Get ready for the next Meeting of Minds
by KrauzeDue to vacations, the intelligent design carnival Meeting of Minds has been on hiatus, but is now back in full force. So, if you've written a blog post that takes a positive approach to ID, send a link and a brief description to krauze_id AT hotmail DOT com by Monday the 22nd. And if you'd like to host the next carnival, just let me know.
As with real carnivals, the more the merrier. So help ensure a big turnout by telling others about this, either through e-mails or a link on your blog.
August 20th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
So, if you ve written a blog post that takes a positive approach to ID…
Well, it is your carnival, so you set the rules.
But there's something that strikes me as being pretty hincky when you stipulate "No Critical Links Are Welcome!"
The last thing in the world I would want to do if I had a carnival would be to stifle debate. If Richard Sternberg, the martyr of the Smithsonian, wanted to submit a less-than-positive appraisal of Intelligent Design to the carnival, would you show him the door?
Comment by Matthew Goggins — August 20, 2005 @ 11:25 pm
August 21st, 2005 at 2:10 am
Hi Matthew,
(Let Q be "you've written a blog post that takes a positive approach to ID" and let P be "[it is the case that you should] send it in…")
If Q, then P.
~Q.
Therefore, ~P.
What you did is called denying the antecedent. Indeed, whether its true that the carnival won't welcome something negative towards ID can't be determined from Krauze's statement, because he didn't address that. Anyways, critical links are allowed in general–trackbacks, Panda's Thumb on the sidebar, etc.
Best,
Matt
Comment by matt_nadler — August 21, 2005 @ 2:10 am
August 21st, 2005 at 4:04 am
Hi Matthew,
"The last thing in the world I would want to do if I had a carnival would be to stifle debate."
Every carnival that's about something must also exclude being about something else. Take the Skeptics' Circle, a carnival devoted to debunking silly notions and exploring the nature of critical thinking. So I doubt that they'd accept a post on how meditation is a much better guide to reality than reason and observation, yet I wouldn't dream of accusing them of using the carnival to "stiffle debate".
What strikes me as hincky is the suggestion that a small ID blog can "stiffle debate" just by running a carnival restricted to positive approaches to ID. As Matt also pointed out, we link to several ID-critical sites in our blogroll (most of which don't link back to us), and if you want to discuss any of the posts here, you're welcome to do so in the comments.
Finally, let me make clear that "possitive approach to ID" will be interpreted in the widest possible way. So, if you think ID is generally on the right track, but think that it still has some problems weighing it down, write it up in a post, and I'll be glad to link to it. See, for example, this carnival, in which I linked to a post arguing that self-organization "is a weak area in the argument for Intelligent Design."
Comment by Krauze — August 21, 2005 @ 4:04 am
August 21st, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Hi Krauze,
If you are open to criticism from within the ID camp, then that's fine.
And I didn't mean to imply that you're stifling debate in the wider world. I just meant that it seemed you were stifling debate in your own carnival — although that would of course limit your impact on the wider world.
And if the carnival has a policy of allowing critical comments, then that's very good indeed. It seems presumptuous to ask for more than that.
But since I've brought the question of critical carnival entries up, allow me to pursue it a little bit further.
If you were hosting a carnival of cat-lovers, or a carnival of bird-watching, or Star Trek-kie's, then I could understand and approve of limited access. The whole point of such a carnival is to provide a forum for like-minded folk to share their interests in a supportive environment.
Now, if that's what you want to do with the ID carnival, "Meeting of Minds", then I don't have any standing to object.
But what exactly is ID theory? It's a very controversial idea that would love to gain a secure foothold in the scientific community and a widespread following among the public. In short, it's an idea that is trying very hard to gain status as a scientific theory or hypothesis.
And how do hypotheses get traction among scientists? By generating experiments or observational predictions that can be tested, and by formulating coherent explanations for the observations or experimental results that have been generated.
For established scientific theories, this can be a fairly routine and quiet business. Tenured professors set up little factories of graduate students who diligently work at their assigned projects and record volumes of measurements and other results.
But for upstart theories. scientific discovery has a very different flavor. Scientists who propose new twists on old theories are held to the very highest standards of proof. Their experimental results are poured over very closely in a search for any discrepencies or errors (or fraud). Their explanations are challenged in tenacious and often fierce debates. Ideas are turned upside-down and inside-out, poked, prodded, and set on fire.
Anyone who proposed a new scientific idea but shrank from hearing hostile feedback would be laughed at and ignored. And anyone who proposed discarding or seriously modifying an established theory without a lot of research and data would be avoided as a crank.
So if you want to have a fan club for ID theory, then run your carnivals any way you like. But if you really want to do some science, then open "Meeting of Minds" up to whoever is willing to make the effort to write something about ID theory, whether that something is supportive or hostile. That's the way science is prodded along to bigger and better things.
Comment by Matthew Goggins — August 21, 2005 @ 12:42 pm
August 21st, 2005 at 2:05 pm
There is a time and place for everything. In this case, think of the carnival as a time and place for people with similar interests to gather and their interests do not include debunking ID or discrediting ID proponents. As you read our blog, you can see that we do not shy from such criticism. On the contrary, we send traffic its way and offer our replies.
The problem with your suggestion is that out here in cyberspace, many critics have earned a reputation for using sleeze tactics. Thus, we don't want a Meeting of the Minds where trolls can argue ID = Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo, Sternberg is a Creationist, ID proponents are stupid or dishonest, ID = Religious Right, etc. We don't have to worry about these cheap shots if the carnival is restricted as it is, now do we? If we change it, someone will have to invest time more closely reviewing the contributions to weed out the sleeze and if they decide against an entry, cyber-critics of ID also have a reputation for whining about being censored. In fact, you can bet someone would contribute sleeze just so they could play the victim-of-censorship role.
Put simply Matthew, your suggestion is more trouble than it is worth.
[BTW, that you chose to spin this as a "fan club for ID" gives us a feeling for the type of contributions you'd like to see.]
Comment by MikeGene — August 21, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
August 21st, 2005 at 4:37 pm
MikeGene,
Thanks for your reply.
If I wanted to promote ID as a scientific theory, I would want to know what's good with it and what's bad with it. That's how science works.
If you just want to promote ID as "it's a good thing to share, but don't try to shoot it down please", then that's not how science works. If "Meeting of Minds" doesn't want to go to the trouble of accepting dissenting viewpoints, then that indicates that "Meeting of Minds" is not very interested in doing science.
And that is just fine, just so long as you know what you're doing and what you're not doing.
If your concern, and Krauze's concern, is mainly just to avoid rude, disrespectful trolls, then you can stipulate that all entries to the carnival must be polite and respectful. Disagreement can be civil, you know!
And if someone tries to poke a hole in your theory, that isn't necessarily a cheap shot or "sleaze". As I said before, scientists welcome attempts to disprove their theories, it's all part of the process of digging for the truth.
Yes, it's time-consuming to read dissenting viewpoints and weed out rude submissions. And maybe, for Krauze's purposes, it's not worth the extra effort. But that is why science is harder, and more useful, than not doing science.
As for trolls submitting rude entries, and then crying "Censorship" when the rudeness gets rejected: I can't see how any fair-minded person would begrudge a carnival host's right to exercise his discretion. Besides, as it stands now, an anti-ID troll could claim censorship right now without even submitting anything!
I have to agree with you that weeding out inappropriate submissions could possibly degenerate into a tiring and thankless chore, so I can understand wanting to avoid all that. But if you want to accomplish something worthwhile outside the circle of ID proponents, you will have to put in the effort at some point.
Hopefully, when you decide you're ready to face critics, you won't have to deal with too much bad faith and agita. You might actually be surprised at how much you learn from your critics, and conclude that your fear of debate was overblown.
Comment by Matthew Goggins — August 21, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
August 21st, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Hi Matthew,
"If "Meeting of Minds" doesn't want to go to the trouble of accepting dissenting viewpoints, then that indicates that "Meeting of Minds" is not very interested in doing science."
It's a carnival, intended for fun, laughter and jollyness. I don't see Meeting of Minds as "doing science", and I honestly don't hope anyone else does.
However, seeing as you have your own blog, here's a suggestion: Why don't you start a carnival the way you would want it to be, open to sober and substantive posts for and against ID? I'll volunter to host it after you, and then we can get The Panda's Thumb to host it the third time, and so on.
"Hopefully, when you decide you're ready to face critics, you won't have to deal with too much bad faith and agita. You might actually be surprised at how much you learn from your critics, and conclude that your fear of debate was overblown."
Mike and I both have experience discussing with many critics, as our posts here and on the ARN Board shows. If you think either of us have a "fear of debate", you're sorely mistaken.
Comment by Krauze — August 21, 2005 @ 5:01 pm
August 21st, 2005 at 6:07 pm
Hi Krauze,
When I said Mike had a fear of debate, I meant he was afraid that the cost of debate would not justified by the benefit of debate. I don't think he's actually afraid to debate anyone about ID theory.
The truth is though, maybe there is a little bit of emotional fear here about allowing a dissenter to help set the agenda of "Meeting of Minds" by submitting a post disagreeing with ID.
By keeping dissent out of the carnival, it is not only easier to do the hard work of reviewing and approving submissions — it is also more comfortable. It can be rather disagreeable to have one's favorite theory challenged in an unexpected way, and have your confidence in it shaken to some degree.
I'd be thrilled to host a forum about ID, pro-and-con, I think it's a great idea. I've never considered doing something like that before, so I'm not sure how to go about doing it. But if you're serious (and not just making a rhetorical point), I would pursue the idea with you. I'm not very savvy about the technical aspects of blogging, so I would definitely need assistance with that.
I don t see Meeting of Minds as doing science, and I honestly don t hope anyone else does.
Well, obviously, you are not conducting experiments, and probably not showcasing any scientific-type research. But if ID theory is not about science, then what is it about exactly?
Comment by Matthew Goggins — August 21, 2005 @ 6:07 pm
August 21st, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Hi Matthew,
"I'd be thrilled to host a forum about ID, pro-and-con, I think it's a great idea. I've never considered doing something like that before, so I'm not sure how to go about doing it. But if you're serious (and not just making a rhetorical point), I would pursue the idea with you."
Originally, I did propose it to see what would happen when the rubber met the road, but if you're interested in pursuing it, then so am I (I am working on some very juicy material that I would love to submit). Send me an e-mail (the adress is in my profile on the front page), and we'll work something out.
Now, the big question: Who will be hosting this, besides you and me? The Panda's Thumb? Pharyngula? After all, they possibly couldn't have any fear of debate, right?
"Well, obviously, you are not conducting experiments, and probably not showcasing any scientific-type research. But if ID theory is not about science, then what is it about exactly?"
Read what I wrote again: "I don't see Meeting of Minds as "doing science" …". Maybe ID will one day evolve into something which can be called science, but it's not something I expect a carnival to contribute much to.
Comment by Krauze — August 21, 2005 @ 6:46 pm