These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted on Saturday, June 21st, 2008 at 2:05 pm and is filed under Random Stuff.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
"It is still a mystery, really," says UBC computer science professor Prof. Dinesh Pai. "No one has ever completely mapped out the processes at the level of specific neurons, muscles and tendons."
Pai is part of a UBC team leading an international initiative to do just that. "Essentially, we are reverse engineering the brain to produce the first working computational model of the complex interplay between our minds and our bodies."
Since this is a 'Speak Your Mind' thread, I'd like to mention something that has been bothering me for a long time.
Salvador Cordova has earned a reputation among those involved in the ID/creationism/evolution debate for blatant and chronic quote-mining, deceitful ad hominems, questionable debate tactics, and general dishonesty. The evidence shows that this reputation is deserved (I'm happy to provide examples if requested, but I think they might be unnecessary given how notorious Sal's behavior has become).
What bothers me is the lack of public condemnation of this behavior from Sal's fellow ID supporters.
I'm not saying that every ID supporter should police every statement made by fellow supporters. We are not our brothers' keepers, after all. I'm also not saying that ID supporters at Telic Thoughts should go out of their way to monitor statements made on other blogs. That would be an unreasonable expectation. But Sal has behaved this way on this very blog, and certainly many of his offensive actions elsewhere have been noted here by critics. It seems odd that he has been criticized so rarely, if at all, by ID supporters here. (If you think I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to consider evidence to the contrary).
Though I may disagree with ID supporters on many issues, I do believe that almost all of you take morality seriously, and that your moral codes do not sanction the kind of behavior Sal consistently indulges in.
His dishonesty and weird ad hominems are not just distasteful, they are downright counterproductive to his aims. Since Sal likes to portray himself as being among the leaders of the ID movement, those who don't know better might think that this is what ID is about, and that this is how IDers argue. I also suspect that the lack of repudiation by fellow ID supporters leads some observers to the conclusion that Sal's tactics enjoy general approval. That is a terrible message to be sending.
Perhaps some of you haven't said anything because you thought that ID critics were taking care of the problem. Indeed, ID critics have learned to keep an eye on Salvador and are pretty quick to point out his offenses, so it's possible that many of you have felt no reason to add anything when the critics have already weighed in.
If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?
I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.
The more opinions, the better.
Thanks. I feel better, having gotten that off my chest.
Then I would like to mention this fascinating project…
Now that is interesting. Do you think they will consider the soul or any spiritual aspects of the brain, or just the physical?
robin
I have had a few discussions with Sal over the years, some of which have got quite heated. I seem to remember he would delete whole threads at ARN if the debate was not going his way. I actually believe that he considers himself to be honest, he just has different ideas about what is honest and what is not. Some significant people on the ID side really seem to see nothing wrong in twisting another person's words to mean something entirely new; Dembski seems to be one such (see here for example). Whether this is the case for all the quote-miners, I would not like to guess; perhaps Dembski and Sal are merely following the moral example of their creationist forebears.
I also get the impression that his debating tactics (the ad homs., the deliberate provoking) he regards as all party of the cut-and-thrust of debate. I think he got Ron Okimoto banned from ARN by continually winding Ron up, and Ron made one angy response too many; I would guess Sal sees that as perfectly moral. I would be very surprised if he complained if the tables were turned - that is how debates are practiced in his opinion.
I am not supporting what Sal does in any way, I just do not thionk he is a bad person. However I too would be interested to hear what the IDists think of Sal.
ID critics are notorious for their lack of civility and their unwillingness to call others on it.
It is a well known fact that your opponents are just awful - whatever side and whatever the debate. I must admit that I do not post at Panda's Thumb and "The Swamp" because of the lack of civility there, preferring to debate at more neutral venues where the critics seem to be better behaved.
Am I the only one who finds it to be in incredibly bad taste to not just mention a disapproval one has of another poster's actions/ideas, but to try and devote a thread to said person as a subject?
If Sal is guilty of what's being argued here, call him out on it during a discussion. I think TT is tremendously tolerant of such things, and no one should object to such a reply. Arguing about how the 'ID community' views Sal because opponents think he's snarky and unfair in arguing strikes me as such penny ante bull. Especially considering how a lot of active blog participants in these debates themselves behave on a regular basis.
ID critics are notorious for their lack of civility and their unwillingness to call others on it.
Pixie: It is a well known fact that your opponents are just awful - whatever side and whatever the debate.
You have to fight against a natural tendency to ignore transgressions of those who agree with you. Once I holed a comment by an IDist even though I agreed with the substance of his comment. The trouble was he was not only disrespectful of his opponent but he spiced his criticism with a generous dose of profanity which left me no choice by the standards I set for myself.
I must admit that I do not post at Panda's Thumb and "The Swamp" because of the lack of civility there, preferring to debate at more neutral venues where the critics seem to be better behaved.
There are no perfect forums but I think TT is pretty fair by comparison to most places.
If Sal is guilty of what's being argued here, call him out on it during a discussion. I think TT is tremendously tolerant of such things, and no one should object to such a reply. Arguing about how the 'ID community' views Sal because opponents think he's snarky and unfair in arguing strikes me as such penny ante bull. Especially considering how a lot of active blog participants in these debates themselves behave on a regular basis.
I'm not comfortable with it either and would not be even if someone like Pixie or Zachriel, with whom I frequently have disagreements, were the objects of complaint.
Am I the only one who finds it to be in incredibly bad taste to not just mention a disapproval one has of another poster's actions/ideas, but to try and devote a thread to said person as a subject?
Null,
Am I the only one who finds double standards to be in incredibly bad taste?
Which of these did you decry as being in bad taste when they were posted at Telic Thoughts?
Dawkins Misuses Science
Fundamentalist Dawkins Speaks Out
What happens when an unstoppable bigot meets an immovable blowhard?
Dawkins: Unqualified to Pass Judgment on Intelligent Design
PZ Myers, the Infinitely Outraged
Dawkins is still jumping the shark
Dawkins Misrepresents Konner
2006: The Year Dawkins Jumped The Shark
The Clueless Authoritarian
Dawkins says, "Eugenics may not be bad"
He's So Sexy!
Dawkins and His Disciples
"You can watch Richard Dawkins slumming in someone's basement below."
Dawkins Goes Limp on Free Will
Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory
Poor oppressed PZ
Dawkins Still Won't Defend Science
Hitchens: He's no Dawkins or Harris
Sam Harris's Speaking Fee
Sam Harris: Argument From Extremism
Sam Harris' Studies
Dennett Gushes Over Dawkins
Archie and the New Atheists
Torturing Muslims for Buddha
A Sugar-Coated Dawkins
Danger, Will Robinson!!
"Pinker comes across as an Establishment Guy desperately trying to look dangerous by cutting up his milk toast in a new pattern."
A Useless Critic
Miller Misrepresents Dembski
The "Pro-Science/Pro-Reason" Barkers
Brayton Spreads Misinformation
More Authoritarian Pretentions
Null, I respectfully suggest — not that I'm criticizing you, or anything else in bad taste — that you might be applying a double standard here.
If Sal is guilty of what's being argued here, call him out on it during a discussion.
Believe me, I have, and I will. (And if you follow the link, that's one of the milder examples of Salvador's quote-mining).
Look, folks. I'm not saying that either side of this debate is innocent. Obviously. I am saying that Salvador's behavior stands out as being way beyond the pale, and I can back that up.
If it's not in bad taste for TT to criticize Dawkins, Harris, Myers, etc., then it's not in bad taste for anybody to criticize Salvador. Or you, or me for that matter, if we ever do something that is as worthy of criticism as what Salvador has done.
If it's not in bad taste for TT to criticize Dawkins, Harris, Myers, etc., then it's not in bad taste for anybody to criticize Salvador.
Here is the difference none of those folks post here. If they did I am sure they would be given the upmost respect and If they were civil I'm sure the criticizing they get from folks here would slow down a lot.
Notice there are no posts on your list about Allen McNeal.
Sal on the other hand like Allen is here all the time. There are not too many YEC's who would risk it. It takes a lot of bravery on his part IMHO.
I for one enjoy his comments even though I disagree with him about lots of things. If he weren't here I would miss his unique perspective.
Just my two cents
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 21, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
Which of these did you decry as being in bad taste when they were posted at Telic Thoughts?
robin, I said outright - if Sal is doing something you find objectionable, by all means call him on it in a thread, assuming you aren't banned on the forum you want to challenge him on.
Your response is a list of thread titles featuring Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and otherwise. Those threads were largely, even exclusively, devoted to responding to claims and comments made by those featured in the title. You're not responding to any particular claim of Sal here, but making Sal himself the central issue, claiming that he's a liar (among other things) and demanding a defense from the rest of us on why we're not denouncing him.
I've not seen a thread on TT where, say.. the OP denounced PZ Myers for being a clear liar and hothead, and called on the resident atheists and ID-skeptics to join in denouncing him. Maybe I missed it, I do miss some threads. And while I admit that would be pretty funny, I'd also say it'd be little more than a dog and pony show. If you want to go for it, hey - I'm not a mod here, what they want goes. But for someone who recently showed up here talking about the virtues of dispassionate discussion and reason, you sure come across as yet another emotionally invested person with an axe to grind.
Incidentally, so long as we're talking about standards of behavior: If someone is banned from a forum or blog, it's in incredibly poor taste for that person to keep showing up under aliases. Agreed?
robin: If it's not in bad taste for TT to criticize Dawkins, Harris, Myers, etc., then it's not in bad taste for anybody to criticize Salvador.
Your criticism of Salvador is a personal attack on another TT member. Critiquing the ideas of high level IDists and anti-IDists is fair game. Dembski has been criticized on numerous occasions. If you don't like the blog go elsewhere.
Here is the difference none of those folks post here.
So it's in good taste to criticize people as long as you do it on a blog they don't post on, but it's bad taste to criticize fellow blog members no matter what they say or do?
And if so, why has there been so much criticism of fellow blog members at TT?
If they did I am sure they would be given the upmost respect…
Your powers of rationalization are astounding. You might as well just say "It's okay when we do it. It's not okay when you do it."
Incidentally, so long as we're talking about standards of behavior: If someone is banned from a forum or blog, it's in incredibly poor taste for that person to keep showing up under aliases. Agreed?
That would depend on the circumstances of their banning(s). Do you have a concrete example in mind?
So it's in good taste to criticize people as long as you do it on a blog they don't post on,
No it's just that there is no other way to interact with them here. You don't expect those in power here to praise them for their actions now do you?
but it's bad taste to criticize fellow blog members no matter what they say or do?
No, but this blog allows people to be specific in their criticism and then allows folks to respond. That's what you should do if you have a problem with Sal IMHO
You mean the kind of respect Allen MacNeill was given when he posted here?
I don't understand
Are you sugesting we treat Sal like Stunney treated Allen MacNeil or are you saying that Sal acts like stunney?
Or are you saying that comments like stunneys should get a stronger than response than simply ignoring them and removing them from relevence?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 21, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Your powers of rationalization are astounding. You might as well just say "It's okay when we do it. It's not okay when you do it."
Who said 'it's okay'? I've defended people who I, frankly, have little respect for when I thought the particular charges were unfair. I've openly disagreed with people I otherwise respect when I thought they made a bad call. And again, I told you outright - challenge him, challenge anyone, when you believe they're being unfair. But walking into an open thread and griping about how someone here is a liar and unfair and the anti-ID people think it's just so terrible and the pro-ID people should be denouncing him - why should I regard that as anything more than a joke?
I like the 'that depends on the circumstances of the banning' bit. Rationalization, indeed.
robin is very much like the fundamentalist religionistas he pretends to be at odds with. In his world there is only room for strict literal interpretations. A perfectly fundamentalist POV.
I can't decide if his obsession is anti-Semitic or anti-Christian, as he doesn't appear to know there's any difference in regards to the Mosaic law. Heck, all the arguments I've seen appear to have been borrowed wholesale from II and the Swamp (and like-minded sites). Re-hashed crap.
Talk about the height of irrationality - "I'd wage a fight I cannot win against a Being who saw it coming before the dawn of time based on moral indignation the very same Being imparted to me."
Why you were unable to grasp that is not for me to determine. But it might hint at an inability to comprehend the entire discussion"¦. possibly being too clouded your assumptions…
(These four examples come from just two threads here).
Bradford,
Does this mean that Todd and I are "high-level anti-IDists", since we're obviously "fair game" in the eyes of TTers?
If so, thanks for the compliment, but I think you're exaggerating.
If you don't like the blog go elsewhere.
Are you kidding? I love TT! But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better without the double standards.
I agree with you that Salvador sometimes uses deplorable tactics such as quote mining and character assassination. However, I don't think you want to stoop to the same level and start an ad hominem attack in retaliation. You can easily win on merit.
Consider his latest attack on evolutionary theory launched at UD, Gambler's ruin is Darwin's ruin . Using one of the simplest models in population genetics—a biased random walk—as an example, he argued that randomness makes a small selective advantage ineffective and that "Darwin was absolutely wrong to suggest that the emergence of a novel trait will be preserved in most cases." On the basis of that Sal concluded that "Unfortunately for Darwinism, natural selection has little defense against the perils of gambler's ruin."
Soon thereafter, geneticist Joe Felsenstein took apart Sal's claim at Pamda's Thumb: Gambler's Ruin is Darwin's Gain. The thread is long, but the bottom line is simple: although most advantageous mutations do not survive thanks to randomness, a few do and spread through the entire population; natural selection works and gambler's ruin poses no threat to evolutionary theory. Sal did not contest this argument and changed the subject.
It was also pointed out on this forum by Zachriel that—contrary to what Sal stated—Darwin himself realized that not every advantageous change is preserved by natural selection. Again, no contest.
But let's imagine that Darwin goofed and thought mistakenly that every beneficial mutation is preserved by Nature. Would that invalidate evolutionary theory? Of course not. Darwin's thoughts from 150 years ago and modern evolutionary biology are not the same thing. We don't use the first edition of The origin of species as a textbook in college classes. Evolutionary biologists of today are well aware that beneficiary mutations may disappear. The whole point is moot.
One can see clearly how absurd Sal's argument is when it is transferred mutatis mutandis to physics, specifically to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. Maxwell derived his equations by visualizing electric and magnetic fields as mechanical oscillations of the aether. Back in his day many scientists adhered to the reductionist viewpoint, according to which all physical phenomena had to be reduced to mechanics. As a result, Maxwell denied the very existence of free electric charges [1,2]. In his theory, electric charges came from inhomogeneities in electric polarization. To him they were a derived concept, very much like magnetic charges in ferromagnets. (There are no free magnetic charges as far as we know.) Maxwell was dead wrong on that count: we know now that free electric charges exists and that electric charge is a fundamental characteristic of matter. Electromagnetism is not reducible to mechanics.
If Maxwell was so spectacularly wrong, doesn't it mean that electrodynamics is a theory in crisis? Hardly. Our knowledge has improved over the 150 years since Maxwell and electrodynamics is a theory that has been tested and found adequate. Heck, it even survived the relativity revolution and the death of the aether!
Likewise, Sal can quote mine and mock Darwin all he wants, but none of his arguments that I have considered in some detail undermine evolutionary biology. No need to get personal, robin. You can win on merit.
[1] A. F. Chalmers, The limitations of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory,Isis 64, 469 (1974).
But walking into an open thread and griping about how someone here is a liar and unfair and the anti-ID people think it's just so terrible and the pro-ID people should be denouncing him - why should I regard that as anything more than a joke?
Because Salvador's behavior is not just a harmless joke. I think you should take it seriously when, as just one example, he quote-mines P.Z. Myers' seventeen-year-old daughter to make it appear that she supports bestiality, which Salvador considers to be a "logical consequence of Darwinism".
My goodness. Have you lost sleep over this? Has Salvador ever harmed you?
No and no. Am I entitled to disapprove of someone's behavior only if I am personally harmed by it? I would say that it was wrong for Salvador to slander Skatje Myers, even though his attack was not directed at me.
As olegt has chides, you shouldn't be getting personal here. And let's not even discuss that particular take on bestiality, because frankly, there's a whole lot of interesting psychology there to put it mildly. As for it being a logical consequence of darwinism, what does Peter Singer think of bestiality, and how does he relate it to evolution? Let's not forget that Singer's not exactly a pariah among a certain skeptical crowd.
As for you quoting me with Todd B, I stand by what I said - are you honestly citing that as a personal attack? My saying that it's utterly irrational to commit to revolting against an omnipotent, omniscient being? Or is it my construing Todd B as having said that, and mentioning that he may well have meant something other than he clearly seemed to be saying?
But if you want a personal attack, here's one: You seem to be the return of a banned TT member know for being kind of out of it, your talk of 'rationality, reason, and evidence' seems to be obvious nonsense, and certainly your assertions that people should discuss these things without emotion is false. Plus you often misread what people say and attack phantoms. I think you're far less rational than some YECs I've had the pleasure of speaking with.
I'll understand if this really makes you upset. If you smash your fist against your keyboard a few times and tear up, it may well be an expected response. But all said, you may want to take a few days' break and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with certain debates and forums. It's not healthy.
No and no. Am I entitled to disapprove of someone's behavior only if I am personally harmed by it? I would say that it was wrong for Salvador to slander Skatje Myers, even though his attack was not directed at me.
Hold on there. An open thread pops up and you could have brought up all kinds of issues "“ religion, the Bible, a new scientific paper, the Wedge, evolution, science, ID, creationism, global warming, gas prices, Obama, McCain, whatever. Yet of all the stuff to talk about, you chose another member of TT. Why was that so important?
According to you, "I'd like to mention something that has been bothering me for a long time."
So it sure seems like you are really, really "bothered" by Salvador. It's been bothering you for a long time and you erupted about it when an open thread popped up. This is clearly very important to you.
I'm trying to figure out what has you so deeply bothered, especially since Salvador has never harmed you.
Since this is an open thread, I want to publicly air a gripe:
Why does the press give such a weird and practically talent-free person such as Amy Winehouse such press? I guess the sheeple love her. I can't figure out why.
It's so frustrating.
People, please. Let it go. Just … let it go.
Thanks for listening. I feel better now.
Edit: Although, I must admit the beer drinking on stage and all those tattoos are kinda sexy. I feel so darn conflicted.
I agree with you that Salvador sometimes uses deplorable tactics such as quote mining and character assassination. However, I don't think you want to stoop to the same level and start an ad hominem attack in retaliation. You can easily win on merit.
Hi Oleg,
I think you're mistaking my criticism of Salvador's behavior for an ad hominem attack.
Criticism of a person's behavior does not constitute an ad hominem attack. If it did, then every criticism of Pol Pot's behavior would be an ad hominem, for example, which makes no sense.
Let's be clear: the ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Wikipedia defines the ad hominem fallacy thus:
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false
If you read through the thread again, I think you'll agree that this is not what I am doing. Nowhere (either in this thread or elsewhere) have I stated that Salvador's ideas or arguments are wrong because I find some of his behavior deplorable. That would be irrational. I've simply stated that the behavior is deplorable. As I told Doug yesterday, our arguments stand or fall on their own merits. That includes Salvador's arguments.
As your example shows, it is easy enough to defeat Salvador's arguments simply by pointing out their weaknesses. If you take a look at the debates I've had with him, I think you'll see that I take that approach. That doesn't mean that I never express irritation with him — particular when he just disappears from arguments that he's clearly lost or tries to change the subject without acknowledging his errors — but my arguments don't hinge on the irritation or the behavior that evokes it.
For example, Zachriel, Salvador and I debate the significance of the Trevors and Abel paper starting here through the end of the thread. There are other conversations going on simultaneously, so you'll have to skip the unrelated comments. I think you'll see that my argument always involves the issue under dispute and does not depend on maligning Salvador.
I posted my initial comment in this thread without itemizing Salvador's offenses because, as I stated there, I figured that Sal's notoriety precedes him, and that anyone who has been following the ID debate closely already knows how Sal operates.
As an ID critic, I'm certainly not expecting ID supporters to take my word for it, and so I'll happily supply links if folks want to see for themselves.
The main question I wanted to pose — the important one, in my opinion — is this one: Why have so few ID supporters spoken out against Salvador's tactics?
The responses have been interesting, to say the least!
Why have so few ID supporters spoken out against Salvador's tactics?
Likely because 'tactics' tend to get tertiary attention at best, no matter what 'side' anyone is on. Someone is accused of a string of poor behavior? On the interwebs? No! Say it's not so! Especially when Sal's been posting dramatically less often, until relatively recently.
When people have acted out of line on TT, I've seen mods jump on ID supporters - the hole shows as much. I've criticized people on 'my side' on TT, even UD. So have others here, I've noticed. Meanwhile, you're bringing up Sal out of the blue, yelling about the laundry list of complaints you have, and regard people who find the whole thing silly as clearly being biased. Considering how much cross-criticism I see between ID proponents (UD and such), it's worthy of an eye-roll.
If you would have jumped on Sal when you thought he was out of line, it'd probably go off better - especially if he was out of line. In this way, in this context, it seems a lot more like the usual internet drama bomb. I'm half waiting for you to pick up a doll and sob while showing everyone where Sal e-touched you.
Wow. Anyways… *shuffles to the side*
==========================
I was wondering (and excuse me if this has been covered before) if there is anything written about ID/Darwinism with respects to how the Adaptive Immune System of mammals (and others, I guess) "evolved".
Specifically, I remember being told in one immunology lecture at uni that in the bone marrow there is effectively a "T-cell database", such that we have a T-cell for every single possible antigen combination already pre-programmed into us. When something invades our bodies the Helper T-cells of the adaptive immune system grab an antigen of it, take it back to the bone marrow for comparison, and start pumping out T-cells specific to that antigen by clonal selection.
So (if I have it right):
-We already have a T-cell specific to every single possible antigen sitting in our bone marrow somewhere. It's just a matter of producing copies of them to fight the specific invader.
-Thus we have a T-cell to combat every single virus/bacteria/protozoa/etc in existence (regardless of how effective those T-cells are against some).
-At some point in 'evolution' our ancestors must have come in contact with every single antigen possible, and this has summarily been selected for in an additive process (some family line that has experienced every single disease possible…)
-Alternatively, we lucked out and got a complete 'T-cell database' in our genome by some fortunate mutation and selections… but, to apply the Darwinist saying, if we say that we might as well give up now.
Bear in mind I might be way off/gotten something wrong, as this is from months back. Is there anything written about the "evolution" of the adaptive immune system? What are people's thoughts?
As I have written above, I agree with you that Salvador resorts to questionable methods. That makes his credibility negative in my eyes and I find it mildly amusing that none of the IDers here is willing to concede this point. Big tent, I suppose.
I just don't see what one gains by discussing Sal's behavior. It doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things.
I've seen him do some egregious quote mining and I'm pretty sure I mentioned it in a negative way at least once in a comment under a UD article he wrote.
No one is perfect. On the plus side Sal is fairly well informed, works diligently for the cause, and he bends over backwards trying not to offend anyone. He's a really nice person as far as I know and there is definitely a dearth of nicety in both camps.
I'm the one that made him an author on UD by the way so don't blame Dembski. I have no idea whether or not Bill approved of the action. There has been a time or two when I was tempted to undo what I did but the feeling passed quickly.
It seems a little disingenuous to say that the whole of ID is going to be judged by Sal's quote mining but I'll temper that by saying we do the same thing by using PZ Myers as the stereotype for the chance & necessity pundits. You have to admit though that PZ is a lot more visible than Sal Cordova. Sal is not in the upper echelons at all. He's not a Discovery Fellow and he's written no books. His main claim to fame is participation in IDEA clubs which is why I chose him as an author in the initial group at UD - I wanted IDEA leadership representation. Casey Luskin actually founded the whole IDEA thing. Casey, by the way, is another exceedingly nice guy. He just got married and Gil Dodgen played the piano at his wedding. Gil was someone else who I selected as an author for UD.
And let's not even discuss that particular take on bestiality, because frankly, there's a whole lot of interesting psychology there to put it mildly.
Yes, I guess it would be inconvenient for you if we discussed something that illustrates Sal's egregious behavior, wouldn't it?
As for you quoting me with Todd B, I stand by what I said - are you honestly citing that as a personal attack?
Yes. Let's take a look.
Todd wrote:
As a child reading these words they seemed utterly absurd, inconsistent, violent, and barbaric. I decided that any god who had acted so horridly was a god that deserved to be fought against and not worshipped.
You responded:
I always get a kick out of that line about revolting against God, especially by people who routinely insist that an omnipotent and omniscient God would be responsible for absolutely everything going on in the world. Talk about the height of irrationality - "I'd wage a fight I cannot win against a Being who saw it coming before the dawn of time based on moral indignation the very same Being imparted to me."
If it's a personal attack when I criticize Salvador's dishonesty based on what he has written, then it's a personal attack when you criticize Todd's rationality based on what he is written. No double standards, please.
But if you want a personal attack, here's one: You seem to be the return of a banned TT member know for being kind of out of it, your talk of 'rationality, reason, and evidence' seems to be obvious nonsense, and certainly your assertions that people should discuss these things without emotion is false. Plus you often misread what people say and attack phantoms. I think you're far less rational than some YECs I've had the pleasure of speaking with.
I'll understand if this really makes you upset. If you smash your fist against your keyboard a few times and tear up, it may well be an expected response.
Dude, where did you get the idea that your disapproval had the power to reduce me to tears? I like it when you get worked up. That's when you make your best mistakes.
For example, that 'olegt has chides' thing was a beautiful setup for my joke. Thank you!
Allen McNeill is no angel either. For years on UD he let us call him Professor McNeill or Doctor McNeill and never once corrected it being quite happy to be perceived as an Ivy League biology professor. Imagine my surprise when I happened to surf across his CV and discovered he is not a professor and holds no doctorate. Still I continued to allow him to freely post comments on UD with a single exception where I put him on the moderation list for a week for posting a long diatribe blaming Christianity for the holocaust. That was more out of line than blaming it on Darwin. Bill Dembski I'm sure doesn't approve of my letting McNeill onto UD as McNeill has said some rather uncharitable things about Dembski in other venues including this one. He's done the same to me. McNeill is provably a bit of a snake. But hey, no one is perfect, right?
Robin: The main question I wanted to pose "” the important one, in my opinion "” is this one: Why have so few ID supporters spoken out against Salvador's tactics?
No, that's important only in your mind, robin. You have not established that it is important outside of your mind.
Of course, since speaking out against perceived unfair tactics is important to you, can you please provide a set of links where you have spoken out against the tactics of your fellow ID critics? Or are they all lil' angels?
On the plus side Sal is fairly well informed, works diligently for the cause, and he bends over backwards trying not to offend anyone. He's a really nice person as far as I know and there is definitely a dearth of nicety in both camps.
Hi Dave,
Perhaps it was a mistake for me to assume that word of Sal's behavior had gotten around. I'm very surprised that someone as heavily involved in the ID debate as you are hasn't heard about this stuff.
Sal "bends over backwards trying not to offend anyone?" Is that how you would you interpret his quote-mining of Skatje Myers (see this comment earlier in this thread)?
JanieBelle,
Long time no see. How is our internet Darwinist Tranvestite doing these days. Ed Brayton informs us that you're really a dirty old man pretending to be a young lady on the net.
Are you going to go all the way like theistic Darwinist John Roughgarden?
cheers,
Sal
[John Roughgarden is now Joan Roughgarden.]
Comment by scordova "” January 2, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Not exactly what I'd call 'bending over backwards'. What about you, Dave?
Thanks to Robin, I guess I am going to have to make a rule for my open threads in the future:
Open threads are not meant to be an arena for developing flame wars and personality battles. Thus, if someone posts something that makes a topic out of another TT member's behavior, style, personality, tactics, etc., the comment will simply be deleted.
Does anyone have a problem with this rule? Now is the time to speak up.
But Skatje DOES support beastiality. She claims she's not interested in it herself but sees no reason to make it illegal. That is fairly characterized as support. If someone were to say they have no interest in having sex with children but saw no reason why it should be illegal if it's consensual would you consider that supportive of adults having sex with children? I sure would. Here's the deal. Children can't give informed consent for sex the same reason they can't enter into contracts, vote, or any number of other things prohibited to minors. That's why the crime is called statutory rape - it's rape whether the child cooperated or not. Animals are like children in this regard - they can't give informed consent.
Salvador Cordova has earned a reputation among those involved in the ID/creationism/evolution debate for blatant and chronic quote-mining, deceitful ad hominems, questionable debate tactics, and general dishonesty. The evidence shows that this reputation is deserved (I'm happy to provide examples if requested, but I think they might be unnecessary given how notorious Sal's behavior has become).
What bothers me is the lack of public condemnation of this behavior from Sal's fellow ID supporters.
"Blatant and chronic quote-mining". Wow, that sounds serious. But I ask myself, what is "quote mining" You hear it tossed around a lot. I type it into google and look for some definitions, and what quickly becomes clear is that it is a pejorative frequently associated with this particular debate: evolution and its supporters and critics. And it is frequently directed at the critics as an insult. No wonder then that critics of MET aren't all the anxious to jump on the bandwagon of those who charge it.
But looking a little further, it appears to mean generally the more familiar "taking a quote out of context", meaning that the quote becomes misleading.
Now the example you offer for Sal doing that doesn't appear to fit that bill at all. You may not agree with Coyne, but nothing you offer in the expanded quote changes the meaning of what Sal quoted.
There's a difference between Sal offering a quote that supports his POV rather than yours, and Sal being deceptive. Now I don't claim to be an expert on Sal and his methods, but the example you gave doesn't offer me any reason to criticize Sal's methods.
But maybe I'm missing something here.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — June 22, 2008 @ 10:50 am
Fine with me. My standard of behavior is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Your blog, your rules.
That said, and to change the subject, I really liked your book. I'd put it second on my "must read" list right behind Behe's "The Edge of Evolution". Particularly brilliant points you made were about false analogies breaking down on closer examination and the surveys of engineering jargon in biology literature. I've been trying to cajole all the Discovery Fellows to read it for a few months now without much success. Denyse O'Leary read it and liked it. The part about looking into the cell and seeing the future of our own technology was spot on. I read Drexler's "Engines of Creation" hot off the press over 20 years ago and he made the same point. EoC is probably the most influential book on the future of technology I've ever read.
Of course, since speaking out against perceived unfair tactics is important to you, can you please provide a set of links where you have spoken out against the tactics of your fellow ID critics? Or are they all lil' angels?
And if you insist, I can point to an instance where I objected to PZ Myers's use of his blog as part of the classroom. I think mixing classroom and personal politics is bad. I did not rationalize PZ's choice and plainly said that I do not approve of it, period.
The main question I wanted to pose "” the important one, in my opinion "” is this one: Why have so few ID supporters spoken out against Salvador's tactics?
Mike Gene replied:
No, that's important only in your mind, robin. You have not established that it is important outside of your mind.
Um, Mike — that's what "in my opinion" means.
Come on, guy. You're smarter than this. Slow down, take a few deep breaths, and think.
I made it clear in my original comment that I do not think either side is blameless:
Look, folks. I'm not saying that either side of this debate is innocent. Obviously. I am saying that Salvador's behavior stands out as being way beyond the pale, and I can back that up.
As I said before, don't take my word for it. I'm happy to supply the evidence if people want to see it for themselves.
I'm also not reluctant to criticize "my side", and in fact I did so just this morning:
Gordy is right about this. I've met many people who accept evolution without understanding why it is correct, and who don't question it at all. I think this is a mistake, for all the same reasons I've been mentioning lately on this blog.
David Mills' YouTube stunt with the Bible and the dog crap? Stupid and needlessly aggressive. That other guy's Bible-burning video? ditto. Dawkins' "she has a stupid face" comment? Dumb and juvenile.
But I've encountered nobody on either side of the debate who behaves as egregiously as Sal.
Fine with me. My standard of behavior is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Your blog, your rules.
Actually, it's not my blog; I just post here the most. Contributors only have control of their own threads, so the rule would only apply to my threads.
That said, and to change the subject, I really liked your book. I'd put it second on my "must read" list right behind Behe's "The Edge of Evolution". Particularly brilliant points you made were about false analogies breaking down on closer examination and the surveys of engineering jargon in biology literature. I've been trying to cajole all the Discovery Fellows to read it for a few months now without much success. Denyse O'Leary read it and liked it. The part about looking into the cell and seeing the future of our own technology was spot on.
DaveScot: It seems a little disingenuous to say that the whole of ID is going to be judged by Sal's quote mining …
Robin's point wasn't that Salvador T. Cordova is quote-mining, but that others in the ID Movement ignore it, even in full knowledge that it might leave the wrong impression on their readers.
I expect my comments to be vetted appropriately, and I am more than willing to correct my statements when appropriate. I would be very disappointed if others allowed me to continue to harbor false understandings.
DaveScot: Imagine my surprise when I happened to surf across his CV and discovered he is not a professor and holds no doctorate.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Allen_MacNeill hid his curriculum vitae on the http://WWW. Allen_MacNeill's blogger profile, linked to with every one of his comments on Uncommon Descent, indicates he teaches "introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY."
DaveScot: Still I continued to allow him to freely post comments on UD with a single exception where I put him on the moderation list for a week for posting a long diatribe blaming Christianity for the holocaust.
Apparently, for quoting Hitler on a thread about Ben "No Darwin, no Hitler" Stein.
MikeGene: Does anyone have a problem with this rule?
As there will be inevitable disputes, I recommend the memory hole.
RogerRabbitt: But I ask myself, what is "quote mining"
Here's a typical example.
scordova quoting Darwin: I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power.
Salvador T. Cordova (scordova) likes to quote this snippet from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. He thinks it denigrates Darwin, and implies that Darwinism leads to the degradation of the moral sense. In fact, the entire quote shows just the opposite.
Darwin: Once as a very little boy, whilst at the day-school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure as the spot was near to the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters.
In other words, Darwin's moral sense is such that he considers the childhood incident a shameful act that he still remembers with regret many decades later. But Salvador T. Cordova would have you think otherwise. That's what we mean by a quote-mine.
Thanks to Robin, I guess I am going to have to make a rule for my open threads in the future:
Open threads are not meant to be an arena for developing flame wars and personality battles. Thus, if someone posts something that makes a topic out of another TT member's behavior, style, personality, tactics, etc., the comment will simply be deleted.
Does anyone have a problem with this rule? Now is the time to speak up.
I think the restriction is unnecessary.
If you insist on it, you probably need to specify a little more carefully what you're trying to convey when you talk about 'making a topic.' If a person posts something that is totally unrelated to the preceding comments, then it's obviously a new topic. But what if a new topic comes up organically in the course of discussing a previous one? That happens all the time. When does it constitute 'making a new topic'?
Was Lou offended? I tend to doubt it. He brags all the time about his impersonation of two young girls and his sig on AtBC links to the blogs of both of "them". Wesley chooses some rather strange associations for a nominal Christian.
At any rate, let me clarify. Sal, relatively speaking, bends over backwards not to offend people. I'll concede he's not perfect at it and that he apparently does make some exceptions. But I really don't pay any attention to his behavior outside of UD. One instance that comes to mind is with Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror. She baited Sal incessantly until I had no choice but to kick her young ass off UD and never once did I see Sal take the bait.
At any rate, you know it's kind of low brow to talk about people, right?
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." — Eleanor Roosevelt
It's case law, Robin.
What you did is what MikeGene is setting a rule against.
You interpret rules and laws within context and you apply the principles being upheld to subsequent cases.
This latest hair-splitting legalism of yours explains a lot about your participation in previous threads and why those of us reading liken you to previously-banned participants.
Well, just to illustrate to robin what the term ad hominem [ed] means - that disqualifying tactic of insulting the person rather than his/her arguments, let's just list the adjectives in PZ's post, In which I have hurt Ken Ham's feelings. It's a case study in sleeze!
Now, it's obvious that PZ got hold of an insult dictionary (no doubt a present from one of his kids or acolytes), and doesn't mind looking dumb himself when he doesn't bother to edit out the redundancies, but I'm sure he thinks this sort of thing makes him yet more worshipful to his burgeoning mass of pimple-faced teenybopper wannabe juvenile delinquent fans. Worse, he's probably right (since most of them probably can't identify the redundancies in those insults copy-pasted straight down the alphabetical list).
Obviously, PZ doesn't like Ken Ham except as a voodoo doll for his pricking pleasure. And no, he's not actually tackling any 'arguments' Ham may have made, just insulting him for being alive in PZ's world. But I thought maybe you could use the dictionary-for-10-year-olds somebody gave to PZ, and which PZ generously presents on his blog to all.
But Skatje DOES support beastiality. She claims she's not interested in it herself but sees no reason to make it illegal. That is fairly characterized as support.
Dave,
I'm a vegetarian. I think you are too, right? However, I see no reason to make carnivory illegal. I think consciousness-raising is a better approach.
By your logic, that means I support meat eating. That seems like a questionable characterization to me.
Another example: I deplore Holocaust denial, and I think most Holocaust deniers are irrational bigots. I do not think that Holocaust denial should be illegal, however, and I think it's ridiculous that David Irving was imprisoned in Austria for "glorifying and identifying with the German Nazi Party."
By your logic, that means I support Holocaust denial. Does that seem like a fair characterization?
Was Sal 'bending over backwards not to offend' Lou? Please.
At any rate, let me clarify. Sal, relatively speaking, bends over backwards not to offend people.
Relative to what? A ramrod?
One instance that comes to mind is with Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror.
I have to agree that Abbie is over the top. She's been absolutely right on substance in her altercations with Behe and Dembski, but her delivery could stand to be toned down — a lot. Perhaps as she ages, it will.
At any rate, you know it's kind of low brow to talk about people, right?
If you insist on it, you probably need to specify a little more carefully what you're trying to convey when you talk about 'making a topic.'
LOL. You make it sound like I need your permission.
Tell y'what, robin. You have your thread right here and there are no rules in this thread. I gotta run and will check back tonight, so let's see what you have made here at TT. People can read through all the comments and decide whether this type of pursuit that you advocate is, on balance, productive or disruptive. Does it generate more heat or more light?
I'm confident that after we all see how this little thread develops, reasonable and fair-minded people will agree with my rule and foresight.
I guess I am going to have to make a rule for my open threads in the future:
Open threads are not meant to be an arena for developing flame wars and personality battles. Thus, if someone posts something that makes a topic out of another TT member's behavior, style, personality, tactics, etc., the comment will simply be deleted.
Does anyone have a problem with this rule? Now is the time to speak up.
I would submit that there is a crucial difference between "supporting Holocaust denial" and "supporting the right of others to deny the Holocaust."
If someone says to me "Dave supports Holocaust denial", I get one impression. If they say "Dave supports the right of others to deny the Holocaust," I get a completely different impression.
I'm a vegetarian. I think you are too, right? However, I see no reason to make carnivory illegal. I think consciousness-raising is a better approach.
I'm a vegetarian too, and I have no problem at all imposing very strict regulations on the Death Industry for purely practical reasons - the grain that livestock are forced to consume (cattle evolved to eat grass, not grain) involves energy inputs and farming practices that are extremely wasteful and highly polluting, as well as contributing greatly to the decimation of rainforest preserves and loss of biodiversity. It also leads to obesity, disease and ugly death in brainwashed consumers propagandized to believe they have to eat meat 3 or 4 times a day and weigh 400 pounds.
Not only is the system energy-stupid, the grain used to fatten a single cow could provide staple grain base for 10 actual humans for a year (who won't then starve to death). It's cruel to the animals and obscene in terms of elitism and waste, and if you haven't seen "Supersize Me" you really should rent it. Oh… and I'd make having sex with barnyard animals punishable under animal cruelty statutes with sex offender overtones.
But I wouldn't make 'carnivory' illegal. I'd just make carnivores have to raise and fatten their own livestock (and deal legally and responsibly with the waste) as well as slaughter, butcher and preserve it. In their own garage or back yard. Livestock that are fattened on grain don't need room to move around or graze, after all. They can be confined to stalls or packed into pens, never have to see the sun.
Too bad I'm not Queen of the Universe. I'd also make a big public show of smashing Hummers, make city people have to get an expensive permit for SUVs (some people need them - they don't live in Miami or LA), tighten fuel efficiency requirements significantly (we can make 50mpg cars, and if not then Japan can), issue fuel vouchers for farm trucks and semis (for their transport and farm necessary-ness, those necessary jobs shouldn't break the workers), fully fund EV's (Electric Vehicles) for commuting from suburbs to city, modernize mass transit (re-invent trains, like in Europe), and alternative energy - with permanent incentives for older buildings to go solar and requirements for new buildings.
Guess I'd do massive PSAs (like a Smoky Bear thing) for Victory Gardens and Buying Local too. With heavy extension agency push in every region for community gardens (on parkland, jointly owned and worked), local crop diversification and sound soil management & farming practices, GMO-Free zones to protect organic growers, and encourage community participation in chain grocery store purchasing, pricing, with all excess and salvage to food banks for re-distribution.
MikeGene: Does anyone have a problem with this rule?
Zachriel: As there will be inevitable disputes, I recommend the memory hole.
The problem is he would have to hole most of the thread. Making an individual the object of a blog entry has ominous implications and I would not want to see TT go in this direction. Sure critical comments will be made of individuals in the course of writing but they are incidental to larger points made in the blog entries themselves. Focusing on issues ought to be the goal. It tends to limit the personal sniping.
Oh… and as a despot at heart, I think Mike's proposed rule is fine. It's weird we even have to discuss it, since topics of personal issue with named others are not allowed on any blog or forum I've ever spent much time on. It's just not done.
robin: If someone says to me "Dave supports Holocaust denial", I get one impression. If they say "Dave supports the right of others to deny the Holocaust," I get a completely different impression.
And if someone supports the "right" of adults to have sex with animals and children I get still another impression. Talk is cheap but dealing with the consequences of abusive behavior is costly both for the victims and the larger society.
I am interested in this materialist sin - quote mining. If the quote is accurate (verbatim transcription, cut 'n paste, etc), then how exactly is it dishonest to repeat someone's words? I have seen instances where someone says something provocative and then spills many electrons hedging and weasel wording - usually to mitigate the expected backlash of the original thought. I find it completely unnecessary to include all of this, except possibly to enjoy the squirming.
All in favor of Mike's rule here. I'd even suggest coming down harder on people who get personally insulting in threads. Hole 'em, warn 'em, whatever - it's not worth tolerating.
All in favor of Mike's rule here. I'd even suggest coming down harder on people who get personally insulting in threads. Hole 'em, warn 'em, whatever - it's not worth tolerating.
There's a reason for adopting a harder line which has nothing to do with the offenders themselves. Insults and trash talking discourage the participation of the very types of people who have the most to contribute.
You know John just passed eighty last week. I'm sure he'd appreciate a birthday greeting from you.
On the Sal Cordova issue, my very first introduction to ID on a site unrelated to the issues (it was a forum intended to help with learning a second language) a poster referred me to the works of Bill Dembski and I found UD. A comment by Sal there claiming victory in a debate on PT led me to check the actual thread and my scepticism of ID was confirmed. Sal later reinforced my opinion when pursuing the claim that a company (Genetic-ID) was using the explanatory filter in its commercial processes, first at ARN, then at UD. I recall DaveScot was critical of Sal's thread.
I am strongly in favour of Sal continuing as he has done because it so detrimental to ID being taken seriously, but puzzled why those who take an opposite view of ID haven't had a quiet word with him.
I am strongly in favour of Sal continuing as he has done because it so detrimental to ID being taken seriously, but puzzled why those who take an opposite view of ID haven't had a quiet word with him.
Perhaps because ID isn't some sort of authoritarian "orthodoxy" complete with tenets and dogma and such. It's just a way of looking at the world, and a reaction against strong attempts to impose authoritarian "orthodoxy" on everyone as a metaphysical belief system, No Questions Allowed.
Sal can be who he is, I don't mind. We've had run-ins a few times, mostly back on ARN, where it wasn't worth the effort for me to engage a fight I couldn't win (their moderation was a lot more one-sided than it is here on TT). After he managed to get me docked a few times for taking polite issue with his assertions, I stopped participating. Now I mostly don't even read his posts, or follow those discussions.
If I can do that, so can 'robin'.
It doesn't much matter to me what other people choose to believe about origins and the nature of life on planet earth. So long as they aren't deceptively attempting to slip a metaphysic into the mix, then force-feed it to other people's children in blatant disregard for the spirit of Amendment #1 to the U.S. Constitution.
Thus I'm against force-feeding creationism or ID as much as I'm against force-feeding materialism disguised as Neodarwinism. IOW, it's a liberty and rights issue for me, and if I take that seriously (and I do), it must also include people I strongly disagree with.
I'll make mincemeat of bad arguments if I can, no problem. Belittle them and call them stupid and laugh out loud. But I do try not to attack people directly, even internet pseuds and known sockpuppets, there's a real person in there somewhere.
I am not always successful at living up to my own moral sensibilities, and am known to become so frustrated I get downright mean (inherited that trait from my mother, who had too many children). So I tend to be fairly forgiving of frustration in others.
Oh, my goodness, I didn't see this thread until just now.
Robin wrote:
Salvador Cordova has earned a reputation among those involved in the ID/creationism/evolution debate for blatant and chronic quote-mining, deceitful ad hominems, questionable debate tactics, and general dishonesty. The evidence shows that this reputation is deserved (I'm happy to provide examples if requested, but I think they might be unnecessary given how notorious Sal's behavior has become).
What bothers me is the lack of public condemnation of this behavior from Sal's fellow ID supporters.
I'm happy to refer people to websites like Pharyngula, and PandasThumb which enumerate my many transgressions.
Also: "I, Salvador Cordova, publicly condemn any quotemining, dishonesy, and ad hominems commited by Salvador Cordova both in the past, present, and in the future."
There does that make you feel better, Robin.
And further I was reprimanded by Forethekids for the incident reported here.
And just to show you I'm sincere, I roundly condemn this form of quotmining.
I beat a puppy, I believe, simply for enjoying the sense of power
Charles Darwin
Salvador, shame on you for making fun of Darwin and quote-mining him out of context. Shame on you for profaning the person of Charles Darwin.
There Robin, do you feel better.
PS
My above condemnation is not to be construed as an admission of guilt, just a condemnation of possible guilt. For the record, I don't beat puppies. But I condemn any future puppy beating if I so perpetrated it.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 22, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Open season? Cool. Then I would like to mention this fascinating project:
Reverse Engineering The Brain To Model Mind-body Interactions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
Comment by nobody — June 21, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Since this is a 'Speak Your Mind' thread, I'd like to mention something that has been bothering me for a long time.
Salvador Cordova has earned a reputation among those involved in the ID/creationism/evolution debate for blatant and chronic quote-mining, deceitful ad hominems, questionable debate tactics, and general dishonesty. The evidence shows that this reputation is deserved (I'm happy to provide examples if requested, but I think they might be unnecessary given how notorious Sal's behavior has become).
What bothers me is the lack of public condemnation of this behavior from Sal's fellow ID supporters.
I'm not saying that every ID supporter should police every statement made by fellow supporters. We are not our brothers' keepers, after all. I'm also not saying that ID supporters at Telic Thoughts should go out of their way to monitor statements made on other blogs. That would be an unreasonable expectation. But Sal has behaved this way on this very blog, and certainly many of his offensive actions elsewhere have been noted here by critics. It seems odd that he has been criticized so rarely, if at all, by ID supporters here. (If you think I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to consider evidence to the contrary).
Though I may disagree with ID supporters on many issues, I do believe that almost all of you take morality seriously, and that your moral codes do not sanction the kind of behavior Sal consistently indulges in.
His dishonesty and weird ad hominems are not just distasteful, they are downright counterproductive to his aims. Since Sal likes to portray himself as being among the leaders of the ID movement, those who don't know better might think that this is what ID is about, and that this is how IDers argue. I also suspect that the lack of repudiation by fellow ID supporters leads some observers to the conclusion that Sal's tactics enjoy general approval. That is a terrible message to be sending.
Perhaps some of you haven't said anything because you thought that ID critics were taking care of the problem. Indeed, ID critics have learned to keep an eye on Salvador and are pretty quick to point out his offenses, so it's possible that many of you have felt no reason to add anything when the critics have already weighed in.
If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?
I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.
The more opinions, the better.
Thanks. I feel better, having gotten that off my chest.
Comment by robin — June 21, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Well, that didn't last long. I disapprove of trolls. Now I think open threads are a bad idea. Live and learn.
Comment by nobody — June 21, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
nobody,
Interesting link. I look forward to seeing what they find. Otherwise, yes, agreed.
Comment by nullasalus — June 21, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
'nobody' wrote:
I see. So open threads are a good idea only if they are closed to opinions you find disagreeable. That makes sense.
If you disagree with my assessment, how about offering your own? This is an open thread, after all, and unlike you, I welcome dissenting opinions.
Comment by robin — June 21, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Okay,
who is robin.
keiths?
Smokey? Probably, not…. robin doesn't seem to ramble as much.
Comment by Doug — June 21, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
nobody
Now that is interesting. Do you think they will consider the soul or any spiritual aspects of the brain, or just the physical?
robin
I have had a few discussions with Sal over the years, some of which have got quite heated. I seem to remember he would delete whole threads at ARN if the debate was not going his way. I actually believe that he considers himself to be honest, he just has different ideas about what is honest and what is not. Some significant people on the ID side really seem to see nothing wrong in twisting another person's words to mean something entirely new; Dembski seems to be one such (see here for example). Whether this is the case for all the quote-miners, I would not like to guess; perhaps Dembski and Sal are merely following the moral example of their creationist forebears.
I also get the impression that his debating tactics (the ad homs., the deliberate provoking) he regards as all party of the cut-and-thrust of debate. I think he got Ron Okimoto banned from ARN by continually winding Ron up, and Ron made one angy response too many; I would guess Sal sees that as perfectly moral. I would be very surprised if he complained if the tables were turned - that is how debates are practiced in his opinion.
I am not supporting what Sal does in any way, I just do not thionk he is a bad person. However I too would be interested to hear what the IDists think of Sal.
Comment by The Pixie — June 21, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
ID critics are notorious for their lack of civility and their unwillingness to call others on it.
Comment by Bradford — June 21, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
It is a well known fact that your opponents are just awful - whatever side and whatever the debate. I must admit that I do not post at Panda's Thumb and "The Swamp" because of the lack of civility there, preferring to debate at more neutral venues where the critics seem to be better behaved.
Comment by The Pixie — June 21, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Am I the only one who finds it to be in incredibly bad taste to not just mention a disapproval one has of another poster's actions/ideas, but to try and devote a thread to said person as a subject?
If Sal is guilty of what's being argued here, call him out on it during a discussion. I think TT is tremendously tolerant of such things, and no one should object to such a reply. Arguing about how the 'ID community' views Sal because opponents think he's snarky and unfair in arguing strikes me as such penny ante bull. Especially considering how a lot of active blog participants in these debates themselves behave on a regular basis.
Comment by nullasalus — June 21, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
ID critics are notorious for their lack of civility and their unwillingness to call others on it.
You have to fight against a natural tendency to ignore transgressions of those who agree with you. Once I holed a comment by an IDist even though I agreed with the substance of his comment. The trouble was he was not only disrespectful of his opponent but he spiced his criticism with a generous dose of profanity which left me no choice by the standards I set for myself.
There are no perfect forums but I think TT is pretty fair by comparison to most places.
Comment by Bradford — June 21, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
nullasalus:
I'm not comfortable with it either and would not be even if someone like Pixie or Zachriel, with whom I frequently have disagreements, were the objects of complaint.
Comment by Bradford — June 21, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I also dislike Salvavor's asscociation with ID. I think he is a dishonest YEC. who brings discussion down here.
Comment by steve — June 21, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
nullasalus wrote:
Null,
Am I the only one who finds double standards to be in incredibly bad taste?
Which of these did you decry as being in bad taste when they were posted at Telic Thoughts?
Dawkins Misuses Science
Fundamentalist Dawkins Speaks Out
What happens when an unstoppable bigot meets an immovable blowhard?
Dawkins: Unqualified to Pass Judgment on Intelligent Design
PZ Myers, the Infinitely Outraged
Dawkins is still jumping the shark
Dawkins Misrepresents Konner
2006: The Year Dawkins Jumped The Shark
The Clueless Authoritarian
Dawkins says, "Eugenics may not be bad"
He's So Sexy!
Dawkins and His Disciples
"You can watch Richard Dawkins slumming in someone's basement below."
Dawkins Goes Limp on Free Will
Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory
Poor oppressed PZ
Dawkins Still Won't Defend Science
Hitchens: He's no Dawkins or Harris
Sam Harris's Speaking Fee
Sam Harris: Argument From Extremism
Sam Harris' Studies
Dennett Gushes Over Dawkins
Archie and the New Atheists
Torturing Muslims for Buddha
A Sugar-Coated Dawkins
Danger, Will Robinson!!
"Pinker comes across as an Establishment Guy desperately trying to look dangerous by cutting up his milk toast in a new pattern."
A Useless Critic
Miller Misrepresents Dembski
The "Pro-Science/Pro-Reason" Barkers
Brayton Spreads Misinformation
More Authoritarian Pretentions
Null, I respectfully suggest — not that I'm criticizing you, or anything else in bad taste — that you might be applying a double standard here.
Believe me, I have, and I will. (And if you follow the link, that's one of the milder examples of Salvador's quote-mining).
Look, folks. I'm not saying that either side of this debate is innocent. Obviously. I am saying that Salvador's behavior stands out as being way beyond the pale, and I can back that up.
If it's not in bad taste for TT to criticize Dawkins, Harris, Myers, etc., then it's not in bad taste for anybody to criticize Salvador. Or you, or me for that matter, if we ever do something that is as worthy of criticism as what Salvador has done.
Comment by robin — June 21, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Robin
Here is the difference none of those folks post here. If they did I am sure they would be given the upmost respect and If they were civil I'm sure the criticizing they get from folks here would slow down a lot.
Notice there are no posts on your list about Allen McNeal.
Sal on the other hand like Allen is here all the time. There are not too many YEC's who would risk it. It takes a lot of bravery on his part IMHO.
I for one enjoy his comments even though I disagree with him about lots of things. If he weren't here I would miss his unique perspective.
Just my two cents
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 21, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
robin,
robin, I said outright - if Sal is doing something you find objectionable, by all means call him on it in a thread, assuming you aren't banned on the forum you want to challenge him on.
Your response is a list of thread titles featuring Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and otherwise. Those threads were largely, even exclusively, devoted to responding to claims and comments made by those featured in the title. You're not responding to any particular claim of Sal here, but making Sal himself the central issue, claiming that he's a liar (among other things) and demanding a defense from the rest of us on why we're not denouncing him.
I've not seen a thread on TT where, say.. the OP denounced PZ Myers for being a clear liar and hothead, and called on the resident atheists and ID-skeptics to join in denouncing him. Maybe I missed it, I do miss some threads. And while I admit that would be pretty funny, I'd also say it'd be little more than a dog and pony show. If you want to go for it, hey - I'm not a mod here, what they want goes. But for someone who recently showed up here talking about the virtues of dispassionate discussion and reason, you sure come across as yet another emotionally invested person with an axe to grind.
Incidentally, so long as we're talking about standards of behavior: If someone is banned from a forum or blog, it's in incredibly poor taste for that person to keep showing up under aliases. Agreed?
Comment by nullasalus — June 21, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Your criticism of Salvador is a personal attack on another TT member. Critiquing the ideas of high level IDists and anti-IDists is fair game. Dembski has been criticized on numerous occasions. If you don't like the blog go elsewhere.
Comment by Bradford — June 21, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
So it's in good taste to criticize people as long as you do it on a blog they don't post on, but it's bad taste to criticize fellow blog members no matter what they say or do?
And if so, why has there been so much criticism of fellow blog members at TT?
You mean the kind of respect Allen MacNeill was given when he posted here?
I quote:
Now to be fair, that particular comment was moved to the Memory Hole. However, the commenter in question posted stuff just like that for months at TT.
(Yes, Joy, I've been reading TT for a long time).
That sort of conduct seems to be just fine at TT, as long as you're on the "right" side of the ID debate.
Comment by robin — June 21, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Nullasalus,
Your powers of rationalization are astounding. You might as well just say "It's okay when we do it. It's not okay when you do it."
That would depend on the circumstances of their banning(s). Do you have a concrete example in mind?
Comment by robin — June 21, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
keiths, we've been through this before. You're not managing TT.
Comment by Bradford — June 21, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Robin
No it's just that there is no other way to interact with them here. You don't expect those in power here to praise them for their actions now do you?
No, but this blog allows people to be specific in their criticism and then allows folks to respond. That's what you should do if you have a problem with Sal IMHO
I don't understand
Are you sugesting we treat Sal like Stunney treated Allen MacNeil or are you saying that Sal acts like stunney?
Or are you saying that comments like stunneys should get a stronger than response than simply ignoring them and removing them from relevence?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 21, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 9:56 pm
robin,
Who said 'it's okay'? I've defended people who I, frankly, have little respect for when I thought the particular charges were unfair. I've openly disagreed with people I otherwise respect when I thought they made a bad call. And again, I told you outright - challenge him, challenge anyone, when you believe they're being unfair. But walking into an open thread and griping about how someone here is a liar and unfair and the anti-ID people think it's just so terrible and the pro-ID people should be denouncing him - why should I regard that as anything more than a joke?
I like the 'that depends on the circumstances of the banning' bit. Rationalization, indeed.
Comment by nullasalus — June 21, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Bradford rationalizes:
Okay. Let's look at what you wrote about me yesterday:
Here Joy assesses me:
nullasalus, on Todd Berkebile's disenchantment with the Biblical God as a child:
Doug, to me:
(These four examples come from just two threads here).
Bradford,
Does this mean that Todd and I are "high-level anti-IDists", since we're obviously "fair game" in the eyes of TTers?
If so, thanks for the compliment, but I think you're exaggerating.
Are you kidding? I love TT! But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better without the double standards.
Comment by robin — June 21, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
robin,
I agree with you that Salvador sometimes uses deplorable tactics such as quote mining and character assassination. However, I don't think you want to stoop to the same level and start an ad hominem attack in retaliation. You can easily win on merit.
Consider his latest attack on evolutionary theory launched at UD, Gambler's ruin is Darwin's ruin . Using one of the simplest models in population genetics—a biased random walk—as an example, he argued that randomness makes a small selective advantage ineffective and that "Darwin was absolutely wrong to suggest that the emergence of a novel trait will be preserved in most cases." On the basis of that Sal concluded that "Unfortunately for Darwinism, natural selection has little defense against the perils of gambler's ruin."
Soon thereafter, geneticist Joe Felsenstein took apart Sal's claim at Pamda's Thumb: Gambler's Ruin is Darwin's Gain. The thread is long, but the bottom line is simple: although most advantageous mutations do not survive thanks to randomness, a few do and spread through the entire population; natural selection works and gambler's ruin poses no threat to evolutionary theory. Sal did not contest this argument and changed the subject.
It was also pointed out on this forum by Zachriel that—contrary to what Sal stated—Darwin himself realized that not every advantageous change is preserved by natural selection. Again, no contest.
But let's imagine that Darwin goofed and thought mistakenly that every beneficial mutation is preserved by Nature. Would that invalidate evolutionary theory? Of course not. Darwin's thoughts from 150 years ago and modern evolutionary biology are not the same thing. We don't use the first edition of The origin of species as a textbook in college classes. Evolutionary biologists of today are well aware that beneficiary mutations may disappear. The whole point is moot.
One can see clearly how absurd Sal's argument is when it is transferred mutatis mutandis to physics, specifically to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. Maxwell derived his equations by visualizing electric and magnetic fields as mechanical oscillations of the aether. Back in his day many scientists adhered to the reductionist viewpoint, according to which all physical phenomena had to be reduced to mechanics. As a result, Maxwell denied the very existence of free electric charges [1,2]. In his theory, electric charges came from inhomogeneities in electric polarization. To him they were a derived concept, very much like magnetic charges in ferromagnets. (There are no free magnetic charges as far as we know.) Maxwell was dead wrong on that count: we know now that free electric charges exists and that electric charge is a fundamental characteristic of matter. Electromagnetism is not reducible to mechanics.
If Maxwell was so spectacularly wrong, doesn't it mean that electrodynamics is a theory in crisis? Hardly. Our knowledge has improved over the 150 years since Maxwell and electrodynamics is a theory that has been tested and found adequate. Heck, it even survived the relativity revolution and the death of the aether!
Likewise, Sal can quote mine and mock Darwin all he wants, but none of his arguments that I have considered in some detail undermine evolutionary biology. No need to get personal, robin. You can win on merit.
[1] A. F. Chalmers, The limitations of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, Isis 64, 469 (1974).
[2] A. Chalmers, Maxwell, mechanism, and the nature of electricity, Phys. Perspect. 3, 425 (2001).
Comment by olegt — June 21, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 11:14 pm
nullasalus wrote:
Because Salvador's behavior is not just a harmless joke. I think you should take it seriously when, as just one example, he quote-mines P.Z. Myers' seventeen-year-old daughter to make it appear that she supports bestiality, which Salvador considers to be a "logical consequence of Darwinism".
Comment by robin — June 21, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Hi Robin,
My goodness. Have you lost sleep over this? Has Salvador ever harmed you? Why are you so bothered about this for such a long time?
Comment by MikeGene — June 21, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Mike Gene asks:
No and no. Am I entitled to disapprove of someone's behavior only if I am personally harmed by it? I would say that it was wrong for Salvador to slander Skatje Myers, even though his attack was not directed at me.
Comment by robin — June 21, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
robin,
As olegt has chides, you shouldn't be getting personal here. And let's not even discuss that particular take on bestiality, because frankly, there's a whole lot of interesting psychology there to put it mildly. As for it being a logical consequence of darwinism, what does Peter Singer think of bestiality, and how does he relate it to evolution? Let's not forget that Singer's not exactly a pariah among a certain skeptical crowd.
As for you quoting me with Todd B, I stand by what I said - are you honestly citing that as a personal attack? My saying that it's utterly irrational to commit to revolting against an omnipotent, omniscient being? Or is it my construing Todd B as having said that, and mentioning that he may well have meant something other than he clearly seemed to be saying?
But if you want a personal attack, here's one: You seem to be the return of a banned TT member know for being kind of out of it, your talk of 'rationality, reason, and evidence' seems to be obvious nonsense, and certainly your assertions that people should discuss these things without emotion is false. Plus you often misread what people say and attack phantoms. I think you're far less rational than some YECs I've had the pleasure of speaking with.
I'll understand if this really makes you upset. If you smash your fist against your keyboard a few times and tear up, it may well be an expected response. But all said, you may want to take a few days' break and ask yourself why you're so obsessed with certain debates and forums. It's not healthy.
Comment by nullasalus — June 21, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Hi Robin,
Hold on there. An open thread pops up and you could have brought up all kinds of issues "“ religion, the Bible, a new scientific paper, the Wedge, evolution, science, ID, creationism, global warming, gas prices, Obama, McCain, whatever. Yet of all the stuff to talk about, you chose another member of TT. Why was that so important?
According to you, "I'd like to mention something that has been bothering me for a long time."
So it sure seems like you are really, really "bothered" by Salvador. It's been bothering you for a long time and you erupted about it when an open thread popped up. This is clearly very important to you.
I'm trying to figure out what has you so deeply bothered, especially since Salvador has never harmed you.
Comment by MikeGene — June 21, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Since this is an open thread, I want to publicly air a gripe:
Why does the press give such a weird and practically talent-free person such as Amy Winehouse such press? I guess the sheeple love her. I can't figure out why.
It's so frustrating.
People, please. Let it go. Just … let it go.
Thanks for listening. I feel better now.
Edit: Although, I must admit the beer drinking on stage and all those tattoos are kinda sexy. I feel so darn conflicted.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 21, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:05 am
olegt wrote:
Hi Oleg,
I think you're mistaking my criticism of Salvador's behavior for an ad hominem attack.
Criticism of a person's behavior does not constitute an ad hominem attack. If it did, then every criticism of Pol Pot's behavior would be an ad hominem, for example, which makes no sense.
Let's be clear: the ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Wikipedia defines the ad hominem fallacy thus:
If you read through the thread again, I think you'll agree that this is not what I am doing. Nowhere (either in this thread or elsewhere) have I stated that Salvador's ideas or arguments are wrong because I find some of his behavior deplorable. That would be irrational. I've simply stated that the behavior is deplorable. As I told Doug yesterday, our arguments stand or fall on their own merits. That includes Salvador's arguments.
As your example shows, it is easy enough to defeat Salvador's arguments simply by pointing out their weaknesses. If you take a look at the debates I've had with him, I think you'll see that I take that approach. That doesn't mean that I never express irritation with him — particular when he just disappears from arguments that he's clearly lost or tries to change the subject without acknowledging his errors — but my arguments don't hinge on the irritation or the behavior that evokes it.
For example, Zachriel, Salvador and I debate the significance of the Trevors and Abel paper starting here through the end of the thread. There are other conversations going on simultaneously, so you'll have to skip the unrelated comments. I think you'll see that my argument always involves the issue under dispute and does not depend on maligning Salvador.
I posted my initial comment in this thread without itemizing Salvador's offenses because, as I stated there, I figured that Sal's notoriety precedes him, and that anyone who has been following the ID debate closely already knows how Sal operates.
As an ID critic, I'm certainly not expecting ID supporters to take my word for it, and so I'll happily supply links if folks want to see for themselves.
The main question I wanted to pose — the important one, in my opinion — is this one: Why have so few ID supporters spoken out against Salvador's tactics?
The responses have been interesting, to say the least!
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 2:05 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:30 am
nullasalus wrote:
You're too late. Why didn't you tell me that olegt had chides before I got personal with him???
Guess I'd better make a doctor's appointment…
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 2:30 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:36 am
Comment by Pez — June 22, 2008 @ 2:36 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:01 am
robin,
Likely because 'tactics' tend to get tertiary attention at best, no matter what 'side' anyone is on. Someone is accused of a string of poor behavior? On the interwebs? No! Say it's not so! Especially when Sal's been posting dramatically less often, until relatively recently.
When people have acted out of line on TT, I've seen mods jump on ID supporters - the hole shows as much. I've criticized people on 'my side' on TT, even UD. So have others here, I've noticed. Meanwhile, you're bringing up Sal out of the blue, yelling about the laundry list of complaints you have, and regard people who find the whole thing silly as clearly being biased. Considering how much cross-criticism I see between ID proponents (UD and such), it's worthy of an eye-roll.
If you would have jumped on Sal when you thought he was out of line, it'd probably go off better - especially if he was out of line. In this way, in this context, it seems a lot more like the usual internet drama bomb. I'm half waiting for you to pick up a doll and sob while showing everyone where Sal e-touched you.
Comment by nullasalus — June 22, 2008 @ 3:01 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 am
Wow. Anyways… *shuffles to the side*
==========================
I was wondering (and excuse me if this has been covered before) if there is anything written about ID/Darwinism with respects to how the Adaptive Immune System of mammals (and others, I guess) "evolved".
Specifically, I remember being told in one immunology lecture at uni that in the bone marrow there is effectively a "T-cell database", such that we have a T-cell for every single possible antigen combination already pre-programmed into us. When something invades our bodies the Helper T-cells of the adaptive immune system grab an antigen of it, take it back to the bone marrow for comparison, and start pumping out T-cells specific to that antigen by clonal selection.
So (if I have it right):
-We already have a T-cell specific to every single possible antigen sitting in our bone marrow somewhere. It's just a matter of producing copies of them to fight the specific invader.
-Thus we have a T-cell to combat every single virus/bacteria/protozoa/etc in existence (regardless of how effective those T-cells are against some).
-At some point in 'evolution' our ancestors must have come in contact with every single antigen possible, and this has summarily been selected for in an additive process (some family line that has experienced every single disease possible…)
-Alternatively, we lucked out and got a complete 'T-cell database' in our genome by some fortunate mutation and selections… but, to apply the Darwinist saying, if we say that we might as well give up now.
Bear in mind I might be way off/gotten something wrong, as this is from months back. Is there anything written about the "evolution" of the adaptive immune system? What are people's thoughts?
Comment by Avonwatches — June 22, 2008 @ 4:31 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 am
robin,
As I have written above, I agree with you that Salvador resorts to questionable methods. That makes his credibility negative in my eyes and I find it mildly amusing that none of the IDers here is willing to concede this point. Big tent, I suppose.
I just don't see what one gains by discussing Sal's behavior. It doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things.
Comment by olegt — June 22, 2008 @ 9:17 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
um… Maybe we should just call a waaaaaambulance.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 9:44 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Robin
re; Sal
I've seen him do some egregious quote mining and I'm pretty sure I mentioned it in a negative way at least once in a comment under a UD article he wrote.
No one is perfect. On the plus side Sal is fairly well informed, works diligently for the cause, and he bends over backwards trying not to offend anyone. He's a really nice person as far as I know and there is definitely a dearth of nicety in both camps.
I'm the one that made him an author on UD by the way so don't blame Dembski. I have no idea whether or not Bill approved of the action. There has been a time or two when I was tempted to undo what I did but the feeling passed quickly.
It seems a little disingenuous to say that the whole of ID is going to be judged by Sal's quote mining but I'll temper that by saying we do the same thing by using PZ Myers as the stereotype for the chance & necessity pundits. You have to admit though that PZ is a lot more visible than Sal Cordova. Sal is not in the upper echelons at all. He's not a Discovery Fellow and he's written no books. His main claim to fame is participation in IDEA clubs which is why I chose him as an author in the initial group at UD - I wanted IDEA leadership representation. Casey Luskin actually founded the whole IDEA thing. Casey, by the way, is another exceedingly nice guy. He just got married and Gil Dodgen played the piano at his wedding. Gil was someone else who I selected as an author for UD.
Comment by DaveScot — June 22, 2008 @ 10:00 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
nullasalus wrote:
Yes, I guess it would be inconvenient for you if we discussed something that illustrates Sal's egregious behavior, wouldn't it?
Yes. Let's take a look.
Todd wrote:
You responded:
If it's a personal attack when I criticize Salvador's dishonesty based on what he has written, then it's a personal attack when you criticize Todd's rationality based on what he is written. No double standards, please.
Dude, where did you get the idea that your disapproval had the power to reduce me to tears? I like it when you get worked up. That's when you make your best mistakes.
For example, that 'olegt has chides' thing was a beautiful setup for my joke. Thank you!
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 10:08 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 am
robin
Allen McNeill is no angel either. For years on UD he let us call him Professor McNeill or Doctor McNeill and never once corrected it being quite happy to be perceived as an Ivy League biology professor. Imagine my surprise when I happened to surf across his CV and discovered he is not a professor and holds no doctorate. Still I continued to allow him to freely post comments on UD with a single exception where I put him on the moderation list for a week for posting a long diatribe blaming Christianity for the holocaust. That was more out of line than blaming it on Darwin. Bill Dembski I'm sure doesn't approve of my letting McNeill onto UD as McNeill has said some rather uncharitable things about Dembski in other venues including this one. He's done the same to me. McNeill is provably a bit of a snake. But hey, no one is perfect, right?
Comment by DaveScot — June 22, 2008 @ 10:14 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
No, that's important only in your mind, robin. You have not established that it is important outside of your mind.
Of course, since speaking out against perceived unfair tactics is important to you, can you please provide a set of links where you have spoken out against the tactics of your fellow ID critics? Or are they all lil' angels?
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2008 @ 10:29 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
DaveScot wrote:
Hi Dave,
Perhaps it was a mistake for me to assume that word of Sal's behavior had gotten around. I'm very surprised that someone as heavily involved in the ID debate as you are hasn't heard about this stuff.
Sal "bends over backwards trying not to offend anyone?" Is that how you would you interpret his quote-mining of Skatje Myers (see this comment earlier in this thread)?
Or what about this email he sent to Lou (scroll down to find it), who runs the UDOJ blog?
Not exactly what I'd call 'bending over backwards'. What about you, Dave?
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 10:29 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Thanks to Robin, I guess I am going to have to make a rule for my open threads in the future:
Open threads are not meant to be an arena for developing flame wars and personality battles. Thus, if someone posts something that makes a topic out of another TT member's behavior, style, personality, tactics, etc., the comment will simply be deleted.
Does anyone have a problem with this rule? Now is the time to speak up.
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2008 @ 10:34 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
robin
But Skatje DOES support beastiality. She claims she's not interested in it herself but sees no reason to make it illegal. That is fairly characterized as support. If someone were to say they have no interest in having sex with children but saw no reason why it should be illegal if it's consensual would you consider that supportive of adults having sex with children? I sure would. Here's the deal. Children can't give informed consent for sex the same reason they can't enter into contracts, vote, or any number of other things prohibited to minors. That's why the crime is called statutory rape - it's rape whether the child cooperated or not. Animals are like children in this regard - they can't give informed consent.
Comment by DaveScot — June 22, 2008 @ 10:38 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 am
robin says:
"Blatant and chronic quote-mining". Wow, that sounds serious. But I ask myself, what is "quote mining" You hear it tossed around a lot. I type it into google and look for some definitions, and what quickly becomes clear is that it is a pejorative frequently associated with this particular debate: evolution and its supporters and critics. And it is frequently directed at the critics as an insult. No wonder then that critics of MET aren't all the anxious to jump on the bandwagon of those who charge it.
But looking a little further, it appears to mean generally the more familiar "taking a quote out of context", meaning that the quote becomes misleading.
Now the example you offer for Sal doing that doesn't appear to fit that bill at all. You may not agree with Coyne, but nothing you offer in the expanded quote changes the meaning of what Sal quoted.
There's a difference between Sal offering a quote that supports his POV rather than yours, and Sal being deceptive. Now I don't claim to be an expert on Sal and his methods, but the example you gave doesn't offer me any reason to criticize Sal's methods.
But maybe I'm missing something here.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — June 22, 2008 @ 10:50 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Mike
Fine with me. My standard of behavior is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Your blog, your rules.
That said, and to change the subject, I really liked your book. I'd put it second on my "must read" list right behind Behe's "The Edge of Evolution". Particularly brilliant points you made were about false analogies breaking down on closer examination and the surveys of engineering jargon in biology literature. I've been trying to cajole all the Discovery Fellows to read it for a few months now without much success. Denyse O'Leary read it and liked it. The part about looking into the cell and seeing the future of our own technology was spot on. I read Drexler's "Engines of Creation" hot off the press over 20 years ago and he made the same point. EoC is probably the most influential book on the future of technology I've ever read.
Comment by DaveScot — June 22, 2008 @ 10:52 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
MikeGene wrote:
Mike, do you realize that the classic excuse And you are lynching Negroes is a tacit concession?
And if you insist, I can point to an instance where I objected to PZ Myers's use of his blog as part of the classroom. I think mixing classroom and personal politics is bad. I did not rationalize PZ's choice and plainly said that I do not approve of it, period.
Comment by olegt — June 22, 2008 @ 11:01 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
I wrote:
Mike Gene replied:
Um, Mike — that's what "in my opinion" means.
Come on, guy. You're smarter than this. Slow down, take a few deep breaths, and think.
I made it clear in my original comment that I do not think either side is blameless:
As I said before, don't take my word for it. I'm happy to supply the evidence if people want to see it for themselves.
I'm also not reluctant to criticize "my side", and in fact I did so just this morning:
David Mills' YouTube stunt with the Bible and the dog crap? Stupid and needlessly aggressive. That other guy's Bible-burning video? ditto. Dawkins' "she has a stupid face" comment? Dumb and juvenile.
But I've encountered nobody on either side of the debate who behaves as egregiously as Sal.
Have you?
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 11:08 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 am
Hi Dave,
Actually, it's not my blog; I just post here the most. Contributors only have control of their own threads, so the rule would only apply to my threads.
Thanks. Da Rabbit beckons.
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2008 @ 11:16 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 am
Robin's point wasn't that Salvador T. Cordova is quote-mining, but that others in the ID Movement ignore it, even in full knowledge that it might leave the wrong impression on their readers.
I expect my comments to be vetted appropriately, and I am more than willing to correct my statements when appropriate. I would be very disappointed if others allowed me to continue to harbor false understandings.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Allen_MacNeill hid his curriculum vitae on the http://WWW. Allen_MacNeill's blogger profile, linked to with every one of his comments on Uncommon Descent, indicates he teaches "introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY."
Apparently, for quoting Hitler on a thread about Ben "No Darwin, no Hitler" Stein.
As there will be inevitable disputes, I recommend the memory hole.
Here's a typical example.
Salvador T. Cordova (scordova) likes to quote this snippet from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. He thinks it denigrates Darwin, and implies that Darwinism leads to the degradation of the moral sense. In fact, the entire quote shows just the opposite.
In other words, Darwin's moral sense is such that he considers the childhood incident a shameful act that he still remembers with regret many decades later. But Salvador T. Cordova would have you think otherwise. That's what we mean by a quote-mine.
Comment by Zachriel — June 22, 2008 @ 11:18 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
I think the restriction is unnecessary.
If you insist on it, you probably need to specify a little more carefully what you're trying to convey when you talk about 'making a topic.' If a person posts something that is totally unrelated to the preceding comments, then it's obviously a new topic. But what if a new topic comes up organically in the course of discussing a previous one? That happens all the time. When does it constitute 'making a new topic'?
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 11:19 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
moderation help please.
Comment by Zachriel — June 22, 2008 @ 11:19 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Robin
Was Lou offended? I tend to doubt it. He brags all the time about his impersonation of two young girls and his sig on AtBC links to the blogs of both of "them". Wesley chooses some rather strange associations for a nominal Christian.
At any rate, let me clarify. Sal, relatively speaking, bends over backwards not to offend people. I'll concede he's not perfect at it and that he apparently does make some exceptions. But I really don't pay any attention to his behavior outside of UD. One instance that comes to mind is with Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror.
She baited Sal incessantly until I had no choice but to kick her young ass off UD and never once did I see Sal take the bait.
At any rate, you know it's kind of low brow to talk about people, right?
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." — Eleanor Roosevelt
Comment by DaveScot — June 22, 2008 @ 11:24 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
It's case law, Robin.
What you did is what MikeGene is setting a rule against.
You interpret rules and laws within context and you apply the principles being upheld to subsequent cases.
This latest hair-splitting legalism of yours explains a lot about your participation in previous threads and why those of us reading liken you to previously-banned participants.
Oops. Did I violate the new rule?
Comment by Pez — June 22, 2008 @ 11:27 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 am
Well, just to illustrate to robin what the term ad hominem [ed] means - that disqualifying tactic of insulting the person rather than his/her arguments, let's just list the adjectives in PZ's post, In which I have hurt Ken Ham's feelings. It's a case study in sleeze!
The List: Flaming Nutbar; airhead, ass, birdbrain, blockhead, bonehead, boob, bozo, charlatan, cheat, chowderhead, chump, clod, con artist, crackpot, crank, crazy, cretin, dimwit, dingbat, dingleberry, dipstick, ditz, dolt, doofus, dork, dum-dum, dumb-ass, dumbo, dummy, dunce, dunderhead, fake, fathead, fraud, fruitcake, gonif, halfwit, idiot, ignoramus, imbecile, jackass, jerk, jughead, knucklehead, kook, lamebrain, loon, loony, lummox, meatball, meathead, moron, mountebank, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numbnuts, numbskull, nut, nutcase, peabrain, pinhead, racketeer, sap, scam artist, screwball, sham, simpleton, snake oil salesman, thickhead, turkey, twerp, twit, wacko, woodenhead.
Now, it's obvious that PZ got hold of an insult dictionary (no doubt a present from one of his kids or acolytes), and doesn't mind looking dumb himself when he doesn't bother to edit out the redundancies, but I'm sure he thinks this sort of thing makes him yet more worshipful to his burgeoning mass of pimple-faced teenybopper wannabe juvenile delinquent fans. Worse, he's probably right (since most of them probably can't identify the redundancies in those insults copy-pasted straight down the alphabetical list).
Obviously, PZ doesn't like Ken Ham except as a voodoo doll for his pricking pleasure. And no, he's not actually tackling any 'arguments' Ham may have made, just insulting him for being alive in PZ's world. But I thought maybe you could use the dictionary-for-10-year-olds somebody gave to PZ, and which PZ generously presents on his blog to all.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 11:29 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
DaveScot wrote:
Dave,
I'm a vegetarian. I think you are too, right? However, I see no reason to make carnivory illegal. I think consciousness-raising is a better approach.
By your logic, that means I support meat eating. That seems like a questionable characterization to me.
Another example: I deplore Holocaust denial, and I think most Holocaust deniers are irrational bigots. I do not think that Holocaust denial should be illegal, however, and I think it's ridiculous that David Irving was imprisoned in Austria for "glorifying and identifying with the German Nazi Party."
By your logic, that means I support Holocaust denial. Does that seem like a fair characterization?
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 11:32 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
re: Eleanor Roosevelt:
A smart woman with great gams.
Comment by Pez — June 22, 2008 @ 11:33 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
robin,
On this blog, you can be labeled a Holocaust denier for lesser sins, so don't get too worked up.
Comment by olegt — June 22, 2008 @ 11:41 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
DaveScot wrote:
Was Sal 'bending over backwards not to offend' Lou? Please.
Relative to what? A ramrod?
I have to agree that Abbie is over the top. She's been absolutely right on substance in her altercations with Behe and Dembski, but her delivery could stand to be toned down — a lot. Perhaps as she ages, it will.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 11:48 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
olegt wrote:
Whoa!
Mike, I think we need a new rule.
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 11:52 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Hi Robin,
LOL. You make it sound like I need your permission.
Tell y'what, robin. You have your thread right here and there are no rules in this thread. I gotta run and will check back tonight, so let's see what you have made here at TT. People can read through all the comments and decide whether this type of pursuit that you advocate is, on balance, productive or disruptive. Does it generate more heat or more light?
I'm confident that after we all see how this little thread develops, reasonable and fair-minded people will agree with my rule and foresight.
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2008 @ 11:57 am
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Or olegt,
How about your preference? Calling them "tards".
Comment by Doug — June 22, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Robin
Yes, those are fair characterizations IMO. You don't have to agree with something or be a participant in it to support it.
Classic examples:
"I'm not gay but I support the right of others to be gay."
"I would never have an abortion but I support the right of others to choose."
By the same token:
Robin is not a holocaust denier but supports the right of others to be holocaust deniers.
Robin does not eat meat but supports the right of others to eat meat.
Skatje doesn't have sex with barnyard animals but supports the right of others to have sex with barnyard animals.
All fair and accurate statements are they not?
Comment by DaveScot — June 22, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Mike Gene:
It's a good rule Mike.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Dave,
I would submit that there is a crucial difference between "supporting Holocaust denial" and "supporting the right of others to deny the Holocaust."
If someone says to me "Dave supports Holocaust denial", I get one impression. If they say "Dave supports the right of others to deny the Holocaust," I get a completely different impression.
Don't you?
Comment by robin — June 22, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
robin:
I'm a vegetarian too, and I have no problem at all imposing very strict regulations on the Death Industry for purely practical reasons - the grain that livestock are forced to consume (cattle evolved to eat grass, not grain) involves energy inputs and farming practices that are extremely wasteful and highly polluting, as well as contributing greatly to the decimation of rainforest preserves and loss of biodiversity. It also leads to obesity, disease and ugly death in brainwashed consumers propagandized to believe they have to eat meat 3 or 4 times a day and weigh 400 pounds.
Not only is the system energy-stupid, the grain used to fatten a single cow could provide staple grain base for 10 actual humans for a year (who won't then starve to death). It's cruel to the animals and obscene in terms of elitism and waste, and if you haven't seen "Supersize Me" you really should rent it. Oh… and I'd make having sex with barnyard animals punishable under animal cruelty statutes with sex offender overtones.
But I wouldn't make 'carnivory' illegal. I'd just make carnivores have to raise and fatten their own livestock (and deal legally and responsibly with the waste) as well as slaughter, butcher and preserve it. In their own garage or back yard. Livestock that are fattened on grain don't need room to move around or graze, after all. They can be confined to stalls or packed into pens, never have to see the sun.
Too bad I'm not Queen of the Universe. I'd also make a big public show of smashing Hummers, make city people have to get an expensive permit for SUVs (some people need them - they don't live in Miami or LA), tighten fuel efficiency requirements significantly (we can make 50mpg cars, and if not then Japan can), issue fuel vouchers for farm trucks and semis (for their transport and farm necessary-ness, those necessary jobs shouldn't break the workers), fully fund EV's (Electric Vehicles) for commuting from suburbs to city, modernize mass transit (re-invent trains, like in Europe), and alternative energy - with permanent incentives for older buildings to go solar and requirements for new buildings.
Guess I'd do massive PSAs (like a Smoky Bear thing) for Victory Gardens and Buying Local too. With heavy extension agency push in every region for community gardens (on parkland, jointly owned and worked), local crop diversification and sound soil management & farming practices, GMO-Free zones to protect organic growers, and encourage community participation in chain grocery store purchasing, pricing, with all excess and salvage to food banks for re-distribution.
Yes, I'm a despot at heart… §;o)
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The problem is he would have to hole most of the thread. Making an individual the object of a blog entry has ominous implications and I would not want to see TT go in this direction. Sure critical comments will be made of individuals in the course of writing but they are incidental to larger points made in the blog entries themselves. Focusing on issues ought to be the goal. It tends to limit the personal sniping.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Oh… and as a despot at heart, I think Mike's proposed rule is fine. It's weird we even have to discuss it, since topics of personal issue with named others are not allowed on any blog or forum I've ever spent much time on. It's just not done.
So I don't think it should be done here either.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
And if someone supports the "right" of adults to have sex with animals and children I get still another impression. Talk is cheap but dealing with the consequences of abusive behavior is costly both for the victims and the larger society.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I am interested in this materialist sin - quote mining. If the quote is accurate (verbatim transcription, cut 'n paste, etc), then how exactly is it dishonest to repeat someone's words? I have seen instances where someone says something provocative and then spills many electrons hedging and weasel wording - usually to mitigate the expected backlash of the original thought. I find it completely unnecessary to include all of this, except possibly to enjoy the squirming.
Comment by rhodeymark1 — June 22, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
All in favor of Mike's rule here. I'd even suggest coming down harder on people who get personally insulting in threads. Hole 'em, warn 'em, whatever - it's not worth tolerating.
Comment by nullasalus — June 22, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
nullasalus:
There's a reason for adopting a harder line which has nothing to do with the offenders themselves. Insults and trash talking discourage the participation of the very types of people who have the most to contribute.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Hi Dave
You know John just passed eighty last week. I'm sure he'd appreciate a birthday greeting from you.
On the Sal Cordova issue, my very first introduction to ID on a site unrelated to the issues (it was a forum intended to help with learning a second language) a poster referred me to the works of Bill Dembski and I found UD. A comment by Sal there claiming victory in a debate on PT led me to check the actual thread and my scepticism of ID was confirmed. Sal later reinforced my opinion when pursuing the claim that a company (Genetic-ID) was using the explanatory filter in its commercial processes, first at ARN, then at UD. I recall DaveScot was critical of Sal's thread.
I am strongly in favour of Sal continuing as he has done because it so detrimental to ID being taken seriously, but puzzled why those who take an opposite view of ID haven't had a quiet word with him.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 22, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Alan Fox:
Perhaps because ID isn't some sort of authoritarian "orthodoxy" complete with tenets and dogma and such. It's just a way of looking at the world, and a reaction against strong attempts to impose authoritarian "orthodoxy" on everyone as a metaphysical belief system, No Questions Allowed.
Sal can be who he is, I don't mind. We've had run-ins a few times, mostly back on ARN, where it wasn't worth the effort for me to engage a fight I couldn't win (their moderation was a lot more one-sided than it is here on TT). After he managed to get me docked a few times for taking polite issue with his assertions, I stopped participating. Now I mostly don't even read his posts, or follow those discussions.
If I can do that, so can 'robin'.
It doesn't much matter to me what other people choose to believe about origins and the nature of life on planet earth. So long as they aren't deceptively attempting to slip a metaphysic into the mix, then force-feed it to other people's children in blatant disregard for the spirit of Amendment #1 to the U.S. Constitution.
Thus I'm against force-feeding creationism or ID as much as I'm against force-feeding materialism disguised as Neodarwinism. IOW, it's a liberty and rights issue for me, and if I take that seriously (and I do), it must also include people I strongly disagree with.
I'll make mincemeat of bad arguments if I can, no problem. Belittle them and call them stupid and laugh out loud. But I do try not to attack people directly, even internet pseuds and known sockpuppets, there's a real person in there somewhere.
I am not always successful at living up to my own moral sensibilities, and am known to become so frustrated I get downright mean (inherited that trait from my mother, who had too many children). So I tend to be fairly forgiving of frustration in others.
Comment by Joy — June 22, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Oh, my goodness, I didn't see this thread until just now.
Scoundrel Scoundrel?…I like the sound of that
I'm happy to refer people to websites like Pharyngula, and PandasThumb which enumerate my many transgressions.
Also: "I, Salvador Cordova, publicly condemn any quotemining, dishonesy, and ad hominems commited by Salvador Cordova both in the past, present, and in the future."
There does that make you feel better, Robin.
And further I was reprimanded by Forethekids for the incident reported here.
And just to show you I'm sincere, I roundly condemn this form of quotmining.
Salvador, shame on you for making fun of Darwin and quote-mining him out of context. Shame on you for profaning the person of Charles Darwin.
There Robin, do you feel better.
PS
My above condemnation is not to be construed as an admission of guilt, just a condemnation of possible guilt. For the record, I don't beat puppies. But I condemn any future puppy beating if I so perpetrated it.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 22, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Joy, you're scaring me. That's two posts in a row that make quite a bit of sense to me!:shock:
Comment by Alan Fox — June 22, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Good one Sal. Let your detractors now confess their own sins.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Keep it up, Sal, you're doing great.:wink:
Comment by Alan Fox — June 22, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I freely confess my inability to take the issue of "Intelligent Design" seriously. Sorry.
Comment by Alan Fox — June 22, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm