More evidence of that vast ID conspiracy!
by KrauzeID supporter William Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent, has disappeared from Google searches.
ID critic Wesley Elsberry think it's a nefarious plot with Dembski as its evil mastermind.
In other surprising news, the Sun rises in the East.
Update: In an ironic twist to this story, it seems that Google removed Uncommon Descent from its searches because various pages were mirroring their content. One of those sites is run by… Wesley Elsberry. More here.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I think this kind of post is counter-productive and reflects badly on whichever side posts it. (I doubt anyone will care what my opinion is, but I had to share it).
Two things…
Since the finger-pointing has gotten out in front of the facts, everyone can declare their prediction of how this will end. Three broad choices…
1. Accident - unintentional by either Google, UD or both
2. Not real - either by hoax or misunderstanding the original claim was false
3. Pro ID prank - intentially done by an ID proponent
4. Anti ID prank - intentially done by an ID critic
My prediction is #1 (with #2 being a close second).
Second thing…
Who would get upset more by the sun rising in the west?
ID or Evolution proponents?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Hi Thought Provoker,
"I think this kind of post is counter-productive and reflects badly on whichever side posts it."
How so?
Comment by Krauze — September 20, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Krauze asked…
Because it has the same effect as the logic fallacies, Red Herring and Ad Hominen.
It definately distracts from real logical arguments. In blogs, it actually pushes threads that are on-topic towards the bottom and on to another page (Red Herring).
As an Ad Hominen, it is an obvious attempt to attack the other side directly instead of their arguments.
By the way, I do not think your post was that offensive. In fact is you had just pointed to the links without taking sides, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
What got me to respond was your "Sun rises in the East." That is a favorite thought puzzle of mine. What would happen if one day (just one day) the Sun rose in the West and set in the East? Who would say "so what?"
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Profound stuff - I see your handle is well-deserved.
Comment by Mesk — September 20, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Mesk wrote…
I thank you for the compliment.
On the off chance that it is relevant, Russian Novelist defined sarcasm as "the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded."
Either way, I wasn't offering it as something overly complicated. It is a simple concept that has the potential of illustrating the true faith of non-religious scientists. Conversely, religous non-scientists would dismiss it as not at all profound.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
September 20th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
"What got me to respond was your "Sun rises in the East." That is a favorite thought puzzle of mine. What would happen if one day (just one day) the Sun rose in the West and set in the East? Who would say "so what?""
I wouldn't. But I might utter a few amazed profanities.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 20, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
September 21st, 2006 at 10:22 am
Hi Thought Provoker,
The issue is off-topic? Let me see… when Wesley Elsberry, on flimsy evidence, accused Dembski of deliberately removing Uncommon Descent from Google searches, that wasn't off-topic. After all, you aren't over there complaining about.
Yet when Dembski responds to the accusation by pointing out the real reason, it suddenly becomes off-topic. Go figure.
That Elsberry would try to spin this as some nefarious plot by Dembski is hardly surprising. After all, Elsberry was the one who laid out the ID critics' wedge strategy:
When you've donned the withchunter outfit, everything looks like the work of the Devil.
Comment by Krauze — September 21, 2006 @ 10:22 am
September 21st, 2006 at 10:31 am
Eslberry splutters:
But I never said anything about "revisionism" - which is presumably Elsberry's way of saying that Uncommon Descent frequently deleted its own embarassing posts. My point was that Elsberry was going off the deep end in accusing Dembski of deliberately having removed his blog from Google searches - an accusation Elsberry now admits is "in doubt".
Comment by Krauze — September 21, 2006 @ 10:31 am
September 21st, 2006 at 10:35 am
Not surpisingly, the off topic part of the thread got moved to the memory hole. I agree and even said at the time "I am probably pushing with this one".
Please excuse my overzelousness, but their aren't many situation were you get to use Star Trek trivia in such a manner.
But, back on topic…
It looks like it falls under the #1 category, accident
And, ironically, no one gets to claim victory since it looks like multiple factors played into causing it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 21, 2006 @ 10:35 am
September 21st, 2006 at 10:45 am
Krauze wrote…
…and…
Excuse me if I didn't make it clear. I said I think it is bad for "whichever side posts it.".
If it would make you feel better, I would gladly post on Eslberry's blog but I think this is a better blog for me. I think what Eslberry did was an over reaction and reflected very badly on his blog.
Personnally, I would like the subject to be dropped by everyone. Can we go back to good, solid debating like arguing about the meaning of Star Trek episodes?
P.S. I submitted a duplicate of my first post to Eslberry, It will be informative as to his character to see if he allows it or not.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 21, 2006 @ 10:45 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
UD's blaming of the problem on other sites commenting on UD posts (often a response to the high level of censorship of opposing views that prevails at UD) is clearly sheer paranoia. Widespread commenting and linking of sites on related topics never gets anybody deleted from Google, and indeed contributes to page rank.
The early speculation that UD had done this intentionally to "cover their own tracks" regarding revisionism on that site also strikes me as pretty implausible, since however embarrassed they might be about some of their older posts (Davescot's crowing prediction that ID would win big in Dover due to Judge Jones being biased in their favor comes to mind) it hardly makes sense that they would want to be more difficult for new readers to find. My guess would be that UD text or links has been picked up by some spamvertising cluster somewhere, and the deletion of UD is collateral damage from Google's spam control software.
Comment by trrll — September 22, 2006 @ 4:07 pm