Spotting the Spin
by Steve PetermannSince the debate concerning intelligent design is drawing more and more public attention in the press and the media, there seems to be a growing number of people who sense there is something important going on who also want to get the straight scoop of things. Problem is that since the debate really stems from battling worldviews, it can be very difficult for those who are not deeply involved in the debate to get as an objective a picture as they would like. Why is that? Because of spin.
Now "spin" originated in the public relations arena as a tool to promote a particular agenda or ideology. What distinguishes spin from other attempts to persuade and debate is its wholesale disregard for what would be considered the established norms of logical discourse. Instead spin-sters will employ whatever means they think necessary (and can get away with) to accomplish their agenda.
So what are those who want the truth of things to do as they attempt to glean some objective information from the public debate. One thing they can do is learn how to spot spin. Once they become sensitive to spin tactics, they can immediately spot illegitimate arguments and also spot the spin-sters, those who make a regular habit of spinning the debate.
As a moderate in the debate over the past few years, my perception is that most ID proponents want a straight up debate on the issues without all the spin. The Darwinists who regularly appear in the public's eye, however, seem to want anything but that.
So if you want the straight scoop on the intelligent design issues here's a few things to look for in spotting spin:
- Framing: This is an attempt to control the debate by setting it up away from issues the debater doesn't want to acknowledge or address. Examples: "its evolution vs. creationism", "its religion vs. science"
- Appealing to Motives: This method tries to disparage the intellectual integrity of one's opponent. It says that the opponent is not capable of making valid arguments because they are so tainted by their personal motives or ideology.
- Quote Mining: This is where small chunks of an opponents words are jerked out of context and used to fallaciously support an argument. Using quotes from detractors and proponents is not necessarily illegitimate as long as the goal is not deception and a reasonable effort is made to be fair.
- Cherry Picking: In this tactic the holistic integrity of an argument is ignored and only those selected aspects that support one's position are rendered.
- Planned Ambiguity: There will always be ambiguities within an argument but when an ambiguity is purposely created to appear to support one meaning when the other is really being supported, that is spin. This method also offers a bail out position if the interlocutor is later accused of deception. They can always claim what they really meant was something else. Example: the ambiguity of the word "purposefulness" here looks like a good example
- Stereotyping: Indiscriminate use of labeling is a good example of this. The incessant prefixing or postfixing the term "creationism" or "creationist" to anything ID is an example.
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the person instead of the argument.
- Non Sequitur (Doesn't Follow): Making unwarranted extrapolations from what an opponent has said. This can be very subtly slipped in.
- The Red Herring: Steering the debate to something irrelevant that can somehow bias opinion.
- Slight-of-Hand: Using subtle misdirection or ambiguity while pushing hard in another direction.
- Ignoring one's own weaknesses: Watch out when the debater is unwilling to acknowledge any weaknesses in their position.
- Making no concessions: If no concessions whatsoever are made to the opponent that's a dead tip off that the debater is not a serious interlocutor. Everyone has some element of truth to their position.
- "Being Magnanimous": Granting a negligible concession while taking away a major one. This is an attempt to seem magnanimous when it is, in fact, a slight-of-hand tactic.
- Guilt by Association: When there are various groups that hold, at least, some superficial commonality but lack agreement on substantive issues, if one group holds a special pejorative with the public, the other group can be disparaged by claiming association.
- Appeal to Paranoia: Illegitimately inciting paranoia. Example: the claim that ID will ruin science with all kinds of bad consequences when there is no evidence of such.
- Appeal to Conspiracy: Similar to the appeal to paranoia, this is a combination of guilt by association and appeal to emotion. Example: the idea that if one is ID friendly, one is secretly part of a "wedge type conspiracy".
- Appeal to Emotion: Finding the emotional hot buttons to push and pushing them without good reason. Example: the claim that ID is really an attempt to force Christianity into schools.
- Argumentum ad nauseam: Continually repeating a claim that has already been addressed and rebutted. The incessant mantra's coming from the Darwinists is deafening. "It's not science." "There is no evidence." "ID is just religion in disguise."
- Packaged deal fallacy: This says that if such and such happens then there is a domino effect of unwanted consequences. An example would be to claim that ID is only the first step towards a theocracy.
At any rate those are a few things to look out for. If, on the other hand, you find debaters who do not stoop to these tactics, its a good bet you'll be getting the straight scoop.
July 30th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Nice job, Steve. Another sign of spin is "rapid response." Here, the person responds to a message or blog as soon as possible.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2005 @ 1:30 pm
July 30th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
Hi Steve,
Another thing to look out for is the repeated use of certain keywords, intended to "condition" the reader or listener into a desired pattern of thought. The next time you read someone from the NCSE or PT, writing to newspapers or school boards, try looking for the phrases "God of the gaps theology" and "anti-evolution" being used to describe ID.
Comment by Krauze — July 30, 2005 @ 6:07 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 2:46 am
While this is probably covered in your well thought out list, I often see ID critics (such as Dawkins) "appeal to the consequences of a belief" when critiquing ID. The line of reasoning goes something like this…
"X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences."
Obviously "X" is intelligent design and the negative consequences would be a supposed halt to scientific research. In my experience, ID critics tend to use this fallacy right after claiming ID is nothing more then a "God of the gaps" argument.
Finally, the following website and "guide" ( the part 1: General Debunkery section) points out some of the fallacies/tactics that certain "skeptics" like to use, but in a humorous way…
http://members.aol.com/ddrasin...
Comment by eldorn — July 31, 2005 @ 2:46 am
July 31st, 2005 at 7:05 am
How about: "presenting only convenient views and ignoring those that challenge one's claim to knowledge; including science, philosophy and theology"
Or, "pretending to be an IDist when in fact one's views fall outside the 'big tent' theory as it was originally proposed"
Or, "appealing to 'objectivity' or 'let the facts speak' in a conversation that actually goes beyond the boundaries of traditional natural science"
Or, "refusing to accept an argument that debunks the idea or claim one is proposing"
Or, "raising false dichotomies, like: creationism vs. evolutionism (said above), naturalism vs. theism, agnosticism vs. gnosticism, or (the fav of ID proponents at Telic Thoughts, and some ID card carriers elsewhere) ID vs. Darwinism"
Or, "presuming philosophy and/or theology are unimportant to discussions about ID, that ID is purely scientific, or that social science is irrelevant to topics related to origins, meaning, human purpose and teleology"
Comment by g arago — July 31, 2005 @ 7:05 am
July 31st, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Another sign of spin is failure to engage the real issues, for example, by claiming spin instead of doing one's homework.
The argument for evolution theory may be rebuttable, but it's difficult to tell, since so few ever deal with the real theory.
Evolution theory is five observations, or facts, and three reasonable inferences drawn from them.
These are the facts of evolution which creationists must deny to falsify evolution.
Observation 1: Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
Observation 2: Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.
Observation 3. Food resources are limited, and are constant most of the time.
Inference A: In such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.
Observation 4: No two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.
Observation 5: Much of this variation is heritable.
Inference B: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the "best" characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring. This is natural selection.
Inference C: Natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species.
(In Ernst Mayr's 1982 book The Growth of Biological Thought, he boils Darwin down to five observations and three inferences from them — the heart of evolution, according to Donald Johanson and Maitland A. Edey in Blueprints.)
The careful reader will noctice that nothing in ID calls any part of these observations into question.
Comment by edarrell — July 31, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 3:12 pm
edarrel,
That would be covered by the spin tactic of framing.
I'll leave it to the biologists to critique your characterization of Darwinism but I can't help but notice you left the non-teleological aspect. Isn't that the real issue? This is also an example of framing in spin.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 31, 2005 @ 3:12 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 3:46 pm
g arago,
That would be covered by framing.
If the intent of such is deception that would be considered spin. Seems to me though that your big tent demand could also be considered framing.
That's not spin. That just a difference of opinion. I think you are confusing spin which is a concerted effort to deceive with having an opinion.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 31, 2005 @ 3:46 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 6:04 pm
Thanks for clarifying, Steve.
The 'Big Tent' reference is certainly a type of frame. But it does identify that there are parameters and that 'intelligent design theory' must have some core meaning to even be available to assess or critique. Denying this, or changing the core meaning(s) on the fly, is its own kind of spin.
Those who complain about being attacked for their ID beliefs or ID pseudo-science, who really hold to something entirely different than Johnson, Debmski, Behe, Meyer, Nelson, Wells and other ID leaders/inventors, are rather curious characters. Why bring a label upon yourself if it doesn't fit?
Someone several weeks ago suggested that Mike Gene establish his own 'design' theoretic, which i assumed was one of the purposes of this blog, rather than toting ID Big Tent dogmas. Isn't this happening?
Let me add, since it has occurred twice this week here, that the phrase "I'm not the topic here" is also a way of 'spinning away' from responsibility. The modern age's 'objectivity of science' has given ground to the current acceptance of a hermeneutical approach. 'I'm not the topic here' avoids the reality that the person who speaks is the one who is interpreting the so-called objective science.
Two people look at the same 'evidence' and may come to entirely different conclusions. Thus, it is exactly the difference of opinion and not spin that must be confronted (hopefully respectfully). Concerted efforts to deceive belong on the dung heap of this scientific/philosophical/theological discussion.
If (agn.) Krauze is stating the connection or lack of connection between his support or promotion of ID and how it relates to his world-view is unimportant, then we can see how unwillingness to involve motives causes much undue communicative obscurity. Thanks to Steve for revisiting the importance of motives, especially for helping us to understand spin.
"John's baptism - was it from heaven or from men? Tell me!"
(And don't spin.)
Comment by g arago — July 31, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Big Tents are all around us. For example, among the critics of ID, you will find everything from devout Christians to real Scientists to Atheists using science as a Trojan Horse to anti-religious Bigots. Nevertheless, I am not toting any Big Tent dogma.
What someone suggested a few weeks back was that I abandon the label "intelligent design" and come up with some new label. It was a silly idea.
Comment by MikeGene — July 31, 2005 @ 9:16 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 9:37 pm
g arago,
I don't know who you are talking about. Nobody here "holds to something entirely different" from those you mentioned. Surely it is not necessary to hold complete agreement on all issues to feel a part of a community or movement.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 31, 2005 @ 9:37 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 4:49 am
Hi Arago,
"Let me add, since it has occurred twice this week here, that the phrase 'I'm not the topic here' is also a way of 'spinning away' from responsibility."
More a way of preventing the discussion from going off-track. I don't mind discussing my own perspective, but there's a time and a place for everything.
Comment by Krauze — August 1, 2005 @ 4:49 am
August 1st, 2005 at 4:55 am
Perhaps you underestimate yourselves here. It might have been a silly person (I don't remember who), Mike, but it was not a silly idea. Perhaps it was even a disguised compliment that you didn't accept.
There is a value to focussing on telic thinking, without resort to those two wedded concepts 'intelligent' plus 'design' and without using 'the controversy' surrounding the recent social-political-pseudo-scientific Movement in the USA for one's ideological support. Why not set out clearly what 'telic thoughts' means and how it could help contribute to the IDM's goals, while still maintaining the 'independence' that you are claiming?
Apply information theory, probability theory, unevolvability, cosmology and the anthropic principle as/if you see fit, but do something with your 'telic thoughts' concept instead of just saying 'telic thoughts, I have them.' (Well, you've each said more than that already, and the links you give speak something too.)
I imagine that since ARN and ISCID, or other IDist lists didn't provide everything you wanted, instead you chose to have your own productive conversations elsewhere. This place/blog/list is likely not just for promoting further ID spin. Or perhaps it gives more freedom of editing away those unwanted voices. At least, I get a different feeling here and note that Salvador's words are not just sung by ID faithful as if he really understood the broader discourse without allowing his concordist, anti-philosophy, anti-social science to distort truths, even for other theists.
Originally, when I signed up for this blog, the phrase "Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design" was not yet added to the main banner. At that point I didn't realize you folks at TT wanted merely to contribute to the IDM and its theories, rather than promoting your own.
According to Mike Gene, ID is not science and should not be taught in schools. But Dembski, the post-Johnson leader of the IDM and ID theory (self-proclaimed and claimed by others), writes about ID 'becoming a disciplined science.' He also writes about the 'design revolution.' Why do you promote ID if you don't believe this?
IDists go to school board meetings and court rooms to promote their views. They open think tanks to retrain scientific minds 'to see purpose in nature' and then do not keep promises when honest critics challenge their views. Do telic thinkers not do the same?
If MG (or Steve or bipod) wants to help make ID a science, then by all means, he (or they) should do so and help the IDM, which would mean coming up with something they haven't yet. If he just figures ID will never be 'science' then this is entirely contrary to the ID leaders' hopes and dreams. The reality of ID theories and their relvance or irrelevance for science, philosophy and theology is what we are discussing. I speak no spin when I communicate this.
Then I am encouraged, but also more confused about what purpose you may or may not be serving. Perhaps one should call you an 'impartial psychological conscience' of those who would attack evangelical ID, on whatever grounds they have for doing so. Perhaps you have a bone to pick with Darwinists, or neo-Darwinists, or evolutionary creationists, or just with apologetic theists generally. Or perhaps you won't embrace what most ID public figures (i.e. Christians) accept because of something your Priest said or did at the local church when you were a teenager. Your motivations, indeed, do not define your contribution to the discourse or your ability to critique those who criticize theories of intelligent design.
And yet your willingness or unwillingness to say whether you believe in creation, whether spirit has any relevance for your personal theory of ID or whether it is entirely a material theory or idea, actually speaks volumes. Complete agreement with ID's leadership crew is not necessary, but core tenants cannot be conveniently ignored or dodged leaving personal views fragmented with the bigger picture. Just as with Kraze and perhaps S. Petermann also, not answering that important question reproduced above is what ends up separating the real believers in ID (biology included) from unbelievers, who only follow the letter of the proposed ID 'laws' and not the spirit.
"Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."
Comment by g arago — August 1, 2005 @ 4:55 am
August 1st, 2005 at 11:05 am
"As a moderate in the debate over the past few years, my perception is that most ID proponents want a straight up debate on the issues without all the spin. The Darwinists who regularly appear in the public's eye, however, seem to want anything but that."
Curious, I see the opposite. Framing: Phillip Johnson made it clear he wants to frame ID v. Evolution as Theism v. atheism.; appealing to motives: can't count the number of times I've heard the argument that "darwinists" just want to promote atheism; Quote mining: 'nuff said; look at Dembski's infamous use of a quote concerning the Cambrian Explosion, which is just one of many examples of scientists being quote mined to mean the opposite of what they intended; cherry picking: this is basically all that most IDists can do, since they don't have a theory; planned ambiguity: I still don't have a clue what IDists mean by "intelligence" or "design"; stereotyping: "darwinists" are atheists; Ad Hominem: rarely see an IDist mention Dawkins without mentioning he's an atheist. You get the point; many IDists push the idea that evolutionary theory is atheistic, its part of a materialistic worldview that is destroying western culture, and cultural restoration requires the defeat of evolutionary theory and materialism and the restoration of christianity. So don't go claiming its just ID critics who engage in these kinds of tactics when Dembski, Johnson, et al are the masters.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 1, 2005 @ 11:05 am
August 1st, 2005 at 11:14 am
Aagcobb,
I never did. I said "my perception is that most ID proponents want a straight up debate on the issues without all the spin. The Darwinists who regularly appear in the public's eye, however, seem to want anything but that."
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 1, 2005 @ 11:14 am
August 1st, 2005 at 11:24 am
"Aagcobb,
So don't go claiming its just ID critics who engage in these kinds of tactics..
I never did. I said "my perception is that most ID proponents want a straight up debate on the issues without all the spin. The Darwinists who regularly appear in the public's eye, however, seem to want anything but that."
One reason I have a problem with your claim; in that one sentence you engage in several of the types of arguments you are claiming that IDists rarely use, such as stereotyping, guilt by association, and appeal to emotion. Another is that, as I said, you can find specific scientific responses to virtually every claim made by creationists and IDists; here, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/ind...
Comment by Aagcobb — August 1, 2005 @ 11:24 am
August 1st, 2005 at 11:52 am
Aagcobb:
Everyone has their perceptions. Steve sees one thing; Aagcobb sees something else. The problem is that critics are supposed to be the Scholars, the Scientists, the Objective, Impartial Judges. Aagcobb is excusing them by arguing they are no different from Johnson. LOL
If there is something in there that is a response to one of my arguments, let me know so I can reply.
Comment by MikeGene — August 1, 2005 @ 11:52 am
August 1st, 2005 at 12:04 pm
"The problem is that critics are supposed to be the Scholars, the Scientists, the Objective, Impartial Judges. Aagcobb is excusing them by arguing they are no different from Johnson. LOL"
Didn't make that claim Mike. This is an example of a nonsequitur; one of those arguments Idists supposedly rarely make. What I actually pointed out is that evolutionary scientists frequently respond to creationist and IDist arguments with science.
"If there is something in there that is a response to one of my arguments, let me know so I can reply."
I'm not up to speed on your arguments, Mike, so you might want to check for yourself.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 1, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 6:16 pm
Hi Arago,
"Originally, when I signed up for this blog, the phrase "Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design" was not yet added to the main banner. At that point I didn't realize you folks at TT wanted merely to contribute to the IDM and its theories, rather than promoting your own."
ID isn't the same as the ID movement. I believe we've been over this before.
"According to Mike Gene, ID is not science and should not be taught in schools. But Dembski, the post-Johnson leader of the IDM and ID theory (self-proclaimed and claimed by others), writes about ID 'becoming a disciplined science.' He also writes about the 'design revolution.' Why do you promote ID if you don't believe this?"
We don't "promote ID". If you'll read through the posts on this blog, you'll read posts that poke fun of the paranoia that runs rampart among some ID critics, posts that deal with faulty arguments against ID, as presented in newspaper op-eds or elsewhere, posts that look at some aspect of the biological world and offers an admittedly tentative way it could fit into a teleological view, and posts that deal with many other things. What you will not find is posts demanding that others think as we do, or deride people who disagrees with us for not accepting the 'obvious evidence for design'.
Nonetheless, we think there are subtle clues that indicate design, and thus identify ourselves with ID. We could also have chosen another label, but in that case, conspiracy-minded critics would just have another excuse to accuse us of hiding our Trojan Horse under another Trojan Horse.
Comment by Krauze — August 1, 2005 @ 6:16 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 11:29 pm
g arago said to Mike:
Appeal to motives; Guilt by association; Appeal to paranoia/conspiracy.
Perhaps you have a valid complaint about principals here not offering their own naturalistic, non-theologically influenced ID theoretics. You might even have a valid complaint that principals here aren't being personally revealing about their metaphysical/religious beliefs. But when I examine those complaints all I see is what YOU want the principals here to tell you, not things that are pertinent to the validity of "Telic Thoughts."
[YOU being figurative if your criticisms are offered in the vein of identifying potentially valid points]
For instance, I'm working on an overview of biological evolution that not only crosses over disciplinary lines, but is inspired by what I know from experience about life and death on planet earth and what I have learned about what science knows (and doesn't know) about such things. It's nowhere near ready for presentation as an alternative scientific theoretic, and it very well might never be presented as such. Then again, I'm not Charlie Darwin. I have already done my scientific world-changing (and made my contributions to evolution), thanks. I don't need that kind of social approval to justify my musings.
So what point would there be for me offering you a "work in progress" if I had a formalization to offer? Why should I HAVE to offer it for your approval or criticism in order to be here supporting the idea of teleological design in life/nature? And why should my personal spiritual beliefs be an issue? If I did have a fully-formed and defensible ID theory and published it here for your perusal, would my personal spiritual beliefs still be 'important'? If so, why?
You seem terminally stuck in an expectation rut. It seems that you're saying the bloggers here can't support ID unless they buy into the religious creationism of Johnson or Dembski or some other ID "Movement" figurehead. Or that they can't strongly suspect teleological design in life, or seek a naturalistic explanation for teleological design, or even hope to specify ways of approaching it AS teleological design unless their theory is full-blown, offered for criticism, and allied with somebody else's religious beliefs (or certifiably atheistic/agnostic). I think that's unreasonable.
But since you appear to expect full-blown theoretics, positive research results and personal ideological vitae before you'd consider the validity of anything posted to this blog in support of teleological design in life/nature, I can go ahead and tell you that's not what you'll get from me. No expectation or criticism from you is going to stop me from thinking "Telic Thoughts" or posting about them. I doubt it'll stop anyone else either. Nor will it materially affect whatever may come from the exercise.
You can always choose not to read.
Comment by Joy — August 1, 2005 @ 11:29 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:27 am
Yes, it was a silly idea. There is no reason to run from ID, as I'm betting the longshot that there is something solid there. But one must first understand ID101 and the various essays on my web page. Besides, for most critics, it's Trojan Horses all the way down. Changing the label just invites new conspiracy theories. Since I'm also betting on a PWW, conspiracy theories will be seen as conspiracy theories when the time is right.
My web page has 53 essays. Expect much more.
5 years and 5000 postings earns me the right for a new atmosphere, don't you think? But hey, when something replaces the blog, I'll probably be there too.
One lesson from ID101 "“ ID and the IDM are not the same.
See ID101.
Never been to a school board meeting or court room. Not part of any think tank. Not part of any organization or even a church. I simply put arguments in the public arena. It's part of who I am.
I don't care about relevance or irrelevance for science, philosophy and theology. Those are just more simplistic labels for a complicated world. Look, I have a real hunch. Unless someone convinces me I am deluded, am I supposed to walk away from it? You completely overlook the reality of our medium. Thoughts that would have remained private now get a public testing.
I call it as I see it. Sorry, but I just can't buy into this public fantasy where supposedly the Forces of Good are doing battle against the Forces of Evil. Reality is much too complicated.
You think so, do you? Pray tell, what is it telling you?
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 12:27 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 6:24 pm
Yes, this is appreciated. Clearly, I do not think as you do, e.g. not being agnostic. And I'm glad you are not trying to convince people of the obvious.
Well, I don't think another label would carry 'the controversy' with it that you have chosen by identifying with 'it is intelligently designed' as an explanation for biological origin(s). However, you are clearly indebted to those who formulated the concept of ID, without which your meeting at ARN and subsequent agreement to form an 'independent' blog would not have 'evolved' into existence.
I'm curious to know if the 'clues that indicate design' for you also indicate a 'designer' (an intelligent one at that), or if on this issue you side with those in the IDM who say, no, it needn't. Are you agnostic about the 'designing process,' which by definition inevitiably must involve a designer? More exactly, do you, Krauze, separte the design from the designer?
Running from it and distinguishing yourself from it are two different things. I am not calling you a coward. It appears to me, though, that you are trying to revise someone else's conceptual invention to your own liking. 'It isn't science; don't teach it in schools; it doesn't have to do with feelings of purpose or plan,' etc. - these things are markedly different than what IDists think. I can't imagine what may be 'solid' there other than your own created theory; take or leave the parts of ID that you don't like. 'Intelligent Design Evolutionist' is, for many in the IDM, a contradiction of terms.
This does explain much; certainly the originators of ID theory(c) do care. Sorry that I can't experience your 'real hunch' as you do, Mike, since that is rather subjective. This is not meant to discount what you feel, but rather to identify a gap between it and what you may or may not convince others is 'real' using your writing and communication; if not or in addition to your scientific skills. Teleologic and telic thinking are provocative, but far from well-accepted in the spheres you seem intent on speaking to. I have asked you before what disciplines you represent or what background training you possess and you have avoided such questioning as if it was too personal.
Have to break it to you; you are part of the public too, Mike Gene. Though on the internet you can still exist on your own (medium) little island.
Comment by g arago — August 2, 2005 @ 6:24 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Hi Joy,
Never have I been labeled so much in so short a time as in the last week at this blog! And those words, are not even my own! (So perhaps I should mean that you've labeled someone else.)
"Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."
Then you should move beyond evolutionary thinking, such that it is merely 'in process' and actually finish the job someday. Then you can print it (or send it out on-line) and see what people think. Otherwise you could get stuck in an unfinished product for many, many years and it could simply 'evolve' virtually forever.
I don't see where this is coming from, certainly not from what I said or meant. Are you saying your spiritual beliefs are unimportant and a non-issue? Publish it, and I'll consider if you can fully separate your 'fully-formed and defensible ID theory' from your beliefs. If you can't explain why your beliefs are important to your science, then surely I can't help you. Surely your beliefs are important to your professional occuption, or am I just clowning with you?
Comment by g arago — August 2, 2005 @ 6:58 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:14 pm
(soory, this message was truncated)
Yes, that would be unreasonable if that is what I meant. But its not. I am simply saying that those who distort ID theory for their own purpose are not being true to its original formulation. In this sense, ID theories really are separate from the IDM, though such persons never would have thought up I+D if it weren't for those originators. Support ID, suspect design, anyone who wants!
'Teleological design,' otoh, I haven't mentioned; that is yours or Steve's, Krauzes' or Mike's. I've merely spoken of 'origins, meaning, purpose and teleology.' But I'm not a physicist or biologist, programmer or engineer like some of you here either. As long as we can respect each other's differences.
Go right ahead and think 'telic thoughts,' Joy. You don't need my permission and it wouldn't change you from thinking what you think even if you did need it. There appears to be an escape from or absence of authority somewhere in your chain of reasoning. I've actually spoken in support of people thinking 'telic thoughts,' so your charge of expectation-begging is apparently misguided. I am not blaming the victim either.
Here is the full text from which the excerpts were taken:
"I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism - was it from heaven or from men? Tell me!"
They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say 'From men'…" (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)"
So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."
Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things." (Mark 12)
Comment by g arago — August 2, 2005 @ 7:14 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Once again, see ID101.
What may be solid is the hypothesis that the first life forms to appear on this Earth were the products of design.
But not from a logical perspective. If you keep looking at ID through the prism of the IDM, you will continue to flunk ID101.
No problem here. What matters to me is whether the hundreds of people I cross paths with strengthen or weaken my hunch. Don't you understand the meaning of the internet? It doesn't matter what topic you are talking about - Gatekeepers are an endangered species.
The sphere that MikeGene speaks to is in cyberspace.
It's irrelevant. You can consider my arguments and reach your own conclusion. Just as I will consider your arguments, without knowledge of your background and training, and reach my own conclusion.
Of course I am part of the public. What I said is that I don't buy into the public fantasy that sees in black and white. I have color vision.
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 7:39 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:11 pm
g arago,
But I thought you were into labels. You seem to want the telicthoughts crew to label themselves into something more specific than ID. So if specific labels are applied to you what are you complaining about?
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 2, 2005 @ 8:11 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:13 pm
O.k., Mike Gene, now I've viewed your version of ID 101 once again.
Is this not an appeal to authority?
Exactly, such an appeal doesn't have to be called mere spin. But it does show that MG depends on Dembski for fundamental bases of his views of ID. Without W. Dembski, P. Johnson and M. Behe there is no ID in Mike Gene's mind/heart/hunch-mainfested in a concise theory. Note I did not say there would be no 'telic thoughts'.
Common knowledge. Therefore, let me throw out the same challenge I have given to Behe, Dembski and Nelson: what is the difference between human-made and non-human-made things when it comes to (your theory of) intelligent design?
None of those three has answered yet. S. Meyer assumes 'intelligent selection' in his 'first peer-reviewed ID paper' without the integrity of defining what that loaded term actually might mean. Without such a definitional base, his reference is a mere hollow analogy to suit his general argument. Biologists are unconvinced.
Note: the following is not an acceptable answer.
Simple and undeniable in your version of ID. But why do you call it 'ID' and not something else perhaps more suitable to the context? What distinguishes this version of ID=human-made from a biological explanation of ID=non-human-made? Is art, which Mt. Rushmore obviously represents, likewise applicable in (your) ID theory?
Ohh…and Mike, why didn't you reply to Aster's detailed posts on that page - ID 101 . Were they irrelevant, in your opinion, to ID 101, or beyond what ID 1o1 is (currently) capable of dealing with or focussed upon?
Comment by g arago — August 2, 2005 @ 8:13 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Steve,
You flung like mud accusations of logical and philosophical fallacy. They were not 'specific labels.' It was calling into question my communicative competency by my disputing my ability to make a statement. This is something very different than taking a position by attaching an appropriate label to describe a category or feature of one's belief, science or a theory one holds.
If the 'telic thoughts' crew wants to take a label upon themselves, I think it would be to their benefit. And it would certainly help to distinguish them from the IDM and their theories of ID, with which it is obvious not all at telic thoughts wholly agree.
Comment by g arago — August 2, 2005 @ 8:21 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:22 pm
I understood that the sentence wasn't your own, but you used it to sum up the criticisms you offered. Which actually have some significant validity - and not just from a 'semi-detatched' sociological point of view. So I used it to indicate my comment was to your criticisms.
I added the bracketed disclaimer following my first paragraph because I also understood that you were echoing criticisms of others rather than offering your own personal views/demands for answers. I guess I should have made it more prominent that the "YOU" was figurative in answer to your figuratives.
But I suffer this awful side effect of living on the mountain… I honestly don't care a whole lot what other people think about me (so long as they stay out of my way). As I said, I've already done my scientific world-changing. That cost me a lot. There are people who know what it changed and why, but the public doesn't know about it BECAUSE of what changed. That's all that was ever required. And I'm shy enough not to need public approval.
Whatever I can put together of what I've gathered through the years will be recorded, and someday it just might be released. By someone. Public approval - or even public knowledge - isn't the point. I've no 'souls' to save or beliefs to convert. Life's too short. Whenever my family/friends ask when I'll "write the book" I tell 'em I am still living it. There may not be an 'ending' by my hand, and that's okay too. The pieces-parts are enough.
"A Work In Progress" might be a good title, come to think of it, though it's filed under "A Gross of Noses." As opposed to the only other formal presentation (now a quarter of a century old), entitled "Tales from the Heart of the Beast." The most notorious unpublished book of the twentieth century.
Greg, my metaphysics are part of who I am. As your metaphysics are a part of you. Only dysfunctional and immature people would claim not so. It is difficult-to-impossible to neatly separate a part of yourself from another part of yourself - what you do with your time in time. In fact, some people would tell you that the metaphysical part (which grows and learns as the physical part does) is the more 'important' part.
But the metaphysics need not be an issue in the validity of scientific theory unless one MAKES it an issue. If the theory is valid, metaphysics aren't 'important' at all. If it's invalid, metaphysics won't save it. As for clowning, we ran away with a circus after my brother was killed - very much on purpose. Left a single Tarot card tacked to the calendar in the kitchen to say all that we were allowed to say about the science: The Fool, the unnumbered Major Arcana… the 'Zero' card.
That's my entire life aligning with my metaphysics - a genuine Position Paper on "what this means." I know how to interpret naturalistic theory and I know how to separate empirical evidence from interpretations too. A requirement of the practice of 'real' science, but not a requirement of life in time. In clowning, so long as the nose is on you can never 'break character' because you never know who's watching. That's a "becoming" of a creative conceptualization. Consciousness determining reality. With style!
The pieces-parts already in the family archives are clearly separated by circumstance and approach. Part of it is highly technical, part of it is multidisciplinary-theoretic, part of it is intensely personal, some of it is astounding, and most of it is Commedia del'Arte in the streets and alleys of the American landscape. An adventure story, not a scientific or mystical treatise (though both of those are included as pieces-parts). Adventures always hold tempting challenges, frightening dangers, costly struggles, and tragic loss. They also hold the most inspiring love stories along with fun enough reasons to go on. Someone else gets to write the final chapter.
I don't consider myself an "ID Theorist" whose job is to somehow formalize the idea of intelligent design so that it can triumph in science as well as sociopolitics. I have enough trust in the underlying honesty of science itself to someday overcome the generational turf-guarding and metaphysical corruptions evolutionary biology is currently saddled with. It has already begun and makes significant progress every day. They may never call it "Intelligent Design," but it will be practically indistinguishable (minus the religious baggage). "What this means" is up to the individual. And THAT is "Spin."
Meanwhile, the ideological warfare between atheists and theists will go on forever. Amen.
Comment by Joy — August 2, 2005 @ 8:22 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:36 pm
Yes, 'the first life forms to appear' on Earth may have been 'designed,' or created, or breathed into, or emerged, or constructed or brought into existence…(by ______). But forgive me, I don't see or hear how that hypothesis is 'solid' (read also: substantial). And I certainly don't think 'concluding design' should become a 'disciplined science' or dominate the debate about origins as in a gap theory or be considered an equivalent or replacement to 'evolution' in biological science (even speaking as a non-biological scientist). My hunch is, that neither does Mike Gene think this.
It is also true that Mike Gene doesn't think ID is a 'REVOlution.' So shouldn't that be spelled out clearly in his version of 'teleological design' so that Dembski's shadow doesn't haunt his views?
Perhaps critics would go easier (now the poltical dimension) if they knew just what they were criticizing (scientifically, philosophically or theologically) about Mike's theory/project. And then we would be less affected by undesirable spin.
ID 101 says nothing about 'ID' not being a revolution.
Comment by g arago — August 2, 2005 @ 8:36 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:15 pm
Yes, my views about ID are derived from the question Dembski asks. As you acknowledge, it is common knowledge that Mt. Rushmore exists because of intelligent causation. Thus, the question is simple. Since there are things that exist because of intelligent design, is there something about them that signals their origin? Asking or pondering the question is not something that is dependent on a socio-political movement or a religious conviction. I find the question inherently intriguing.
Now you proceed to ask more questions: what is the difference between human-made and non-human-made things when it comes to (your theory of) intelligent design?; But why do you call it "˜ID' and not something else perhaps more suitable to the context? What distinguishes this version of ID=human-made from a biological explanation of ID=non-human-made? Is art, which Mt. Rushmore obviously represents, likewise applicable in (your) ID theory?
Those are questions for ID201. While I am eager to sink my teeth into them, we must first master ID101; there will be plenty of time for a more nuanced and sophisticated consideration.
I noted, "I used Mt. Rushmore to make a simple and undeniable point "“ there are things that exist in our reality because of ID" and you declared that this is "not acceptable." It's not acceptable to you, G. arago. Are you saying that you cannot proceed because the term "˜intelligent design' is completely incomprehensible to you? Are you concerned that if you accept the design of Mt. Rushmore (as Richard Dawkins does), it will lead you into a trap?
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 10:15 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:34 pm
I never said the hypothesis is solid. I said it's a longshot that I am betting on. I said it may be solid. So why did you claim, "I don't see or hear how that hypothesis is "˜solid'?" You need to explain yourself, as I consider this a deceptive troll-like tactic.
I thought you read my web page? I would think anyone who took the time to understand the arguments would realize no "revolution" is being proposed. So what's the problem?
Why haven't I clearly spelled out my views are not a revolution? Well, let's just say that after arguing with 100s of critics, you are the only one with this idiosyncratic concern. In fact, so idiosyncratic is your concern, you even have an idiosyncratic way of spelling things "“ instead of revolution, it's REVOlution. What's that about?
Look, I've made it crystal clear to you that I do not consider ID a REVOlution. Since you are the only one with a bee in his bonnet about this, why do you think I am supposed to do something more than I have?
All you have to do is read the arguments. But you seem more interested in psychologizing me, knowing my background, and pondering the meaning of what I have not said. I'm starting to wonder if you are dime-a-dozen after all. That's usually how it turns out.
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 10:34 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:59 pm
Origins is a legitimate scientific question at this point in time, though it tends to come with 150-year old baggage that is more pretense than answer. Science has already moved well beyond neodarwinism, despite what the ideologically committed nay-sayers say. Meaning is subjective always, and cannot be presented in scientific terms. Purpose IS teleology. It exists in life/nature because human beings exist in life/nature, also despite what the ideologically committed nay-sayers say. The scientific question is whether it is ubiquitous to life/nature. That is the question ID presents and attempts to answer.
I can most certainly understand why a sociologist would be interested in ID and the debate with neodarwinism. Here is an idea - so long intuited by humans that no one can definitively trace its origin in ancient history - that doesn't currently qualify as a scientific theoretic but is so popular among humanity's teeming billions that it just won't go away. A genuine socio-historical phenomenon that deserves attention whenever it appears anew to make waves in history.
Worse, it is abundantly clear that the ideologically committed nay-sayers - many of them notable scientists - are actually afraid of the idea. Which only tends to cause people to suspect their desperately-defended alternative theoretic isn't nearly as authoritative as they'd like it to be. Sociologically speaking, that is.
I just sometimes get the feeling that you're impatient with the pace. You want to know more than is currently available to be known, and aren't yet ready to admit that what's missing might be what you've got to add for yourself (and it might take YOU awhile!). No one here can supply it for you.
Oh, you can bet your booty that there's an absence of authority in my chain of reasoning! I came by it quite honestly, thanks, when I turned my back on science and marched resolutely off into the sunset. Completely on purpose and kicking dirt in disgust.
Victimization is often a state of mind, and that can perpetuate a physically undesirable situation. There's quite a bit that one can do about changing that. Some people can integrate an astounding number of baldfaced lies into their operative worldview even knowing that they're lies. Others have more of a problem with it, and will tend to agonize endlessly about how to rectify living a lie with believing a truth. A few will just get fed up and turn their backs on the lies, striking off for "parts unknown" to see if there are any truths worth salvaging.
After more than two decades I had reason to go back to see what science had learned while I was gone. It hadn't learned much of anything at all, but at least in physics there was more "we don't know" and a little less baldfaced lie. Neodarwinism gets the lie crown these days, but it doesn't cover the fact that the emperor has no clothes. So while I still maintain an irrational trust in science as a long-term collective endeavor, I know better than to accept any premature pronouncements of absolute knowledge. Gives me a bad attitude.
But that's okay. History will take care of itself. You get to live it, so dig in!
"If any man among you seems wise in the ways of this world, let him become a fool, that he may be truly wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. He will entrap the wise men in the web of their own craftiness."
I Cor. 3:18-19
Comment by Joy — August 2, 2005 @ 10:59 pm
August 3rd, 2005 at 4:22 am
Today I have only moments to visit here and comment. Thanks to Joy for her unconventional wisdom and having her finger on the pulse of what's going on. It's a different thing to claim 'conspiracy' (but not REVolution) from an armchair position, and another thing to actually live (or have lived) it in a real life-or-death situation.
This may be the case in 'natural science,' but in social science, meaning is not entirely subjective and neither is purpose. Purpose is an important component or variable in studying 'the nature of' human life and societies. I agree, this is despite what ideological nay-sayers might contend, and which is why, as MG notes, I once or twice made several critics of ID at ARN uncomfortable. These are concepts (i.e. meaning and purpose) that natural science doesn't often deal in and often finds it hard to accept.
Here is a short quip about how sociology involves meaning and purpose:
This does mean that evolution and intelligent design and creation are 'really about' human social action and likewise it does not put 'social science' in the same position of solving or answering questions about the 'origin(s) of human life and existence'. However, it suggests sociology has value of its own and should not be disregarded because 'natural science,' especially biologists, claim the throne of some superficial hierarchy of the disciplines. Pretensions to speaking for more than just physical things is what biologists, socio-biologists, evolutionary psychologists have done for many years. This should be included in the 'Darwin-Defending' orthodoxy that Joy openly acknowledges in her posts and which Mike Gene finds himself defending ID against, for example in such a person as RBH.
You are surely correct, Joy, to say that I'm impatient with the pace. I too have human weaknesses, one of which is to expect more from a situation than what is really the case. The Wedge hinted that by this time the IDM and ID theories would have moved into social sciences and humanities, which of course, hasn't happened. Behe writes of 'all humane studies,' revealing how he and others in the IDM speak about more than they've bargained for.
My own project moves forward, step by step, moment by moment, with discovery, revision and articulation, one at a time and wholistically, though I have chosen one path that would avoid it becoming too complex and drawn out. Youll likely see a version of what I've been working on in the next two or three months. That'll give the IDM time to consider D. Lamoureux's new contribution to the discourse (if they bother with it, in comparison to O'Leary's nickel book), a book which he has worked on for several years and which doesn't include debating Johnson, since biologically speaking there is not much of a challenge there. Denis is not politically invested in the American ID movement, but he does a wonderful job explaining how to get 'beyond' creation vs. evolution and to an inspired view of our place in God's universe. I doubt, even if Mike Gene uploads 103 articles, that his vision of biology or chemistry or whatever sequestered natural science he knows best, will yet provide us with that.
It is one thing to speak about Mt. Rushmore and to identify the 'origins' of that art, scultpture, carving, etc. It is another thing to make claims to 'design' in biology and other natural (read: non-human-made) things. MG and the IDM want to do the latter and claim 'Yes, it is.' Otherwise, the meaning of Mt. Rushmore is lessened to those who don't know the faces reproduced (almost iconically) there and the significance to a nation. However, that is also a social observation, which might be unwelcome to objective analysts, while still it is an objective reality, even to those not caught in academic acquiescence to evolutionary theory in their disciplines.
Yes, and those who argue that 'everything evolves' are equally deluded about the limitations of that theory, created/invented/constructed or designed by a nineteenth century Englishman and those who've followed him. He may not be rolling over in his grave, but being buried in the nave of Westminister Abbey with tourists walking on top of him on a daily basis, I wonder which is worse.
Though I can't speak for the biology of evolution, the sociology of evolution is certainly past its prime time, waiting for an alternative theory to topple it decisively. And I don't mind becoming a fool to show people that. It would be God's wisdom displayed in such a revelation, not my own human frailty. Political bantering and spinning spin, upon spin, won't change this possibility when it arrives.
Can you imagine it? Tell the truth.
(And don't spin.)
Comment by g arago — August 3, 2005 @ 4:22 am
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:59 pm
A reply in 2 parts (because I'm too wordy). Part I of II -
Greg - You're probably already off to the lovely lowlands, but at some point you will find this reply. You asked of me…
Oh, I've imagined it all my life. The "devil's in the details," as always. As a sociologist, you are trained to view the 'big picture' and see that everything pertinent to collective human endeavors - including science - is always subject to the whims of collective beliefs in any generation during which sociologists are looking at the 'big picture'.
The details and their devil are subjective to individuals, which sociology likes to blend out of its 'big picture' precisely because they're so problematic. It's a mistake to treat individual psychology as a mere statistic. Realistically, there's little real hope for us. And that's where God comes into the picture…
I'll qualify that with the admission that whenever God comes into the picture the whole world starts spinning like a top. No way around it that I've ever seen. Sure, you can go with any of a dozen or so primary conceptions of God/gods and/or spiritual philosophy, but they're all mutually exclusive to a certain extent. You can channel 5,000 years dead guys from Mu who claim they have all the answers, but if he's all that bright what's he still doing hanging around here? There's nothing "new" about New Age. The real answer has already been presented, boiled down to its ultimate most primal edict that if simply believed deeply and universally would remake this world overnight…
"Love One Another." It's never going to get easier (or more difficult) than that. Religion is about how to live, not how to die. So I found my big-T Truth and attempted to live it. MY choice, as your choice belongs entirely to you. Don't try to weave such personal choices into collectives, or factor them out by numbers.
It's best IMO to leave God/gods, devils, demigods, imps, spirits and 5,000 years dead guys who won't stay dead out of the scientific equation altogether, by design. Sociologically, science can then serve as the "universal SuperGlue" if it can ever get away from the tendency to declare itself absolute and try to usurp the necessary place in human psyche of God/gods/spiritual philosophy. The quest for knowledge and means to control can inspire people of all sorts of different belief systems to wonder at the world and enjoy the adventure together. Provisional as it always will be. It can help to functionally relativize the differences in people, and that's a good thing in a small world.
Science just needs to sandblast the edifice to remove all the accumulated rust and barnacles. Apply several coats of humble primer, then let humanity paint the hull with whatever vibrant colors they care to add to the design. Create a "Rainbow Warrior" worthy of the [nonprofit] title and immune from the French SS bomb squad. One with enough staterooms for everybody, and with enough sumptuous delights on the banquet tables every day to feed them all!
That's a lot of hard work. Most 'first world' citizens are loathe to work that hard, but the 'third world' does it all day and all night all the time, for just barely enough to survive. We should stop discounting them as somehow inferior and see what we can do to share the load. And don't be thinking the 'third world' doesn't exist right in the midst of 'first world' wealth and sloth. It's all around us all, all the time. We've just donned blinders so we don't have to see it.
Comment by Joy — August 3, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
August 3rd, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Part II of II -
We could do so much if we used science and technology to solve human problems instead of make them worse. It's nobody's fault but our own that we haven't done this and don't plan to do it. God in the J-C-I tradition is the Sovereign of History, and history will take care of itself regardless of what we design to do. When we're gone others will take our place, and they'll have the same choices. Isn't it time we MADE those choices? On purpose as if we had a purpose and believed in it?
Science and its applications could offer us a way to get around, under, over and through ideological differences of opinion. Instead, it offers itself up as yet another means to division and stratification, serves the inequality of resource distribution purposefully, like an idiot slave to sycophant masters. We can do better than that, if we want to. Deal is, we don't want to do better. That is nobody's fault but our own, those of us who have the means and pretend blindness to need. Ideological corruption of the worst kind.
Were things to [miraculously] change overnight - where we make the choices and implement them - politics would have to take a back seat and sociology could be a guiding light instead of just a market quantifier. Science would be the visionary quest, technology the tool, and love the purposeful goal. Sociology could quantify the needs and direct the resources.
Religion - religion's God/gods and spiritual philosophies - should be left to individuals and their personal psychologies to choose for themselves. Without coming attached to the ridiculous deadly pride that insists everyone believe the same things. No human collective endeavor like science or its offshoots need make religious claims or belittle them. It's none of their business. Yet while they're sticking their nose into individual people's belief systems, they're ignoring their own potential. That has to change before anything else can change.
That might all be Spin. But it's easier to see what's wrong than to laud what's right. I'll probably not live long enough to see things change more than the little I've contributed. And even that's at risk today, when global warming and the great Oil Wars proceed at a pace to outstrip the good ol' Opium Wars in global significance. There never was a good reason for it, save the redistribution of resources and wealth into the hands of a few at the cost of many. We already have the technology to change that situation overnight. That we don't is shameful.
I'm old and in the way. You're a young dreamer with potential. Don't stop dreaming, and don't be afraid. The worst anyone can do is kill you, and you'll die anyway in the end. You've got a life in time to invest, so why not invest it? Impatience has its purpose. BE impatient! That's inspiring. Hard work and patience is less inspiring, but accomplishes a lot. We can each of us make a difference if we try. I hope you get to a point when you are old and in the way, living on some mountain somewhere, when you can remember all the influences, the adventures, the hard work and the dreams, the joys and the sorrows, and say to yourself "it's okay." And be as eager as I am to turn the task over to a new generation, no matter how impatient they seem from this distance.
I was impatient once too, and that's why I got involved. It's why you want to get involved. This is how God rules history, even though it's us humans who make history.
The spin-of-spins? All in all, a pretty darned good design.
Comment by Joy — August 3, 2005 @ 2:04 pm