipedia, the "Wedge" document was stamped "Top Secret" and "Not for Distribution." even though the scanned image of the document does not show such stamping. The source for this allegation is an article from the Seattle Weekly written by Roger Downey.
Notice that Downey reports this as fact. Yet it would seem that his only source of information is the testimony of Matt Druss, who did not mention these stamps in the seven years between keeping a copy of the document and giving the interview for this paper. In fact, when his friend Tim Rhodes first posted the document on the internet, he did not make any mention of the stamps. And the world's leading Wedge scholar, Barbara Forrest, never mentioned the existence of these stamps.
I've asked if there is any evidence for the existence of these stamps and no one who reads TT can provide any. So what can we conclude from all this?
First, despite the fact that the critics of ID posture as if they care about evidence, I have not found a single example of such a critic expressing skepticism and demanding evidence. In fact, consider the performance on this thread alone. When I simply ask for evidence, the critics here acknowledge there is no evidence, yet express no skepticism. Instead, they either attack me and/or try to change the topic. Thus, now we can see why I raised the question in the first place "“ why haven't any critics expressed skepticism about this truth claim?
Second, I have long warned about the limitations of science. Here is a nice example where one such limitation is exposed. We start with a claim about our physical world "“ the wedge document was stamped with "Top Secret" and "Not for Distribution." By all means, do science and get to the truth behind this claim. Y'see, all around me are people telling me that Science is going to answer all these Big Questions, yet Science cannot even tell me if some 8-year-old document was stamped "Top Secret."
Comment by MikeGene — October 13, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Mike wrote:
I, for one, am skeptical about the stamps. But I don't "demand evidence" because it simply doesn't matter.
It's quite possible that Matt Duss spiced up his story. Embellishment is a common human failing — on another thread, we were just discussing the possibility that a particular miracle story in Luke's gospel was an embellishment.
But whether Matt Druss embellished his story about the stamps is no more important than whether he scored with Mary Lou Findlay during his senior year in high school. Neither question merits scientific investigation, in my opinion. Why? Because the answers are irrelevant to a) the contents of the Wedge Document, b) its authenticity, c) its implications, and d) my assessment of the ID movement and its leaders.
Nobody has tried to answer the question scientifically, so of course science hasn't revealed the answer. That's hardly a limitation of science; a tool can't work if it isn't used. You can hardly blame the hammer for failing to drive the nail if the carpenter doesn't pick it up in the first place.
And why hasn't science been used to answer this question? Because nobody cares enough to bother doing so. If we already know that the Wedge Document is authentic, why should we care whether a part-time copy center employee embellished his story? Why, exactly, is this any more important than using science to establish whether he scored with a particular cheerleader in high school?
Both questions have definite answers, but nobody cares enough about either question to seek a scientific answer.
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 5:19 am
October 14th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Hi keiths,
Yes, you have become skeptical because of the questions I asked. There is no evidence that you were skeptical of this claim prior to me raising this question.
So we are still left with the fact that the critics, who pride themselves as being led by "the evidence," never raised the issue of evidence concerning this claim about history. And according to your explanation, whether the issue of evidence is raised depends on a subjective perception as to whether the issue "matters." This whole approach can be easily used to rationalize confirmation bias.
So it is your wedge-centric perspective that kept you from raising the question and expressing skepticism. That people would embrace a false belief about history (that is propagated by the popular Wikipedia and a mainstream newspaper) doesn't matter as long as this false belief doesn't help the Wedge. In fact, one reason not to raise the issue is the fear that it might distract from a)-d), right?
Let's now take a scientific approach and explore your hypothesis of Matt Druss embellishing his story when interviewed for a mainstream newspaper. Do you think Druss would do this purposely or do you think his mind has him hallucinating a stamped document that never existed?
But that is indeed a limitation, as it clearly shows that science is a human expression.
Exactly. What science explores depends on psychology and sociology. That means science is limited by the psychology and sociology of its practitioners.
So whether or not science is used to evaluate a claim depends on whether or not we think the claim is "important."
Yes, but that takes us to the other limitation. We agree that the question about the Wedge document has a definite answer but science provides no guidance. You seem to think science could answer the question if it wanted to . Well, why don't you do science and show us? Let's make the issue more important to you. Either do the science and provide us with the research findings that answer the question or acknowledge that science cannot find the answer.
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 8:25 am
October 14th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Mike wrote:
True, because my beliefs about the ID movement and its leaders weren't (and aren't) dependent in any way on the truth of the stamp claim.
We also haven't demanded evidence that Duss was, in fact, a part-time employee. What if he was actually full-time? Don't we care whether this claim about history is true? No, actually. Being humans with limited time and energy, we focus on the questions that matter and ignore the ones that don't.
Absolutely. To the judge in the Paul McCartney/Heather Mills divorce case, it is important to know whether it is true that Paul wouldn't allow Heather, an amputee, to keep a bedpan under their bed to avoid difficult trips to the bathroom in the middle of the night. To me, the question is unimportant, and I haven't devoted any energy to finding an answer.
To you, the question of the stamps is an important one, worth investigation. The rest of the world emits a collective yawn and asks, "Why bother?"
Sure, it could be used for that purpose. Do you have any evidence that I am using it for that purpose?
I wrote:
Mike replied:
No. It's because the question is unimportant.
It doesn't matter as long as the false belief is irrelevant and unimportant, like Duss's employment status.
Raise it all you want. You'll find that the response is underwhelming. Why? Because the issue doesn't matter to people. Suppose we discover that Duss lied about the stamps. What then? Would it change the contents of the Wedge Document? No. Would it change the authenticity of the Wedge Document? No. Would it change the fact that the Discovery Institute acknowledged the authenticity of the Wedge Document? No.
Why is it important, then?
'Hallucinating' is the wrong word. A false memory is not a hallucination.
I could see it happening either way. It's even possible for a person to embellish a story, and then come to believe the embellishment after repeating it again and again.
I wrote:
Mike responded:
Who ever claimed that science wasn't a human endeavor?
Again, who is arguing otherwise?
Of course. That's one of the reasons that funding agencies require grant applications.
That depends on the state of the evidence. For example, if we found the stamped original and a matching rubber stamp in Stephen Meyer's desk, and a comparison of the two showed an exact match, down to the level of tiny irregularities in the rubber stamp, then I would say that science had answered the question.
Because the question is a waste of time.
Whoa, tiger. False dichotomy. The fact that I refuse to waste my time "doing the science" on this unimportant question does not imply that science is incapable of providing an answer. As I explained above, that depends on the evidence itself.
You seem to be battling a couple of strawman opponents here:
1. An imaginary group of ID critics who claim to follow every single piece of evidence wherever it leads.
2. An imaginary individual or group of individuals who claim that science can answer every question.
What's up with that?
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Hi keiths,
Ah, but I'm more than happy to agree that not all ID critics follow every single piece of evidence wherever it leads. In fact, as we have seen here, whether or not evidence is pursued is ultimately a subjective choice and value judgment. Also, I am happy to agree that science can not answer every question. In fact, that's a point I have been making for some time now.
Like I said, a sense of closure.
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
A sense of closure for two questions that were never open in the first place.
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I'm glad that is true about you, keiths. But the world is not an extension of keiths.
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Well, since you're fond of issuing challenges, here's one for you: Supply us with quotes from the many ID critics who claim that
a) they follow every single piece of evidence, no matter how trivial or irrelevant, and
b) that science can answer every question, bar none.
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Hi keiths,
Actually, I'm not fond of issuing challenges; I was simply trying to make the issue more "important" for you. You punted and I politely decided not to pursue it.
Based on your behavior here, I'd guess that you keep files on various contributors. If so, you should not project and assume the same about me. I'm just guessing there are some people out there who bought into the "Top Secret" story (some did at PT) and now because of reading this, realize they never expressed skepticism and asked for evidence. I'm also guessing that there are some people who did not clearly see that "the evidence" before our eyes is a function of previous subjective decisions about whether or not to look. I'm glad we can all agree that science cannot help us get to the bottom of this account.
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Mike wrote:
Um, Mike, this is awfully "challenge-like" for a non-challenge:
No, I maintained my original position that the question was irrelevant and not worth investigating.
No. I remember roughly what people have written, when, and on what topics. That usually gives me enough clues to go back and locate exact quotes when I need them.
Yet none of that addresses what you claim were the two open questions for which we now have "closure": a) whether ID critics claim to follow every single piece of evidence, no matter how trivial; and b) whether science can answer every question. If those questions were ever open, it was only in the minds of your imaginary opponents.
Except that we don't agree on that. What we agree on is that science can't answer every question. But as I said before, science may or may not be able to answer the stamp question, depending on the state of the evidence.
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Keiths:
The idea that science can answer all (valid) questions is actually a major theme in books like E.O. Wilson's Consilience and in Dawkins's latest The God Delusion and many more.
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Guts:
And it is a concept firmly rooted in the metaphysical views of the authors.
Comment by Bradford — October 15, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Guts wrote:
Do you have quotes? I've read both books, and while the authors evince a great respect for science, they also seem to be quite aware of its limits.
I don't know of anyone who believes that science can answer all of the following questions:
1. To within one second, when did the Chicxulub impact occur?
2. Did Napoleon Bonaparte pick his nose on the morning of June 12, 1807?
3. What is the single correct phylogenetic tree of all vertebrates discovered to date, both extant and extinct?
4. Did a roughly rabbit-shaped cloud appear over the Africa's Great Rift Valley at noon exactly 3 million years ago today?
Comment by keiths — October 15, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Keiths, check out page 48 where Dawkins talks about examples of questions that people once thought were impossible for science but are no longer, he's making the case that science can answer any sensible question. Also that this was the major theme in Wilson's book is well known:
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Guts,
You're making a huge and unwarranted leap of logic here. Dawkins writes:
Pointing out that some questions turned out to be answerable by science hardly means that Dawkins thinks that every question can be answered that way.
It would be like arguing that because humans now travel faster than our ancestors ever thought we could, there must be no limit to how fast we can go.
Guts quotes Alex Rosenberg:
Come on, Guts, you know better than that. The question is about what E.O. Wilson believes, not what Alex Rosenberg thinks that E.O. Wilson believes. Quote from the man himself. You've read Consilience, right?
Comment by keiths — October 15, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Keiths:
I don't see any such distinction being made anywhere in that book. He basically contradicts your ealier post, questions that you might think are impossible for science turned out to be possible, and thats why he thinks science can answer even the ultimate question of God.
Keiths:
Huh? Don't you think it's strange that two people (at least) contradict you regarding what Consilience is all about? One written in a philosophy of science book? Have you read Consilience?
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Guts has a great point about Dawkins and Wilson. The funny thing is that Wilson (like Dawkins) asserts the spurious claim that science has settled the question about God. Belief in God, he claims, is the product of a genetic algorithm (he doesn't go into great detail about what genes are involved, or the expression pattern, etc.).
Belief in Biology, however, is not genetically based. Read on…
I'm just an average Joe, but even I can smell the schlock. Wilson, like Dawkins, has abandoned science. Let's count the unscientific assertions, just in this tiny paragraph.
1)"…the human mind evolved to believe in the gods. It did not evolve to believe in biology."
Aside from the obvious BS assertion, what in the world does it mean to "believe in biology"
2)"Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving."
So Wilson admits that his brain has stopped evolving? Also note the classic circular argument. 'It survived, so it was advantageous. It was advantageous, so it survived."
3)"Thus it is in sharp contrast to biology, which was developed as a product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms."
Hmmm. No genetic basis for "believing in biology" But any belief in the supernatural apparently has a genetic basis. Presumably we could someday produce a genetic screening for ID'ers.
Also, would it be too much to tell us why he thinks that prehistoric societies didn't, or couldn't, "believe in biology?
I don't really feel qualified to criticize a Pulitzer winner, but does anybody else think that Consilience (and God Delusion) reads like a badly researched term paper? Flowery prose does not substitute for well cited research.
Comment by chunkdz — October 15, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Yeah thats what I get from statements like these:
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Guts,
You can't be serious.
No, I don't think it's strange at all. I don't agree with everything I read — do you?
If you're making a claim about E.O. Wilson's beliefs, why are you so reluctant to quote E.O. Wilson's words? You do have direct evidence for your claim, don't you?
And yes, I've read Consilience. Now I'll ask you for the second time: have you read it?
Regarding Dawkins, you wrote:
I see. So unless Dawkins explicitly disavows it, you are entitled to assume that he made the same egregious error of logic that you made.
Can you imagine what books would look like if it were an author's responsibility to anticipate and thwart every possible hare-brained misinterpretation (sorry, Mike — no offense intended) a reader could come up with?
Read Dawkin's words, also from p. 48:
How do you get from that — the idea that agnosticism on a particular question might not be eternally necessary — to the bizarre idea that science can answer every question?
Comment by keiths — October 15, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Keiths:
You do realize that Wilson mentions Alex by name in the book, don't you? I could understand if it was just some joe schmoe but do you think it's probable that you are interpreting it better than a prominent philosopher of science who is respected and cited by Wilson? Of course you wouldn't have known this if you didn't read the book…
Keiths:
The reason is that we would have to hold your hand and basically summarize the various statements in the book like this one:
in order for you to see it. Since you have a penchant for redefining basic words to your liking I thought it would be better for you to see what a prominent philosopher of science (whom wilson himsels cites) has to say about what Consilience is all about, who even used your exact words. But I guess I can't please anyone. Why not try reading the book?
Keiths:
So unless Dawkins doesn't explicitely avow it, you are entitled to assume that he doesn't make the same egregious error of logic that I think he makes. I don't really think he believes science can answer all questions ( he might have certain caveats/qualifications as does wilson), but he certainly believes that "we may eventually discover that there are no limits [to understanding]".
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Guts quoting:
An example of a personal philosophy.
Comment by Bradford — October 15, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Hello, I am new here.
chunkdz's response is, I think, deserving of a meta-conversation. It is such a typical response in the realm of ID discussions that it leads me to believe that an effort should be made to examine the dynamics of the conversation itself.
I have not read anything by E.O. Wilson except for a few paragraphs here and there from quotations. I do, however, completely understand what Wilson is saying here:
Wilson's meaning, as a whole, jumps out to me. I feel that I fully understand his intent here, even without any context.
So what is my point? It seems to me that, if chunkdz understood the quote in the same way I do, his response would have been wholly different. Whether one agrees with Wilson or not is not the issue — it's whether one understands his meaning and his intent.
To make a meta-conversation out of it, I would ask, What are the reasons and conditions which lead to chunkdz's misunderstanding? I don't know, but if we could answer that then we would be making real progress, as opposed to the zero-progress which is a hallmark of ID discussions.
I'll try to briefly respond, but keep in mind that my responses are just clarifications of what I take as Wilson's intent.
It's an analogy with believing in Gods, and it only makes sense in the context of that analogy. Humans are not imprinted with the knowledge of biology. On the other hand, humans are most certainly inclined to believe in the supernatural when other explanations are absent. Our knowledge of ancient and modern human civilizations attests to this.
Nothing Wilson said implies the brain has stopped evolving. "When the brain was evolving" only denotes the time period when "Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory".
That supernatural belief was advantageous is certainly a plausible idea, and Wilson did not make the kind of circular argument you describe.
There wasn't much need for me to quote your third point above because it is entirely moot; it revolves around the phrase "believe in biology" taken out of context, as I described above.
Comment by Frostman — October 15, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Of course we are not imprinted with biological knowledge but we are equiped with an intellect, an ability to observe and comprehend the natural world and curiosity as well. All these qualities make the development of biology, if not inevitable, then something very close to that. Chunkdz's objection is revealed in your comment which also reveals your preconception. Humans are inclined to believe in the supernatural irrespective of other explanations. The gaps mythology has become a talking point that inhibits genuine analyses on the part of those using it. Many believers in the supernatural came to their beliefs after acquiring an understanding of scientific principles. Some held their beliefs before understanding science and retained them. Why not? Science is limited and unable to explain all life's mysteries.
Comment by Bradford — October 16, 2007 @ 12:30 am
October 16th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Bradford,
Of course many believers in the supernatural came to their beliefs after acquiring an understanding of scientific principles. I did not argue against that. Wilson's statement was about the emergence of the human species, when scientific principles did not exist in their present form. Pre-scientific methods did not place importance on empirical evidence and testable claims. For crying out loud, nobody even thought to test Aristotle's assertion that heavier bodies fall faster until Galileo came along.
In all ancient civilizations and pre-ancient tribal life, people did not come to believe in the supernatural as a result of the knowledge acquired from the scientific method, as we understand the scientific method today. That's a tautology.
I hoped that my point about the flawed nature of the conversation itself would have been more interesting. Perhaps it's an impossible task, but I was wondering if we could examine problems with the conversation itself. My original point was that chunkdz appeared to misunderstand Wilson's quote. In a way, you have emphasized this point by also misunderstanding it. Or, if you understood it, you veered into a different subject.
Does anyone else observe that the conversation itself is strange?
Comment by Frostman — October 16, 2007 @ 9:48 am
October 16th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Only because everything that's being discussed is strange in its own way. But that's what happens when you start to kick around this particular topic. Arguing that beliefs in the supernatural 'evolved' is itself a strange debate – if beliefs or ideas evolve, then obviously they do so in a way that is disconnected from the what evolution means in a biological sense. That a particular belief may provide some survival advantages isn't enough to prove the point.
Maybe what really 'evolved' in humans was a desire to explain things one way or the other. Lacking adequate information to the contrary, the first step with humans was creating a consistent story based on what was observed, then altering the story as more information is available until finally – tada – a science. View it that way, and the difference between belief in the supernatural and belief in the scientific aren't two opposite ways of thinking, but the result of consistent observation along the timeline.
Not to mention that 'supernatural' is a term used and abused to the point of not even explaining false or unlikely concepts. Is the concept of an eternal universe in a steady state a supernatural one? There were some faiths that had such a view, and at the same time some scientists (and some still today) who maintain/ed it. There was also a time when the very idea of time itself having a beginning was written off as nonsense – or supernatural, depending on who you talk to. Maybe the word supernatural has evolved (ha) for some to be little more than another way of labeling a view as incorrect. Especially in a day where the idea of an infinite expanding multiplicity of universes, property dualism, and emergence aren't regarded as supernatural, even by many atheists.
In the end, I find the idea that 'man evolved to believe in the supernatural, but biology is the fruit of achieved wisdom and rationality' to be too much of a shell-game. Along the line of Richard Dawkins talking about how we're all driven by our selfish genes, unless there's a political or social aim he desires, in which case believing with him is an opportunity to rebel against our genes. Sounds almost like we're just making up stories that seem consistent based on what we observe and need. Oops, back to square one.
Comment by nullasalus — October 16, 2007 @ 10:26 am
October 16th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Frostman, contemporary science has no means of testing the central claim shared by most religions i.e. the existence of the supernatural. We can observe and test the natural world all we like and we will end up with an inadaquate set of data upon which to assess the totality of metaphysics. Linking an innate tendency to believe in the supernatural to an adaptive historic event(s) does nothing to affirm or deny whether the supernatural exists or not. If you agree with that then it looks like we are on the same wavelength with respect to this issue.
Comment by Bradford — October 16, 2007 @ 10:56 am
October 16th, 2007 at 11:22 am
frostman wrote:
To continue a point that Mike Gene has been making lately, the world is not an extension of frostman. We all perceive, think, and believe differently.
You seem to think that I simply misunderstand what Wilson has said in that paragraph. What I don't understand is how a member of the Academy of Sciences, Pulitzer Prize winning science author, Winner of the Medal of Science, and winner of the Sagan Award for Public Understanding of Science can claim that belief in gods is the product of a genetic algorithm, yet present absolutely no scientific evidence of said genetic algorithm.
What I don't understand is how a member of the Academy of Sciences, Pulitzer Prize winning science author, Winner of the Medal of Science, and winner of the Sagan Award for Public Understanding of Science can claim that belief in biology is not the product of a genetic algorithm, yet present absolutely no scientific evidence of why he thinks so.
If Wilson wants to claim that one set of beliefs is genetic, and another set of beliefs is not, he needs to back it up with sound testable evidence. Identify the genes, do knockout experiments that eliminate the belief in gods. Perform some biochemical profiles of believers vs. non believers. How about a double blind study? You know, science.
If Wilson wants to claim that belief in biology is a product of the Modern Age, he should first prove that prehistoric societies did not believe in biology. (I rather suspect that prehistoric societies DID believe in biology. Didn't animal husbandry and beekeeping occur in prehistoric societies? I imagine they also studied very carefully which plants were edible and which were not. Perhaps Wilson should clarify what he means by "belief in Biology") But even if we tacitly accept Wilson's claim, we should then expect that a winner of the Medal of Science and the Sagan Award for Public Understanding of Science would offer scientific evidence that belief in Biology is exempt from genetic interference, and was a product only of "The Modern Age", (whatever that means).
Wilson's argument here is all speculative, all opinion, very vague assertions, poorly defined terms, and not a single iota of scientific fact, evidence, or experimentation. It is bad, bad philosophy of science.
That's my take on it anyway. You may read the very same text and still desire to be an apologist for Wilson's "broader intent". If so, I'll apply the same criticism to you, his apologist, as well. Justify the "broader intent" with facts, genetic studies, knockout experiments, historical evidence, blood tests,….something other than vague philosophical assertions.
I don't. But if you are expecting everyone to view the argument exactly as you do, I suspect that it will seem very strange indeed.
Personally, I'd try to exercise a little skepticism when a scientist claims to have wrapped up the issue of belief in God.
Comment by chunkdz — October 16, 2007 @ 11:22 am
October 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
One more thing…
I feel compelled to point out this little logical fallacy. I asked what in the world it meant to "believe in biology".
Frostman wrote:
For the sake of argument. let's grant you that it was simply an analogy. Let's see if the analogy is a valid comparison. We have two beliefs – belief in supernatural, and belief in study of life. You start with a condition about biology.
It is well noted that you set the standard at "imprinting" of biological knowledge.
Did you ask whether humans are "imprinted with knowledge" about god?
Hmmm. The standard by which you measured biology was imprinted knowledge. The standard for belief in gods was simply being "inclined to believe", not genetically imprinted knowledge.
Why did you apply two standards to your assumed analogy?
Allow me to choose the other standard and see how the analogy holds up.
Ahhh. Much better. This analogy is fair, and even supportable by scientific data – even for prehistoric societies. (You see, humans ARE life. We eat life. We propogate life. We study life because we depend on life for our own life. We always have.)
Let's then use your other standard for the analogy. We arrive at:
Aha! That one also seems valid.
Do you see how damaging a double standard can be to critical thinking? More importantly, did you ask yourself why Wilson might have used a double standard in this case?
Or perhaps MOST importantly, did you ask yourself why you blindly went along with Wilson's double standard?
Comment by chunkdz — October 16, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Well we agree on that. In fact the motivation of my first post was the curiosity for what I assessed as a totally bizarre misinterpretation of Wilson's quote. "So Wilson admits that his brain has stopped evolving?" I couldn't tell if that was hyperbole or not. Is it? Did you really conclude that? Our minds are surely different.
All theories about the emergence of consciousness, of the emergence of pattern-seeking and causation-seeking minds, are inherently poor and inadequate. We have little data; ideas do not fossilize, nor does behavior, nor do social interactions.
So what do we do? The best we can do is to make poor and inadequate speculations about what happened, and judge them by the poor and inadequate evidence. It would be nice to have a time machine and several life-sustaining planets to use for double-blind experiments. Alas, we are stuck with what we have.
What is the theory you are proposing, which has so much more evidence? If indeed your theory lives up to the high standards you mention, then you should be world famous in no time. Seriously, what is the alternative you have in mind?
Re: "imprinting" vs "inclination". The contrast is stark, on purpose. The point was, How did we get our biological knowledge? A person raised by wolves in the wilderness with no human contact will not know about DNA. So obviously the knowledge is not imprinted. That is the extreme case, for illustration.
On the other hand, humans certainly have a causation-seeking drive (an inclination to seek causes). Sometimes the drive leads to superstition, sometimes to useful empirical knowledge. Superstition often wins because it requires no effort. We probably agree on much of this.
Real scientific knowledge, however, is tremendously more difficult to obtain than "useful empirical knowledge". The scientific method is an unnatural idea to humans, and we have little inclination for it unless it is explicitly taught. Remember my example that it took 1200 years before someone actually tested Aristotle's claim that heavier objects fall faster than light ones. It was an experiment which could have been done at any time, but nobody did it. Why? That is important to keep in mind.
To get back to the Wilson quote, biology is a product of the modern age, that is, a product of the scientific method. We reached the idea of the scientific method after stumbling around for a long, long time with our causation-seeking algorithms, but the scientific method itself is not a genetic algorithm.
Here is some more context of the original quote:
Comment by Frostman — October 16, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Hi Frostman,
That's a weird comment. What do you think the 'scientific method' is?
Comment by MikeGene — October 16, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Hi frostman,
I have to run off to bed, as I'm not feeling well. But I'll add something else. You wrote:
So how would they become good hunters? Or good soldiers?
[BTW folks - another Guest Post tomorrow! ]
Comment by MikeGene — October 16, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
If anything that humans (or animals in general) aren't born innately knowing is unnatural to them, you're introducing one heck of an interesting definition of 'unnatural' to the discussion. To go with what really is a questionable definition of supernatural. Was Aristotle's claim that objects fall in speeds proportional to their weight a supernatural one?
It's no use treating humans like other animals, such where a dog is trained to fetch the newspaper and a human who knows how to read the newspaper both have unnatural skills. Or arguing that the scientific method, because it was a philosophical tool developed later in the game than other human innovations, is unnatural – but all those books in written about philosophy or theology, despite employing written language (something else you don't get when raised by wolves) and reason (this one is harder to discern), were entirely natural human products. I suppose you can make a faith or philosophical based claim about these things, but they're hardly an obvious reality, scientific or otherwise.
That the scientific method has resulted in some fantastic success is nice, but even those successes don't make it unnatural. Anymore than a primitive reasoning of what forces may be at work in nature make those forces automatically supernatural, or that employing written language and complex spoken language is unnatural. If the standard is that anything learned or used by humans which is not readily available to the wolf-raised is unnatural, then just about every human development – theological, philosophical, scientific, social, cultural, or otherwise – going back thousands of years is unnatural, and Wilson's claim loses its thrust on the spot.
Comment by nullasalus — October 16, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Frostman wrote:
Mike beat me to the punch, as this sounded weird to me too. I can imagine one of Francis Bacon's ancestors performing the following scientific experiment:
See? Prehistoric fisherman could do biology too. Empirical evidence, testable predictions. The whole shebang.
Comment by chunkdz — October 16, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Frostman,
It was just a joke. Wilson's vague and poorly worded assertion was too tempting.
The only alternative I want to see is for Wilson to back up his wild assertions with hard scientific evidence. He may even be right, but we'll never be able to determine it from his vague philosophizing.
Comment by chunkdz — October 16, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 1:37 am
The nice thing about debating with Guts is that he obligingly takes ridiculous (and amusing) positions that are easily refuted.
For instance, in his last comment he wrote:
The obvious answer is that of course it's possible. Since when has prominence granted immunity from error? And how wise is it for Guts to argue from the authority of "prominent philosophers of science" when most of them think intelligent design is bogus? Oops.
Guts, to his credit, realized that his statement was ridiculous before the thirty-minute window expired, and so he went back and edited it to read thus:
A slightly less ridiculous statement. But it invites the obvious challenge: let's find out who's interpreting it better by looking at Wilson's own words.
Guts claimed that Wilson believes that science can answer every valid question. To support that claim, he offered this quote:
Again, realizing that the quote didn't support his position, Guts went back and edited his comment. The quote now reads:
Um, Guts… Did you notice that "claiming that science can answer every question" is not among the "sins" Wilson is confessing?
Had he read the rest of the book, Guts would have noticed other passages that clearly show Wilson's awareness of the limitations of science. For example:
From Consilience, p. 60:
Guts, how do you reconcile "perhaps some of them will remain forever beyond our grasp" with "science can answer every question"
From p. 134:
No trace of "science can answer every question" in that quote.
Returning to Dawkins, Guts contradicts himself and admits that:
Compare that to his entrée into this dispute:
First it was "a major theme" in Dawkins' book; now Guts says that Dawkins doesn't believe it.
I guess that's as close as Guts will ever come to admitting that he was wrong.
Comment by keiths — October 17, 2007 @ 1:37 am
October 17th, 2007 at 4:40 am
Keiths , it took you long enough, did you finally get the book from Amazon? Or did you go to a bookstore and get it?
Keiths:
Actually no I just thought it would be beneficial to the readers if I added more quotes that supported my position.
Keiths:
Um Keiths did you notice that among the sins is scientism and ontological reductionism?
The quote that Keiths provides does not in the least contradict anything I or Alex (cited by Wilson) stated.
Keiths:
Of course the hope and belief is that they won't.
Keiths:
No here's what a contradiction looks like:
Of course the delicious irony here is that Keiths continued to question whether I had actually read Consilience , even though I continued to quote Alex ( and he treated my Alex quote as if it was just some trivial opinion), but it was a quote from a prominent philosopher of science cited by Wilson himself in the book. That shows that Keiths never even opened the book.
Comment by Guts — October 17, 2007 @ 4:40 am
October 17th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Guts,
This is all rather pointless, since you've already conceded that Dawkins and Wilson do not believe that science can answer every question. However, I must confess that I'm perversely curious to see how deep you're willing to dig your own hole.
In a classic case of projection, you write:
I still question whether you've read Consilience, Guts, since a) you only quoted Alex Rosenberg once, and that quote didn't even come from Consilience, b) you still haven't given a straight answer on whether — and when — you read it, and c) you got Wilson's position completely wrong, suggesting that you either didn't read it, or at the very least didn't comprehend it. Either way, you should be pretty embarrassed.
I think it would be beneficial to the readers if you supplied any quotes in support of your position.
What's your point? Neither of those "sins" involves a belief that science can answer every question.
There are two quotes, not one, and both contradict your claim that Wilson believes that science can answer every question.
I asked:
Guts replied:
Hoping that science can answer a question is, quite obviously, not the same as claiming that it can.
Who is Keiths2, and why is he saying things that I've never said?
Comment by keiths — October 17, 2007 @ 6:16 am
October 17th, 2007 at 8:08 am
keiths:
This is not unlike your previous mistakes where you make a big deal out of trivial details.
Keiths:
I quoted Alex Rosenberg mainly in the very first response to you. You reacted as if you never seen him before, which shows you never seen him. Which shows you never read the book.
Keiths:
It came from someone who had interactions with the author of Consilience whom you were unfamiliar with. Something that is unexpected from someone who actually read the book.
Keiths:
Both of them do actually.
Keiths:
Neither contradict my claim. What, are you declaring victory just by fiat?
Keiths:
Except that you haven't established that you got either b or c right. You do in fact know that you have to establish that first? And why do you think I presented you Alex in the first place?
1. You had no idea of his existence
2. You had no idea of his significance
Depsite the fact the both are clearly presented in the book.
Who didn't read the book Keiths? Don't you think it's strange that you had no idea about him despite the fact that he is quoted on this very subject ?
By the way if you concede this point (and you absolutely do):
Then I have no idea what the point of the rest of your responses are other than to save face (to borrow a repeated phrase of yours when you're losing a debate).
Comment by Guts — October 17, 2007 @ 8:08 am
October 17th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Three responses from three different users have focused on analyzing a single sentence of mine. Of course if we dissect a sentence without making an effort to understand what is meant by it in the context of the whole post, we can obtain a ridiculous position.
Please look at my post for the context. The important part is, Why did it take almost 2000 years (not 1200 years, bad math) for someone to test the theory that heavier bodies fall faster than light bodies? That theory was wrong, and it could have been easily disproven by any single person during that period of 2000 years. As we know, it was disproven by Galileo, and we could arguably say Galileo was the beginning of our modern conception of the scientific method.
That is why I drew a distinction between "useful empirical knowledge" and the true scientific method. A piece of knowledge may be useful and empirically based, but that does not make it a scientific theory. Clearly we are not naturally inclined to pursue the scientific method, otherwise how do you explain those 2000 years of credulous acceptance of Aristotle's claim? Not to mention the countless other examples I could have put forth.
Comment by Frostman — October 17, 2007 @ 11:06 am
October 17th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I won't speak for the others, but what I haven't been arguing against any charicature of what you're saying: Your claim that science is unnatural because humans are not born knowing the scientific method is odd to say the least, and your standards for judging what is natural to humans leads to some interesting "natural" and "unnatural" traits. You also don't seem to want to defend that, so it makes me wonder what you're hoping to gain here.
Credulous acceptance by whom? Aristotle's theories of motion were questioned as early as Strato and John Philoponus – and these are the ones we know of. You're dealing with a historical question which involves knowing how wide-spread Aristotle's works were, during what time, among which people, who had which interests. And even then the connection to 'natural inclination' is questionable at best.
You may as well argue that Aristotle's mind was unnatural because he perceived natural laws at work in the universe, rather than an amalgamation of various different and conflicting spirit-forces since humanity 'naturally' attributes "supernatural" forces to every individual thing.
Comment by nullasalus — October 17, 2007 @ 11:59 am
October 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Frostman,
Did the prehistoric fisherman use the scientific method or not?
Comment by chunkdz — October 17, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
nullasalus,
There is nothing particularly special I meant to imply by the words "natural" or "unnatural". I could have used any similar word or phrase. I intended nothing outside the use of "unnatural" as it appears in a statement such as this: "Riding a bicycle is unnatural for humans. Not one person gets on a bicycle for the first time and rides without a wit of trouble. We must learn to ride a bicycle."
In the same sense, the scientific method is "unnatural". Why is homeopathy a multi-billion dollar industry? Selling water and sugar pills! It is entirely obvious that, for most part, people are not "naturally" skeptical; we learn to be skeptical. It is that skeptical ingredient which the scientific method requires.
In my previous post, I addressed some responses which focused on an isolated sentence of mine. Now I am explaining an isolated word. This micro-parsing style of argumentation seems rather ridiculous to me. There is always one more level of minutia which may be introduced, on and on forever.
Comment by Frostman — October 17, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I thought I addressed that. There is little to no data on the topic. Therefore we shouldn't expect much more than speculations and vague philosophizing. Until more data rolls in, speculations are all we have. What else can we do? Declare "God did it" and be done with the subject?
Comment by Frostman — October 17, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Frostman,
Did the prehistoric fisherman use the scientific method or not?
Comment by chunkdz — October 17, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
People use the scientific method when they're picking a mate as well, apparently.
Comment by Guts — October 17, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Your 'isolated word' is the prime descriptor of a concept where the entire thrust of your argument lies – and more and more it's clear you wanted to rattle off something that sounded insightful, but which you personally haven't really given much thought to. Now, apparently, if something is not automatically intuitive, it's 'unnatural' – but learning itself must be natural. Or maybe it's not? There are books on how to learn, after all. Whichever answer is needed to fit the picture, I suppose.
Either way, don't feel bad about presenting a poorly thought out argument. Doesn't come naturally to humans, y'know.
Comment by nullasalus — October 17, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
chunkdz:
The fisherman example you gave is too simple. It would seem that cat could learn to go fishing during a full moon. Would such a cat be using the scientific method? (Assuming it's not already an instinct.)
Do baby seals use the scientific method?
1)Observation – I've seen men holding clubs beating my baby seal siblings.
2)Hypothesis – Men holding clubs are inclined to beat baby seals.
3)Prediction – Men holding clubs are going to beat me if they see me.
4)Experiment – Ouch! I was right.
This is a caricature, of course. But I hope you see my point that it's too simple for consideration.
My point about the scientific method was the component of skepticism. Aristotle may have done "science", but there wasn't a sufficient level of skepticism for me to call it the scientific method, as we understand it today. After proposing his theory of falling bodies, he did not attempt to disprove it.
Ancient tribes learned how to treat malaria, which must have been the result of some scientific investigation. For the sake of argument (since I don't know the details), let's say the cure consists of doing a ritual dance, praying to such-and-such, and eating this bark from a tree. This is known to work, and if you have malaria then you won't risk trying something else.
Well, it turns out the quinine in the bark of the cinchona tree helps the malaria, but the dancing and the praying probably doesn't do much. It turns out people get better on the quinine alone.
So these tribes were engaging in scientific research, but I wouldn't exactly call it the modern scientific method due to the lack of attempts to try to whittle the theory down to, say, only the praying and the bark. Incidentally I think I got this example from one of Feynman's books.
I do not in general object to the idea that ancient cultures engaged in science. Carl Sagan pointed out that a particular African tribe of trackers were quite scientific in their craft (you know, the tribe whose name begins with an exclamation point). I would only say that we can't formally call it the scientific method as it is defined today.
Comment by Frostman — October 17, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I have a question: do any of the pro-ID folks who post on this blog (often or from time to time) believe that ID should be taught in the science classes of publicly funded schools and/or colleges (at the present time)?
It seems an awful lot of bandwidth is taken up with this issue, and I'm wondering if it's one really worth discussing if nobody, or hardly anybody, at TT actually has the aforementioned belief. Likewise with regard to the various culture war and political aspects of ID, which to be honest more or less bore me to tears, at least with respect to the past histories of the Movement and the Counter-Movement.
This may be simply because I'm a European and my political views generally have very little to do with my views about ID. (As it happens, I'm a socialist, and sometimes a very vociferous one. Indeed, my Catholic and Glaswegian upbringing has a lot to do with my becoming an occasionally vociferous socialist, and with my continuing inability to associate in my own mind religious belief with right-wing politics, which seems to be a widely held association in these United States, even though I've lived here for most of the last 20 years.)
But I'm wondering if MikeGene (or some other power that be, or is, at TT) can devise an on-site questionnaire, perhaps with suggested questions coming from TT's readership, (intelligently) designed to indicate which positions, beliefs, opinions, and interests respondents have with respect to a variety ID-related topics. The results could then be used to orientate topic selection in a way that is perhaps more amenable to those of us who are not old warriors bent on regaling all and sundry with, and listening to, Tales From The Culture War Barricades, and have come to an interest in ID quite independently of the various past and present blow-by-blow 'bring the popcorn' ID legal and political slugfests, but simply because of the intrinsic value of the ideas and questions the concept of ID raises, or at least provokes, for science, philosophy, and theology.
Comment by stunney — October 17, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I said that I could have used any similar word or phrase. I explained my intention with the bicycle analogy. Did you even read my post?
Pick some synonym to "unnatural" if you don't like it, then do a find/replace on all my responses with your preferred word. The particular word itself is utterly unessential. You will always find something inconsistent with a chopped up micro-analysis if you remove from consideration the intended meaning. Now I am telling you explicitly what I meant, but you don't believe me. Oh well.
Comment by Frostman — October 17, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Guts,
You are fascinating.
In a misguided attempt to salvage some dignity, you have now sunk to the level of denying the obvious, while not even trying to justify your denials. It's almost as bad as your behavior on this thread from February, where you did exactly the same thing.
Observe:
The "trivial detail" you're referring to has been the entire focus of our debate: whether Wilson and Dawkins believe that science can answer every valid question. Funny how it becomes "trivial" once you've conceded that they don't believe this.
Regarding Wilson's "guilty plea" to the "sins" of scientism and ontological reductionism, I asked:
You offer this detailed and persuasive reply:
Never mind that this contradicts your earlier admission:
After presenting two quotes from Wilson that show he is cognizant of science's limitations, I wrote:
Your masterful rebuttal:
You then invent the mysterious 'Keiths2' and inform me that I 'absolutely' concede the following point:
This, despite the fact that I already asked:
Guts, anyone can read this thread and see that you're in over your head, but trying to hide it by standing on tiptoe. Why then do you keep digging?
P.S. What's up with your obsessive attempts to "prove" that I didn't read Consilience, particularly when you still haven't told us whether you've read it, and when — despite being asked repeatedly?
Comment by keiths — October 17, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Keiths:
Thanks. But flattery will get you…everywhere.
Keiths:
Of course, the mistake I was referring to is that you took my sentence:
and blew it completely out of proportion, thinking that I was conceding that Wilson and Dawkins don't have this belief. I conceded no such thing. The caveats , as Alex Rosenberg states, for example, are "pseudo-questions".
Keiths:
Yes, this is one of the many passages where he shows his belief that science can answer all (valid) questions.
Keiths:
Eh? None of those quotes show that Wilson thinks there are actual scientific limitations contrary to your erroneous assertions. In the first one he simply admitted the possibility that we may not be able to make certain predictions, but thinks we should try — thats a far cry from knowing actual limitations. The second one is completely irrelevant, he's talking about whether we can create a human mind and he uses scientific reasoning to answer that question. The fact that science itself can be used to indicate boundaries is perfectly compatiable with scientism.
Keiths:
I figured since you completely ignored this quote:
"we may eventually discover that there are no limits [to understanding]".
that you acknowledged the point. But I guess that was just another example of how you like to snip away inconvenient sentences.
Keiths:
You think that my quoting of Alex Rosenberg was just a crazy coincidence? I wonder if that would be lower or higher than Dembski's improbability bound. The fact that you had to ask repeatedly shows more than anything else, that you never picked up the book.
Comment by Guts — October 17, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 1:04 am
I haven't been sitting here saying 'natural and unnatural are technically the incorrect words here!'. I've been saying that what you mean by the word – slap in whatever you like – is ludicrous and, really, rather silly. Precisely because of what you mean by those words, where "riding a bicycle" is unnatural because we don't have a peddling gene; we have to learn how to ride a bicycle. But again, what – learning suddenly becomes unnatural? Or is it a natural method of accomplishing unnatural things? In which case, supernatural descriptions (And apparently Aristotle's theory of motion is supernatural – go figure) are unnatural too. It gets you nowhere.
You keep complaining about people examining what you're saying closely and picking apart the details, because of course the idea is going to be inconsistent if you actually examine it! I don't think that's much of a defense. If you haven't thought it through, just say as much and go back to the drawing board.
Comment by nullasalus — October 18, 2007 @ 1:04 am
October 18th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Frostman,
Sorry. There is nothing aabout the scientific method which requires it to be complex. There is also nothing about the scientific method that says you have to "whittle down" the explanations, as you claim. One can perform the scientific method, then refine as necessary.
You, me , and guts have all given examples of prehistoric humans using the scientific method as it is defined. Every example is in the area of biology which Wilson claimed was a product of the modern age. Claim refuted.
You can't claim that humans can only use the scientific method if they are taught. Maybe they didn't use bunsen burners and test tubes, but they certainly followed the scientific method to the letter. I think they were pretty successful at it, despite never having read Bacon, Descartes, or Wilson for that matter.
Comment by chunkdz — October 18, 2007 @ 1:04 am
October 18th, 2007 at 2:05 am
The funniest thing about this trainwreck is that Guts still hasn't answered the question.
Guts, have you read Consilience, and if so, when? Inquiring minds are wondering why you're still avoiding the question.
No, the caveats are real scientific questions, as Wilson makes clear:
Regarding Wilson's "confession" of scientism and ontological reductionism, Guts writes:
Let's look at a couple of definitions.
I guess they missed the part about science being able to answer all questions. It must be their mistake, because Guts tells us that this is part of scientism.
Look at that! They did it again. Nothing about science being able to answer all questions. They need someone like Guts to set them straight.
Unless…
Um, you wouldn't happen to be wrong about this, would you, Guts?
What hypocrisy. Here's what the Dawkins passage looked like before you cut out the inconvenient parts:
And since when did "we may eventually discover that there are no limits" mean "science can answer every question" Another unjustified leap on your part, Guts.
I already pointed out that your Rosenberg quote didn't even come from Consilience. And besides, anybody can search inside the book on Amazon.
Why have you continually refused to tell us if, and when, you read Wilson's book?
Comment by keiths — October 18, 2007 @ 2:05 am
October 18th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Keiths:
No that quote has nothing to do with "caveats", that has to do with the possibility that we will not be able to predict certain things. It's as irrelevant as your second quote.
Keiths:
Why would someone who has read Consilience ask that when I quoted Alex Rosenberg and gave the true meaning of his discussion of AI?
Keiths:
Thats precisely what this means:
Keiths:
Hmm, lets see, shall we?
etc. etc. Nope, not wrong at all.
Keiths:
Keiths, what you're supposed to do after you say something like that is show how the rest of the quote contradicts the meaning I made the quote appear to convey, you completely failed. The quote's meaning is clear and it completely contradicts your earlier assertion that both scientists were "aware of it's limits", how in the world is that reconcilable with Dawkins's statement that we may find it has no limits ?
Keiths:
So you think I found Alex's statement and by chance I decided to do an Amazon book search on Wilson's book to see if he mentioned him? You do realize how crazy (and wildly improbable) an explanation that is? How can you explain that you were completely unfamiliar with Alex if you read the book? Also, this is getting silly, the solution to your problem is easier than we're making it. Lets just ask E. O. Wilson if he believes Alex Rosenberg's statement is true. You'll be (unpleasantly) surprised.
Comment by Guts — October 18, 2007 @ 2:46 am
October 18th, 2007 at 3:35 am
Guts, you're the best.
The problem was solved many comments ago, when I showed you that Dawkins and Wilson did not claim that science could answer every question.
The last several comments have been an exercise in seeing just how far you'll go, in desperation, to avoid admitting error. I daresay you've surpassed everyone's expectations in that regard.
The best part of this thread, by far, has been watching you try to weasel out of the question of whether you've even read Consilience.
Observe what happened this time around.
Keiths:
Guts:
Keiths:
Guts:
Man, that's funny.
And so, for old times' sake:
Guts, have you read Consilience? If so, when?
Comment by keiths — October 18, 2007 @ 3:35 am
October 18th, 2007 at 3:39 am
So, no response? Just more silly assertions?
Comment by Guts — October 18, 2007 @ 3:39 am
October 18th, 2007 at 8:28 am
chunkdz and nullasalus,
As I have said, the component of skepticism is what distinguishes the modern scientific method from its precursors. It's the active attempt to disprove a given theory.
Evidence supports the dancing-and-bark-eating theory, for example, but the method which yielded that theory is not quite the modern scientific method because it is clearly lacking in active scrutiny. The dancing part would have been easily disproved if modern scientific skepticism had been applied. Likewise, Aristotle's theory of falling bodies would have been disproved immediately after it was proposed.
The distance between our views is illustrated by the case of homeopathy. The theory of homeopathy is scientific, in the very loose sense of the word, and is indeed supported by evidence. But homeopathy is not the result of the modern scientific method because it lacks scrutiny. All double-blind experiments have shown nothing more than the placebo effect. (The evidence is the placebo effect.) This makes sense because the ingredients are diluted past the dilution limit (no more molecules are left).
The very fact that homeopathy exists today, that it is fiercely advocated by millions, and that it brings in billions of dollars, is all the ammunition I need to support my assertion that skepticism — the thing required for the modern scientific method — is not "naturally" present in humans.
So, are homeopathy proponents using the scientific method? No, not the modern scientific method. If I understand you correctly, you would say yes: there is no difference between the modern scientific method and its precursors. In which case we have no way to distinguish science from pseudo-science like homeopathy. Do I understand you correctly?
Comment by Frostman — October 18, 2007 @ 8:28 am
October 18th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Hi Frostman,
Welcome to TT.
Like you, I immediately understood what Wilson meant by this:
It arises out of the simple observation that belief in the supernatural is a human universal, while science is not. Supernatural belief springs up everywhere and in everyone (unless they are trained out of it). Science is a hothouse flower, arising as a practice only under special conditions and taking root only in minds that have been prepared by education to receive it.
The awkwardness of the conversation derives from chundz's determination to find fault with Wilson, the arch-evolutionist, and nullasalus's flogging of the 'natural' vs. 'unnatural/supernatural' distinction. The latter is nullasalus's pet issue, and (in case you're wondering) a number of threads have bogged down when nullasalus insisted on unnecessarily micro-defining these terms.
Comment by keiths — October 18, 2007 @ 10:00 am
October 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
keiths wrote:
Maybe if you use a definition of science other than the most basic "The study of the natural world", or more simply, "knowledge", or "systematic knowledge".
Are you actually asserting that humans have no innate desire to study the natural world? That curiosity and and knowledge gathering must be taught by academics or it will never flower?
Tell that to the prehistoric animal husbandry experts, ancient beekeepers, prehistoric fisherman, and every prehistoric human that ever tasted an unknown plant, or mated, or hunted, or foraged, etc. All require observation, hypothesis, prediction, and experimentation. All can be replicable, testable, and falsifiable. And data can be transmitted orally – it doesn't have to be written or typed.
Studying the natural world and passing on what we've learned is what humans do. Always have, always will. What makes you think that science only occurs in a proverbial "hothouse"
Comment by chunkdz — October 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
frostman,
You're assuming that merely being skeptical is all you need to disprove a claim. But I already cited two known, early skeptics of Aristotle's theory of motion – it didn't result in any recorded disproving of his theory. Why is that?
I'll offer an answer: Because skepticism is actually rather easy. Developing a good idea is rather difficult, as is pursuing it if it isn't simple. Skepticism didn't suddenly show up with Galileo – what did show up was a good experiment. Accent on the good, because if Galileo decided to test Aristotle's theory by dropping a metal ball and a feather, the results wouldn't have been all that exciting.
So we've switched gears – now it's skepticism that's not "naturally" present in humans. And hey, quite a chunk of people believe in homeopathy, so obviously skepticism isn't natural! Let's ignore the large number of people who don't believe in homeopathy, the basic observation that humans in general are quite a diverse lot when it comes to traits both mental and physical, and that this still doesn't touch on questions of learning and the human condition.
By the way: You do realize that a trait can be both present from birth and not universal, yes? And that it can be argued that not just skepticism but guillibility can be learned too?
Ahh, and keiths,
Frostman, let me introduce you to keiths. Pay careful attention to his bitter thread-dragging, owing to having been exposed as being not very well informed (or perhaps, not skeptical enough) on subjects he wants to rant about. Also notice how he's confusing unnatural and supernatural as being the same thing in this conversation, as if all this time I've been arguing against the idea that the ability to "do" modern science isn't supernatural.
Comment by nullasalus — October 18, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
October 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Hello keiths,
Um, Keith, you said challenges. Y'know, as in plural. You also attributed an emotional attachment to challenges (plural). Sorry Keith, but I am not "fond of issuing challenges." In fact, as one who is fond of challenging theists around here many times with amputees, I think you are projecting.
If you'll remember, you found the issue of misinformation on Wikipedia and the mainstream press about the ID debate to be unimportant. Since this was the problem, I simply tried to make the issue more "important" for you. You punted and I politely decided not to pursue it.
You now claim that you did not punt: "No, I maintained my original position that the question was irrelevant and not worth investigating." In other words, a Dawkins Fan wants us to believe, on faith, that science could resolve the issue of the evidenceless stamps? However, since flippantly dismissing this as "unimportant," you have spent days and many posts arguing with Guts about some interpretation of something in some book. My, now that was IMPORTANT. Your sense of "importance" allows us to see that your preaching about "evidence" is rooted in tribalism.
That's odd. I used to rely on this technique back on the ARN forum and it worked well, but only because they used to have a good search function. Yet when I tried it here, it doesn't work very well, so I rarely mentally index comments anymore (good news for you). What's your secret? Given that many discussions in the comments have little to do with the opening thread, how do you find these comments? Furthermore, I've seen you resurrect the same old comments from your opponents on several occasions. Are you telling me that rather than file away these juicy tidbits on your hard drive, you always re-invent the wheel and go through the search motions each time?
Actually, this is what I claimed:
Unlike you, I am not obsessed with getting in the last word, so I was happy to poliely acknowledge your spin of my points and simply move on to other things. Y'see, I think the validity of my points stand even with your spin on the table.
Nice punt. Okay, if you don't agree that science cannot resolve this question, can you agree there is no evidence that science can resolve this question?
Comment by MikeGene — October 20, 2007 @ 9:24 am
October 20th, 2007 at 9:37 am
The last several comments have been an exercise in seeing just how far you'll go, in desperation, to avoid admitting error. I daresay you've surpassed everyone's expectations in that regard. Guts, you have been filed.
Comment by MikeGene — October 20, 2007 @ 9:37 am
October 20th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
lmao
Comment by Guts — October 20, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
October 21st, 2007 at 4:22 am
Mike wrote:
There's nothing wrong with challenges. That's why I didn't hesitate to issue one in response to yours.
No, I found the issue of misinformation about the stamps to be unimportant.
Indeed, my position did not change.
Mike, we've already been over this. From earlier in the thread:
We were arguing about what Guts claimed was a major theme of Consilience and The God Delusion. Guts wrote:
And yes, I do think that the major themes of two best-selling books are more important than an incidental detail in a newspaper article.
That said, I was also motivated by the sheer entertainment value of watching Guts trying to avoid answering the question about whether he had read Consilience. That was classic.
I wrote:
Mike responded:
Mike, the solution is to archive all of TT on your hard drive where you can search it to your heart's content without relying on WordPress. There are lots of tools out there that enable you to do the archiving and the searching painlessly. I'm surprised you haven't thought of this.
I wrote:
You contest this now, but earlier you wrote:
How can there be a "sense of closure" if these questions weren't open to begin with?
Comment by keiths — October 21, 2007 @ 4:22 am
October 21st, 2007 at 4:33 am
Keiths:
No I was not avoiding answering that question. I wanted you to keep asking (and by asking you were in fact answering) that question, despite the fact that there is a documented litany of your colossal blunders sitting in this thread going unchallenged. I would have loved to be in Keiths's class as a high schooler where one could prove they read an assigned book by just saying so rather than actually showing that they did.
Comment by Guts — October 21, 2007 @ 4:33 am
October 21st, 2007 at 5:10 am
While re-reading this thread, I just thought of something. Since the phrase "Intelligent Design" has been freed from the wedge, TTer's mainly own that phrase, it's the Wedgies that need to come up with a new one, not Mike. That is, we've finally arrived as mainstream ID proponents
Comment by Guts — October 21, 2007 @ 5:10 am
October 21st, 2007 at 5:44 am
Guts wrote:
Curses! I've been manipulated into humiliating Guts!
And still the question goes unanswered…
Comment by keiths — October 21, 2007 @ 5:44 am
October 21st, 2007 at 5:45 am
I have no idea why you think I'm at all humiliated, in fact, this is now one of my favorite threads. And still your litany of blunders goes unchallenged. This makes the fifth time , doesn't it?
Comment by Guts — October 21, 2007 @ 5:45 am
October 21st, 2007 at 7:34 am
Guts wrote:
Good. I hope you'll recommend it to all of your friends.
But what will you say when they ask you if, and when, you read Consilience?
Comment by keiths — October 21, 2007 @ 7:34 am
October 21st, 2007 at 7:35 am
Keiths:
What will you say if they ask you what scientism is ?
Comment by Guts — October 21, 2007 @ 7:35 am
October 21st, 2007 at 7:52 am
You archive the entire blog?
Why do you do that?
Comment by MikeGene — October 21, 2007 @ 7:52 am
October 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am
There is no need to archive anything yourself; google does it for you. A search for "site:telicthoughts.com guts keiths" gives all pages at telicthoughts.com in which guts and keiths appear, for example.
You could even replace the current search function on the front page with a google version, which would work by appending "site:telicthoughts.com" to the search terms and sending them to google.
Of course the downside is the lag between google crawls, but they are getting shorter nowadays. telicthoughts.com was archived yesterday.
Comment by Frostman — October 21, 2007 @ 9:35 am
October 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Hi Frostman,
The problem is that Google's archive is not complete. For example, a Google search for "wnt site:telicthoughts.com" misses this comment completely.
Second, I'm used to setting up complicated searches that can't be done using Google's search tool. Having a local archive means I can use the tool(s) of my choice for doing the searching, which saves a huge amount of time.
Mike asks:
A better question is "why not?" It's automatic, so it doesn't require any extra work on my part. It doesn't use any more bandwidth, because new pages get archived automatically as I browse them. And it only consumes about 100 MB of space, which is a fraction of a percent of the free space on my hard drive.
Why wouldn't I do it?
Comment by keiths — October 21, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
October 21st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Huh? It's the fifth one down in the list.
If there were some unreachable pages from the main page then it's possible those wouldn't show in google, provided nobody on the Net links to them. But those wouldn't be found by crawler client like wget either.
The google search syntax is quite flexible; for example see here and here. It's hard to imagine a case where that would be inadequate, unless you need regexps or something. What is the case you have in mind? Just curious.
Comment by Frostman — October 21, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
October 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Frostman,
Are you sure? When I click on your search link, I get listings for the following pages:
telicthoughts.com/front-loading-and-the-urmetazoan/ telicthoughts.com/death-of-a-popular-anti-id-argument/ telicthoughts.com/front-loading-with-homeodomains/
telicthoughts.com/
telicthoughts.com/misconceptions-about-front-loading/
This one is not on the list:
telicthoughts.com/more-convergence/
Comment by keiths — October 21, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
October 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
keiths,
Are you sure? The fifth one on my search list is telicthoughts.com/more-convergence/ — here is the cache. My list looks the same as yours, except you are missing that link. I have six hits in all.
Maybe the google servers are region-specific and/or out of sync? Are you outside the U.S.?
Comment by Frostman — October 21, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
October 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I'm in Silicon Valley, not too far from Google headquarters. Where are you?
Anyway, I've seen this sort of thing before, which is why I don't rely on Google's archive for completeness.
Comment by keiths — October 21, 2007 @ 5:31 pm