Out on a lark
by KrauzeThey really should pass a law against those parody news sites. Not so long ago it was a pro-life blogger who fell for an Onion story about a girl who was looking forward to have "the best non-anesthetized invasive uterine surgery ever". And now it seems "God is for Suckers!" fell for a story about "Aleta Smith", who donated a kidney and now want it back because the recipient is no longer a Christian. The story is from LarkNews.com, which, in a disclaimer at the bottom of the page, writes: "LarkNews® is a satirical newspaper published by Joel Kilpatrick."
From the fake news article:
"I feel helpless," [Aletha Smith] says. "Part of my body, my DNA, is stuck inside a person who's going to hell."
Smith suffers nightmares of her former organ filtering "strange Asian teas, pig blood and witch doctor brews in Africa," she says. She wonders if the Lord really wanted her to donate the kidney, or if she acted on a "triple-espresso high" she had that morning. She is also concerned that when her body is resurrected, it might be incomplete.
One might think that a statement about someone deciding to donate organs on a "triple-espresso high" would have aroused the blogger's suspicion, but alas, that opportunity was wasted.
It is easy to revel in the screw-ups of others, relieved that it was someone else that got snookered. Indeed, here at Telic Thoughts we have also bought into news stories that later turned out to be unreliable. To err is human, and all that stuff. So let me use this unfortunate blogger's mistake as an opportunity to discuss a larger issue. A recent article in Scientific American described some interesting research in confirmation bias, "whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence." It seems that when evaluating statements by politicians, people with strong political beliefs turn off the reasoning center of their brain, relying instead on the center which govern emotions. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones," one of the authors of the study said.
If you believe that people would only want to have an abortion because they enjoyed the procedure, you are likely to accept a story about a girl who is "totally psyched" about her first abortion. And if you see all Christians as delusional people, you run the risk of getting burned on a story about a lady who is afraid that her kidney is becoming pagan. And if you are a scientist who think that intelligent design is dangerous nonsense… might that also affect the way you evaluate ID arguments?
That humans err is trivial; knowing why we do is what enables us to move beyond our limitations.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Krauze,
A truly exceptional post, right up until this bit:
Given the propaganda and distortions coming out from the Discovery Institute, I find the Intelligent Design Movement to be vastly full of "nonsense," with a few select individuals on the ID side taking reasonable positions, current company included. But you're the exception, as far as I've seen, not the rule.
But regardless, I would welcome ID arguments that come from actual research, I just haven't seen any that goes beyond theistically-informed speculation. Have you?
Comment by Daniel — August 29, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
August 29th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
What research persuaded you that a genome with protein coding capacity results from fortuitous organic chemical reactions?
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
August 29th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Hi Daniel,
"A truly exceptional post, right up until this bit:"
Thanks.
Krauze: "And if you are a scientist who think that intelligent design is dangerous nonsense"¦ might that also affect the way you evaluate ID arguments?"
You never answer my question. Humans with strong opinions have a tendency to confirmation bias, by which they are pick and chose those pieces of reality that support what they already believe. Does this fact about the human mind disappear when scientists are considering intelligent design?
Comment by Krauze — August 29, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
August 29th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I think it is interesting that in both this case and the abortion case, the people who got duped defended themselves (or were defended by others) by saying that it could be true, even though it isn't really true.
Comment by macht — August 29, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
August 29th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Hi Macht,
Yeah, the "fake but accurate" defense; I noticed it as well.
Comment by Krauze — August 29, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Good catch, Krauze. I'm embarrassed that I didn't recognize it as hoax material from the get-go.
And of course, as Kuhn noted, it works the other way: If one is committed to God being behind everything, and if one is also convinced Darwin's theories lead to evil, might not there be some carryover effect in how one evaluates ID arguments and the science of evolution?
Absolutely. That's why bench experiment and field observation, publication and replication are so vital to good science.
Is there any update on when anyone in ID will pose some testable ID hypotheses, and test them?
Comment by edarrell — August 30, 2006 @ 12:49 am
August 30th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Hi Krauze,
Fortunately, there are forums for IDists to publish their research, such as the online Journal "Progress in Complexity, Information and Design", and "Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum". Over time, as IDists demonstrate their ability to achieve breakthroughs in biology and resolve problems inexplicable to neodarwinists, the dominant paradigm will crumble in the face of the evidence, as has happened time and again in science.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 30, 2006 @ 10:03 am
August 30th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Bradford:
Many research studies and reviews, actually. A quick pubmed search of three very recent exampls of such reviews are by : Muller, Yarus et al., and Hughes et al.
Krauze:
I wasn't denying that such tendencies occur in the scientific process – I was arguing that for this bias against the evidence for ID first requires ID to have evidence (peer-reviewed, reproducible, and corroborated evidence). And I just don't see any such evidence to be biased against, or even researchers in the lab, trying to understand how primordial cells might have been assembled, created, or otherwise modified by a cognizant entity.
Without that, there's nothing to be biased against, is there?
Comment by Daniel — August 30, 2006 @ 11:32 am
August 30th, 2006 at 11:57 am
From the cited reference:
"There is very significant evidence that cognate codons and/or anticodons are unexpectedly frequent in RNA-binding sites for seven of eight biological amino acids that have been tested. This suggests that a substantial fraction of the genetic code has a stereochemical basis, the triplets having escaped from their original function in amino acid-binding sites to become modern codons and anticodons."
This has already come up in this forum. Two points. First 7 of 8 amino acids is an incomplete assessment. More importantly, how is an original function defined at a point in time preceeding the development of a genetic code?
"We explicitly show that this stereochemical basis is consistent with subsequent optimization of the code to minimize the effect of coding mistakes on protein structure."
Could very well have that effect but how does this answer my question as to how the genetic code developed? If necessary I will walk through this step by step. I have an aversion to this type of incompleteness substituting for sound scientifically based conclusions.
"These data also strengthen the argument for invention of the genetic code in an RNA world and for the RNA world itself."
A more accurate statement would be that considerably more is required to make a plausible case for the "invention" of the genetic code by means of an RNA world.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2006 @ 11:57 am
August 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Bradford,
Sure, there's no doubt that a lot of questions remain, and reviews are written to highlight the current status and direction of research in this area. But that's not why I cited those reviews – I cited them because they all have long lists of references providing a broad basis for the RNA World hypothesis – and there are quite a few lines of reasoning that suggest (but yes, they don't prove) that the origin of life lies in a progression from simple acid-base chemistry, to the acquisition of chirality and short nucleotide-like sequences, and gradually to more complex "soups" of organic molecules enclosed by a lipid-like membrane.
Comment by Daniel — August 30, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
The reasoning does indeed suggest what you indicate but I would add that this is not what the data suggests. Demonstrating that conditions exist in which biomolecules are the products of reactions observed to take place under many and varied conditions does not address the issues underlying biological functionality. Function is intrinsically an interdependent process requiring a means to codify and pass on genetic information. Organic chemical reactions provide no indicator as to how such functions are generated in the absence of intelligent input.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Bradford:
Prebiotic organic chemistry is poorly understood, true, but saying "no indiator" exists for such possibilities is incorrect (go back and re-read the papers, and here are two more also).
A more accurate statement would be that there's no evidence for the presence of a creator either.
Comment by Daniel — August 30, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
"Prebiotic organic chemistry is poorly understood, true, but saying "no indiator" exists for such possibilities is incorrect"
We have a strong understanding of organic chemistry, we don't understand how non-directed organic chemical reactions can account for: prebiotic molecules to biomolecules to an organism that can replicate it's genetic information and metabolize to maintain its vitality.
It's because of our strong understanding of organic chemistry that the prebiotic chemical scenario seems implausible.
"A more accurate statement would be that there's no evidence for the presence of a creator either."
How so? It's more conceivable that intelligence and intention played a role when considering the complexity & specification involved; opposed to the laws of physics and routine chemical reactivity.
Comment by Doug — August 30, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
The reason prebiotic scenarios are implausible lies in the nature of functional nucleic acids. Organic chemical reactions might conceivably produce a nucleic acid under certain extra-cellular conditions. What they would not produce is a functional genome which is both sequence dependent and needing of an accompanying transcription/translation mechanism. I'll address the references you cited when you indicate precisely what is in them that leads you to believe that organic chemical reactions would generate the properties of nucleic acids that confers their encoding capacities.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Doug,
I think if I responded to that, we'd talking past each other, with what seems conceivable to me is implausible to you, and vice versa.
Bradford –
Shades of creationist abiogenesis again?
For Shapiro's review, from the abstract:
Among the studies that Shapiro cites in this line of thinking is Ogasawara et al (2000), which demonstrate oligomerization of adenosine monomers in a hydrothermal vent simulation. Hydrothermal vents provide the necessary energy for driving such reactions, as well as possible cycling of such thermal energy. True, how the adenosine molecules came to be there is another related and unaddressed question to which I don't have a clear answer – yet the possibility of odd chemical soups in hydrothermal vents is not inconceivable, especially given the number and variety of vent conditions in our modern oceans.
Comment by Daniel — August 30, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Our critiques of abiogenesis are based on our knowledge not our ignorance. It is the assumption of the existence of unknown saving data which indicates abiogenesis is based more on hope than data.
I'll address the references you cited when you indicate precisely what is in them that leads you to believe that organic chemical reactions would generate the properties of nucleic acids that confers their encoding capacities.
For Shapiro's review, from the abstract:
These points are illustrated here by considering the often cited oligomerization of activated RNA components by clay minerals. A more likely alternative for the origin of life is one in which a collection of small organic molecules multiply their numbers through catalyzed reaction cycles, driven by a flow of available free energy. Although a number of possible systems of this type have been discussed, no experimental demonstration has been made. The inclusion of a "driver" reaction, directly coupled to the energy source, may lead to a solution.
Among the studies that Shapiro cites in this line of thinking is Ogasawara et al (2000), which demonstrate oligomerization of adenosine monomers in a hydrothermal vent simulation. Hydrothermal vents provide the necessary energy for driving such reactions, as well as possible cycling of such thermal energy. True, how the adenosine molecules came to be there is another related and unaddressed question to which I don't have a clear answer – yet the possibility of odd chemical soups in hydrothermal vents is not inconceivable, especially given the number and variety of vent conditions in our modern oceans.
I'll repeat the previous remark I made because it has not been addressed by this reference. Organic chemical reactions might conceivably produce a nucleic acid under certain extra-cellular conditions. What they would not produce is a functional genome which is both sequence dependent and needing of an accompanying transcription/translation mechanism.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Yet there's more data to support the RNA World Hypothesis than there is for a Designer's existence. Funny, don't you think?
That's the point I'm making.
And regarding your point – I did address that, in referring to creationist abiogenesis. IOW, no rational biologists nor chemist is suggesting that it's possible for organic chemical reactions in extracellular conditions to generate a functional genome. That simple oligonucleotides gained the capacity for replication, and thus descent with modification, at first based on some freak chance of hydrothermal vent conditions and then perpetuated in the closed environment of a lipid-like membrane, is not something that you've shown to be implausible.
Indeed, which is less plausible – generation of a functional genome in extracellular conditions, generation of a genome by assembly de novo by a Designer, or a series of small plausible steps resulting from descent with modification of a oligonucleotide?
I argue that it's the last one. But heck, the evidence is still vague, and speculation abounds.
And in any case, there's still no research being done on ID explanations of abiogenesis or irreducible complexity to be biased against.
Comment by Daniel — August 30, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Hi Daniel,
You said: "I think if I responded to that, we'd talking past each other, with what seems conceivable to me is implausible to you, and vice versa."
I don't believe that it will amount to talking past each other. I've studied and am re-studying organic chemistry. The products of reactions tend toward being more stable than the reactants. Even with an outside source of energy circumventing entropic increase we still don't see reactions that can account for the complexity of a DNA molecule or an RNA molecule, and certainly not accounting for functions that seem to be inherent to these biomolecules.
Comment by Doug — August 30, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Hi Edarrell,
"If one is committed to God being behind everything, and if one is also convinced Darwin's theories lead to evil, might not there be some carryover effect in how one evaluates ID arguments and the science of evolution?"
Sure. I've never claimed this is a black-and-white issue.
"That's why bench experiment and field observation, publication and replication are so vital to good science."
Agreed. But then again, I never claimed that those things should be abolished. My post simply points out some of the shortcomings of this system.
"Is there any update on when anyone in ID will pose some testable ID hypotheses, and test them?"
As for testable ID hypotheses, such have already been suggested, both here and at Mike's webpage.
As for testing them, that is a matter of resources: Having a diverse network of researchers, money for equipment, lab assistants, and space rent, as well as a atmosphere that allows for tentative guesses and initial failures without the researchers having to fear for their careers. Many of these factors involve the cooperation of other people, leading us back to that all-too-human tendency to err.
Comment by Krauze — August 30, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Doug,
And these products appear to not have any possibility of expansive replication under conditions of cyclic reactions, like what I refer to as possibly occurring in some hydrothermal vents?
Granted, what I'm talking about is just hypothetical, but doesn't it appear more reasonable that descent with modification extended back beyond the last universal common ancestor, or even well-before the first self-sufficient cell?
Conversely, again, what is the precident in data we do have available for large, improbably leaps chosen by a cognitive entity (other than artificial selection by man)?
Comment by Daniel — August 30, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"Fortunately, there are forums for IDists to publish their research, such as the online Journal "Progress in Complexity, Information and Design", and "Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum"."
This would be an appropriate argument to make if I was claiming that ID supporters had a lot of research articles, but nowhere to publish them. However, that isn't the argument I'm making. Try reading my post again.
Comment by Krauze — August 30, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Hi Krauze,
You said some scientists will be biased against ID arguments because they think IDism is dangerous nonsense. I was trying to show that IDists nevertheless have forums available to publish their work. I would also suggest that virtually every new scientific hypothesis faces resistance. Darwins' theory certainly did, and not just from christians, but other scientists who doubted the significance of natural selection. If I'm missing the point of your post, perhaps you can elucidate.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 30, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Hi Daniel,
"I was arguing that for this bias against the evidence for ID first requires ID to have evidence (peer-reviewed, reproducible, and corroborated evidence)."
Evidence is an interpretation of data. What one person considers evidence for a view may not be considered evidence by another person. For example, a YEC might think that unless she can be shown a fossil of every organism that ever existed, there is no evidence for evolution. Conversely, someone like Dawkins considers anecdotes sufficient evidence to claim that a Catholic upbringing is a form of child abuse.
As for your inability to "see any such evidence to be biased against", that raises the question of just what evidence you would consider sufficient to suggest design.
Comment by Krauze — August 30, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"You said some scientists will be biased against ID arguments because they think IDism is dangerous nonsense."
Do you disagree with this claim?
"I was trying to show that IDists nevertheless have forums available to publish their work."
Yes, but as I also explained to Ed, publishing is just the last step in a long line of requirements. And at many of these steps, you need the cooperation of others to help you along.
"I would also suggest that virtually every new scientific hypothesis faces resistance. Darwins' theory certainly did, and not just from christians, but other scientists who doubted the significance of natural selection."
Indeed it did. And do you think that might have affected the acceptance of it?
Besides, I seem to remember that Darwin didn't actually publish any peer-reviewed research…
"If I'm missing the point of your post, perhaps you can elucidate."
You can start by answering this question: Do you think scientists are biased against intelligent design?
Comment by Krauze — August 30, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
"You can start by answering this question: Do you think scientists are biased against intelligent design?"
It would help if there was at least a testable theory for ID.
Comment by Sleena — August 30, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Hi Sleena,
Would having a testable theory of intelligent design make answering my question easier?
Comment by Krauze — August 30, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Krauze:
Yes, but would you ask a YEC for interpretation on the origin of life? No, you'd ask a biologist or a chemist, with some familiarity with what the world was like 3.8+ billion years ago.
For comparison, would you ask a YEC for his/her interpretation of plate techtonics and the breakup of Pangaea?
Comment by Daniel — August 30, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Yet there's more data to support the RNA World Hypothesis than there is for a Designer's existence. Funny, don't you think?
That's the point I'm making.
There is very little data to support the RNA world which is mostly hype. The data supports an intelligent inference.
And regarding your point – I did address that, in referring to creationist abiogenesis. IOW, no rational biologists nor chemist is suggesting that it's possible for organic chemical reactions in extracellular conditions to generate a functional genome. That simple oligonucleotides gained the capacity for replication, and thus descent with modification, at first based on some freak chance of hydrothermal vent conditions and then perpetuated in the closed environment of a lipid-like membrane, is not something that you've shown to be implausible.
None of this shows how the specific sequences that are properties of functional nucleic acids are acquired.
Indeed, which is less plausible – generation of a functional genome in extracellular conditions, generation of a genome by assembly de novo by a Designer, or a series of small plausible steps resulting from descent with modification of a oligonucleotide?
I argue that it's the last one. But heck, the evidence is still vague, and speculation abounds.
What small steps generate a genome in conditions where there exists no genomes? This is a story not a scientific description of a process.
And in any case, there's still no research being done on ID explanations of abiogenesis or irreducible complexity to be biased against.
There is research being conducted all the time with inferences favorable to ID. There is no such thing as categorized research unless the researchers have determined a favorable outcome to their theory in advance of the research itself. There is simply research which can produce data for or against a hypothesis. The vast bulk of research that has produced the data we have, was conducted by researchers who were not directly focused on the natural history side implications of their research. I'm currently reading an article referring to research conducted on nucleotide sequence bias found around termination codons. The results have some implications for prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms including the natural history of them. That however was not the focus of the researchers. This is the case more often than not. Unfortunately many do not pick up on data that is not clearly designated as impacting theories related to origins or evolution. They have to have the data spoon fed to them.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
No, there's not. What "data" would qualify for you as "supporting…a Designer's existence", anyway? How about specific and fulfilled prophecies? How about a "signature" of sorts in Nature and Mathematics? Or do you suffer from Disconfirmation Bias?
Comment by Douglas — August 30, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Hi Krauze,
Yes, just like any other new idea. A NASA scientist's own brother debunked his hypothesis that a Mars meteorite contained evidence of microbial Martian life. IDists need thicker skins; skeptical criticism comes with advocating radical new ideas.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 30, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
August 30th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Interestingly enough Darwin was exasperated by those of his day who would not accept the new paradigm. There is an inertia to human nature that resists challenges to familiar, and for some, cherished concepts.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Hi Daniel,
"Yes, but would you ask a YEC for interpretation on the origin of life? No, you'd ask a biologist or a chemist, with some familiarity with what the world was like 3.8+ billion years ago."
So where do you learn what would constitute evidence for intelligent design?
And what would you consider evidence for intelligent design?
Comment by Krauze — August 31, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Bradford wrote:
"There is an inertia to human nature that resists challenges to familiar, and for some, cherished concepts."
Yes, and in science, we overcome inertia by using our new ideas as predictors and producing new data when we challenge long-held concepts. This process works quite well. In fact, it often results in Nobel Prizes for the challengers.
What are ID proponents waiting for? Did Stan Prusiner convince his colleagues of the prion hypothesis by writing books, or by producing new data?
Comment by Smokey — August 31, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Krause wrote:
"Evidence is an interpretation of data."
You are spectacularly wrong, Krause. Evidence is data. Interpretation is separated from data in the most basic template for the primary literature (i.e., a document that has yet to be produced by a single ID advocate): there are separate sections usually titled "Results" and "Discussion."
"What one person considers evidence for a view may not be considered evidence by another person."
No, to have a rational discussion at all, we have to agree that evidence exists regardless of one's interpretation of it. That's why cherry-picking is dishonest.
"For example, a YEC might think that unless she can be shown a fossil of every organism that ever existed, there is no evidence for evolution."
Such a person would be a liar.
"Conversely, someone like Dawkins considers anecdotes sufficient evidence to claim that a Catholic upbringing is a form of child abuse."
Here, you're talking about something totally different: whether a volume of evidence was sufficient to reach a conclusion. There's no doubt that some aspects of a Catholic upbringing (the abusive behavior of many nuns in parochial schools) suggest abuse.
"Yes, but as I also explained to Ed, publishing is just the last step in a long line of requirements."
But publishing new data (not merely publishing) is the FIRST step. You've got it all wrong.
Comment by Smokey — August 31, 2006 @ 4:21 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Krauze,
I've been waiting for some experimental evidence, in a peer-reviewed journal to address that very concern. But nothing of the sort has been published. And I know, you're accusing the science community of bias or discrimination against such views – seemingly as if it were some sort of conspiracy theory, with all scientists plotting against ID. Besides that being silly (if that's really what you're implying), comparing patterns in biology with what we know "Intelligently Designed" life to look like is impossible, because we have no idea what a "Designer" would chose to "Design," without the retrospective conclusion that (1) We're "Designed," (2) We're made of cells, so (3) The "Designer" must've chosen to make life out of cells.
This problem for ID (and Creation Science before it) isn't news, but IDers don't seem to recognize that this problem appears unresolvable, and to permenantly lock ID into the realm of speculation. Nevertheless, identifying that a "Designer" would have the motive and the means to "Design" life as it is today would constitute the evidence that science is looking for.
And thus this all comes back to the fact that to be science, "Design" researchers must start doing experiments and publishing their results.
You also said:
Smokey's right – this is a beautiful example of how ID proponents horribly misunderstand the scientific process, and how paradigm shift happens. You simply cannot influence the theoretical framework by dodging the peer review process and aiming instead at public opinion and considering the difference of opinion from creationists as the foundation for a controversy of science. There's a darn good reason why ID is non-existent in discussions of biology at symposia and the classroom – because there's no experimental testing of hypotheses generated from this theory, no published results, nothing.
Scientists just won't give you the time of day if you don't publish. And, *hint, hint*, ID proponents are not failing to publish because of bias, they just haven't produced anything to be biased against (as I've said several times already in this thread alone).
Comment by Daniel — August 31, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"Yes,"
Good. Let's dispense with this illusion of intelligent design being rejected by a group of rational, subjective scientists.
"just like any other new idea."
Just like any other idea? I don't agree. For example, I doubt that every new idea is perceived as a subversive plot of the Religious Right.
"A NASA scientist's own brother debunked his hypothesis that a Mars meteorite contained evidence of microbial Martian life."
Did his entire department sign a statement denouncing his hypothesis? Were there editorials in science journals asking scientists to "take a stand" against his hypothesis?
"IDists need thicker skins; skeptical criticism comes with advocating radical new ideas."
Sure. But my argument isn't about "poor ID supporters getting their skin bruised". In fact, my argument doesn't invoke morality or pity. What I am doing is pointing out some facts about the scientific community; that the rhetoric about ID critics just waiting to accept intelligent design, if only ID supporters would present some evidence, is just that: Rhetoric.
Comment by Krauze — August 31, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Hi Daniel,
"And I know, you're accusing the science community of bias or discrimination against such views – seemingly as if it were some sort of conspiracy theory, with all scientists plotting against ID."
Let's look at the article from Scientific American that I linked to:
Do you think that these people ignored the contradictory statements by their own preferred candidate because of some conspiracy, making them "plot" against the other candidate?
"Nevertheless, identifying that a "Designer" would have the motive and the means to "Design" life as it is today would constitute the evidence that science is looking for."
OK, so "evidence for design" would be to find the designers and investigate their motives and means for designing life.
"And thus this all comes back to the fact that to be science, "Design" researchers must start doing experiments and publishing their results."
But let's remember what type of evidence you're demanding: Knowledge of the motive and means of the designer. So when you're talking about "experiments", you're really asking ID supporters to crack out their Indiana Jones gear and go looking for the designer.
"You simply cannot influence the theoretical framework by dodging the peer review process and aiming instead at public opinion and considering the difference of opinion from creationists as the foundation for a controversy of science."
Another good example of confirmation bias: In my post, I pointed to some every-day examples of people suspending their skepticism of stories that reinforced their stereotypes, and pointed to some research showing that partisans tend to pick and choose the evidence that support their beliefs. From this, you thought that I was advocating that people should dodge the peer review process.
"Scientists just won't give you the time of day if you don't publish."
This is clearly false, as we have several self-professed scientists giving us some time of their day by commenting here. And Richard Dawkins, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, has given his "Catholic upbringing = child abuse" theory more than the time of day, based on nothing more than some letter an anonymous fan sent him.
"And, *hint, hint*, ID proponents are not failing to publish because of bias, they just haven't produced anything to be biased against (as I've said several times already in this thread alone)."
No need to "hint" at that, as I have already dealt with it earlier:
Comment by Krauze — August 31, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Krauze,
What does political inclinations have to do with whether ID has produced any published experimental data to be biased against?
And yes, IDers have suggested hypotheses, but none that I've seen that are testable that would support the claims of causation by a cognizant entity. And you note, that researchers, money, etc. are necessary – how about the Discovery Institute cut their PR activity budget and give out a research grant? Or maybe some ID proponents (Behe, Dembski, etc.) could submit grant proposals to the NIH or NSF, or one of their many wealthy benefactors…
But no, there aren't any ID advocates attempting any such thing, is there?
Comment by Daniel — August 31, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Krauze wrote:
"As for testable ID hypotheses, such have already been suggested, both here and at Mike's webpage."
If they are so testable, test them! Do the hypotheses distinguish between ID and MET?
"As for testing them, that is a matter of resources: Having a diverse network of researchers,"
Not needed.
"money for equipment, lab assistants, and space rent,…"
The DI for the first and third, of course. The lab assistants aren't needed.
"… as well as a atmosphere that allows for tentative guesses and initial failures without the researchers having to fear for their careers."
The DI again!
"Many of these factors involve the cooperation of other people, leading us back to that all-too-human tendency to err."
It looks to me like you have zero confidence in the veracity of your hypotheses. Data come long before books in real science.
Comment by Smokey — August 31, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Makes me wonder how many data-filled articles Darwin published "long before" he published his book.
Comment by Afon — August 31, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Afon,
Newton and Copernicus wrote books too in their time – maybe we should be more skeptical of their conclusions also (namely, Gravity and Heliocentrism). LOL
Actually though, before there were formalized journals, books and correspondences were the only way to communicate science. Of course, back then, it wasn't science – it was natural philosophy.
Interestingly though – I wouldn't object to calling ID philosophy – perhaps "supernatural philsophy" would be a better term though.
Comment by Daniel — August 31, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 8:34 pm
I know the sentiment. Origin of life beliefs could be described as philosophical or perhaps religious.
Comment by Bradford — August 31, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Why not a gubbermint grant?
Comment by Bradford — August 31, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
August 31st, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Hi Krauze,
That is an extra cross any legitimate IDist researchers have to bear, but they can thank the good people at the DI and others who were primarily interested in using ID to advance their political, religious and cultural agendas. That also doesn't change the fact that all radical new scientific hypotheses face an uphill battle to gain acceptance.
So what? If you present sufficient evidence, it will eventually be accepted, even if, as you hypothesize, the present generation of scientists never do. Or are you trying to claim there is already substantial evidence of intelligent design that scientists are just too blind to see, even though there isn't even a theory of ID yet?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 31, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
September 1st, 2006 at 6:50 am
BTW Krauze, Dembski disagrees that ID can't get a fair hearing for the evidence. He said
Comment by Aagcobb — September 1, 2006 @ 6:50 am
September 1st, 2006 at 7:01 am
Afon writes:
A partial list:
Darwin, Charles, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. Being the First Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle.' London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1842.
Darwin, Charles, A Monograph of the Fossil Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes of Great Britain. London, Palaeontographical Society, 1851
Darwin, Charles, A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes. London, Ray Society, 1851.
Darwin, Charles, A Monograph on the Fossil Balanidæ and Verrucidæ of Great Britain. London, Palaeontographical Society, 1854.
Comment by KC — September 1, 2006 @ 7:01 am
September 1st, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Ouch, Afon! To add to KC's spanking, Darwin's critics weren't converted by the book–it took data.
And why would you want to use Darwin as an analogy, when temporally, Prusiner is much better? Moreover, don't you believe that Darwin was wrong? Why wouldn't you prefer an analogy in which you were convinced that the insurgent was correct?
Bradford asked:
"Why not a gubbermint grant?"
The government (NIH and NSF) has higher standards. They usually require preliminary data.
You see, even for real scientists starting out, their acquisition of the needed preliminary data is funded by the institution's (usually a university) startup package. Even then, an assistant professor's first grant usually comes from a private source. Mine came from the American Heart Association, for example. It then took nearly a year before I got an NIH grant.
Aren't there many Christianist universities that could play this startup role, in addition to the DI? What's preventing the DI from putting up a real physical institute?
Comment by Smokey — September 1, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
September 1st, 2006 at 6:50 pm
KC– Just so I'm straight on what you consider data (and, especially, what you consider sufficient data), you'd consider a list such as that–acknowledging, ofcourse, that it is partial, but assuming it is representitive– enough to justify Darwin's claims and thesis in his book?
Comment by Afon — September 1, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
September 2nd, 2006 at 12:23 am
Afon writes:
Of course not, as any survey of the data drawn from the published (and unpublished) work of his own and others in The Origin of Species will reveal.
Comment by KC — September 2, 2006 @ 12:23 am
September 2nd, 2006 at 5:35 am
Just to make myself clear, one of the hallmarks of The Origin of Species is the impressive amount of data (his own and that of others) Darwin presented to support his argument.
Comment by KC — September 2, 2006 @ 5:35 am
September 2nd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Hi Smokey,
"Interpretation is separated from data in the most basic template for the primary literature (i.e., a document that has yet to be produced by a single ID advocate): there are separate sections usually titled "Results" and "Discussion.""
Of course data and its interpretation is separated; they aren't the same thing. In fact, researchers often use data obtained by other researchers and use it to support other hypotheses. For example, a lack of transitional fossils used to be taken as evidence of an incomplete fossil record. After Gould and Elredge proposed punctuated equilibrium, the same data became evidence of fast speciation events.
Krauze: "Conversely, someone like Dawkins considers anecdotes sufficient evidence to claim that a Catholic upbringing is a form of child abuse."
Smokey: "Here, you're talking about something totally different: whether a volume of evidence was sufficient to reach a conclusion."
No, I'm talking about the type of evidence. Earlier, Daniel lectured us that evidence needs to be "peer-reviewed, reproducible, and corroborated". A letter with a fan's childhood experiences is neither.
"But publishing new data (not merely publishing) is the FIRST step. You've got it all wrong."
Publishing may be the first step in getting a hypothesis accepted, but to publish something, you first need data. Getting that is itself a long process, during which you need the cooperation of others to help you along.
BTW, do you think a scientist who sees intelligent design as dangerous nonsense might let this perception affect his or her evaluation of it?
Comment by Krauze — September 2, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
September 3rd, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Krauze wrote:
"Of course data and its interpretation is separated; they aren't the same thing."
That contradicts what you wrote: "Evidence is an interpretation of data." That was the incoherent statement I was correcting.
"In fact, researchers often use data obtained by other researchers and use it to support other hypotheses."
Yes, but real researchers then obtain new data to test those hypotheses. No ID advocate has done (and I predict that none will do) that.
"Publishing may be the first step in getting a hypothesis accepted,…"
Then why did you write, "…publishing is just the last step in a long line of requirements," Krauze? And why is "getting a hypothesis accepted" a goal?
You've really dropped the mask on this one. Real scientists use testing of hypotheses to look for the truth; we have few qualms about publishing data that falsify our hypotheses. The goal of pseudoscientists is to get their notions accepted without making them fit existing data and without publishing new data. Which describes your MO?
"…but to publish something, you first need data."
To publish something in the primary scientific literature, yes.
"Getting that is itself a long process, during which you need the cooperation of others to help you along."
Wrong. Getting data often happens very quickly. You're also glossing over the need to make a hypothesis fit the extant data, a requirement that your buddy Mike Gene ignored in his post about Tetrahymena. He goes on about his hypothesis as a guide to research, when in fact, the database put on the Web by the authors of the paper he cited is a portal to looking at the existing data, which Mike didn't bother with.
"BTW, do you think a scientist who sees intelligent design as dangerous nonsense might let this perception affect his or her evaluation of it?"
My view of ID as nonsense is based on my evaluation of it, so your question is incoherent. ID proponents don't bother to look at extant data before pretending that they have viable hypotheses (and even "theories," a real joke); they don't see hypotheses as tools; their goal is not truth, but getting others to accept their notions (i.e., your clumsy admission here); and they have no interest in working to acquire any new data.
Given those characteristics, how could ID be anything but nonsense?
Comment by Smokey — September 3, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
September 4th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Smokey, I don't have time for your snearing attitude and your attempts to paint everything I write in the worst possible way. So consider yourself banned from this thread.
Comment by Krauze — September 4, 2006 @ 1:34 pm