Steve Verdon teaches us about quote-mining
by KrauzeThis Friday, ID supporter Paul Nelson quoted some snippets from a recent article by developmental biologist Eric Davidson and paleontologist Douglas Erwin about the origin of body plans. On his blog, Deinonychus antirrhopus, Steve Verdon was quick to accuse him of quote-mining, concluding, "Bottom line, you can't trust these guys to give you an accurate picture of whatever they are talking about."
In this regards, he seems to have borrowed a leaf from Wesley's Wedge, according to which you should "make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves." But let's leave that for the moment and instead look at some of Steve Verdon's charges:
Only a dishonest or superficial reading the paper would lead one to believe that ID played any role in the process. Further, the claim that neo-Darwinism doesn't work for the pre-Cambrian is also suspect. Maybe it is correct, but that wasn't the focus of Davidson and Erwin's article. Further, while the process that Davidson and Erwin had in mind for the development of the kernels and other biological components may not be neo-Darwinian it certainly isn't some supernatural designer.
I have yet to read Davidson and Erwin's article, so I can't speak to Steve Verdon's characterization of what their focus was. But notice this charge: "[W]hile the process that Davidson and Erwin had in mind for the development of the kernels and other biological components may not be neo-Darwinian it certainly isn't some supernatural designer."
Here's a little challenge for the reader: Use your browser's search function to search for the phrase "supernatural designer" in Paul Nelson's post. You'll probably find, as I did, that the phrase is nowhere to be found: Nelson did not claim that Davidson and Eric were proposing a supernatural designer to account for the origin of body plans.
So, considering that Steve Verdon has just been caught misrepresenting someone else's words, does that mean that he shouldn't be trusted to give an accurate picture of whatever else he is talking about?
Update: Paul Nelson has responded himself here.
February 19th, 2006 at 9:40 am
The phrase itself doesn't appear, but the assumption does. Nelson doesn't disavow his earlier statements to church groups, either, so it's not accurate to say he's not urging a supernatural designer, is it?
Comment by edarrell — February 19, 2006 @ 9:40 am
February 19th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Whenever a critic begins with accusations of dishonesty, it is crucial to remember this lesson. It is also important to remember that most critics are politically motivated and such an activist-mindset colors the world they see.
In this case, it is clear that Nelson's blog does not argue that ID played a role in the process or that a supernatural designer mysteriously cobbles together every little embryo. Yet Verdon, like most ID critics, is responding to the place he thinks Nelson is going. In other words, it appears to me that Verdon's moralistic finger-pointing works like this:
Nelson argues X.
Verdon says to himself, "Nelson argues X because he wants to get to Y in order to get to Z."
Davidson doesn't argue for Y or Z.
Therefore, Nelson is a liar.
Those of us who understand critical thinking understand that Nelson can argue X and we can respond to X without having to consider Y or Z. If Nelson wants to get beyond X, it is his burden to move things. But because he has only argued X, we can consider X, and, upon consideration, take it in any direction that we see fit.
Another possible version of Verdon-think:
-All ID proponents are arguing for supernatural causes.
-When an ID proponent quotes someone who does not believe in supernatural causes, the ID proponent is thus guilty of quote-mining.
Either way, it was irresponsible for Steve Verdon to libel Paul Nelson.
Comment by MikeGene — February 19, 2006 @ 11:08 am
February 19th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Really, you mean Paul Nelson isn't an ID advocate? Gee, I thought he wrote numerous articles on ID. My bad. You might want to tell the Discovery Institute to take his name off their website though.
Fruther, Nelson argues that neo-Darwinism is not sufficient for pre-Cambrian life, but the quote I pulled from the article, which unlike Mike I have read, indicates that Davidson and Erwin imply no such thing. Hence Nelson is being dishonest.
So using Mike's breakdown of the arguement,
Nelson argues: Neo-Darwinism doesn't work for the pre-Cambrian.
Verdon points out: Davidson and Erwin actually make no such arguement.
Conclusion: Nelson is being misleading.
The bit about the supernatural ID designer was tossed in for good measure. To claim that my post is simply about debunking the supernatural designer is…well to misrepresent my post…so I guess we know how much we can trust Krauze…neat how this works isn't it?
Also, everybody is skipping over the highly questionable quote attributed to Davidson about neo-Darwinism being dead. A quote completely stripped of context and sourcing. On top of this the post appears on a website called: Intelligent Design the Future. Gee, what a leap to conclude the post by Nelson is to lend support for ID.
So Mike, do you disavow the work of Dembski? His paper, Searching Large Spaces (which I have read, have you?), pretty much points to the utter impossibility of a 100 amino acid protein forming via nature (of course, Dembski's limitation of nature to random processes also misleading). Thus, it must be something outside of nature. On top of that you have his new "law" of thermodynamics. This too prohibits the natural occurence of new information. What is left but the supernatural?
Either way, it was irresponsible for Steve Verdon to libel Paul Nelson.
Ooooh, an internet threat of a lawsuit? Gee how original.
Comment by Steve Verdon — February 19, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Well that says it all, right there. ID is never restrained by ignorance.
And any science advocate who speaks to YEC Christian advocate Nelson's ultimate point in all this quote mining is libeling Paul Nelson
I know you two ID Mavens are much too busy to actually read the article you're criticizing and wouldn't have the background to understand it if you did, so I'll explain a couple of important things to you:
First, Neo-darwinism explains how information is added to the genome one or two base pairs at a time. But once that information is formed via neo-darwinism, it can be moved around in blocks.
Second, fifty years of accumulated knowledge of embryo development are being folded into neo-darwinism and the new synthesis is known as Evo-Devo. It explains everything that neo-darwinism explains because it contains neo-D in it. And the changeover process will provide countless opportunities for ignorant or deceptive IDers to concoct pieces like Nelson's.
Neo-D is dying! Long live Evo-D! ID is stillborn.
Comment by TTam — February 19, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
One more point: you might trying reading some of the books you advertise on this web site, such as "Biased Embryos" or "Origination of Organismal Form" for clues. Or better yet try the classic book in this field, "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Shaun Carroll.
I realize that as ID experts, you two are subject to some pretty strong, if informal, non-comprehension agreements, but if you send $10.85 plus shipping to Amazon, they'll send you a copy of "Endless Forms" in a plain brown rapper and nobody will ever know.
Comment by TTam — February 19, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Hi TTam,
"And any science advocate who speaks to YEC Christian advocate Nelson's ultimate point in all this quote mining is libeling Paul Nelson"
So Paul Nelson's "ultimate point" was that Davidson and Eric were proposing a "supernatural designer" to account for the origin of body plans?
"I know you two ID Mavens are much too busy to actually read the article you're criticizing"
Mike and I aren't criticizng the article. Since you've just been caught blatantly misrepresenting our words, does that mean that you shouldn't be trusted to give an accurate picture of whatever else you are talking about?
Comment by Krauze — February 19, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Steve Verdon: "Really, you mean Paul Nelson isn't an ID advocate? Gee, I thought he wrote numerous articles on ID. My bad. You might want to tell the Discovery Institute to take his name off their website though."
He's just been having a few bad years. Lost his way, confused, you know - the prodigal scientist.
(Someone): "Either way, it was irresponsible for Steve Verdon to libel Paul Nelson."
Steve Verdon: "Ooooh, an internet threat of a lawsuit? Gee how original."
Wow. I am duly impressed with Mr. Verdon's ability to read more into a statement than is actually there or implied. If I had had any doubts about his abilities before, they have now departed.
Comment by Douglas — February 19, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Hi Steve,
"Really, you mean Paul Nelson isn't an ID advocate?"
So, because Paul Nelson is an ID advocate, he must believe that everyone he quotes shares his own views?
"The bit about the supernatural ID designer was tossed in for good measure. To claim that my post is simply about debunking the supernatural designer is"¦well to misrepresent my post"¦"
I didn't claim that your post was "simply about debunking the supernatural designer". I explicitly noted that you made other points, but acknowledged that since I hadn't read the article in question I couldn't comment on them.
In fact, I wouldn't be troubled if your characterization of the article was correct. I've never speculated about intelligent intervention at the Cambrian period, and although Paul is a nice guy, I have no intention of protecting him from every piece of criticism (he can take care of that himself). So, if you're correct, and Paul Nelson misrepresented the article, then so be it.
In my post, I explored your reasoning that ID supporters couldn't be trusted about anything on the basis of some charges of quote-mining. So, I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine: Since it's been shown that you blatantly misrepresented Paul Nelson's post, does that mean that from now on, we can ignore whatever you say on other topics? And, more importantly, can we extend your sloppy conduct with the words of others to all of your fellow ID critics?
"so I guess we know how much we can trust Krauze"¦neat how this works isn't it?"
Hey, you made your own bed. Don't blame me for applying your reasoning to yourself.
Comment by Krauze — February 19, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Verdon's charge that I misquoted or misrepresented Eric Davidson is ludicrous, as I'll explain at ID the Future (www.idthefuture.com) and at Verdon's own blog.
Comment by Paul Nelson — February 19, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
How many times does the term "neo-Darwinian" appear in the paper by Davidson and Erwin? How about "neo-Darwinism"
What is the title of Nelson's piece on ID The Future?
What is Davidson really saying? (Hint - it's not at all about the insufficiency of neo-Darwinian explanations.)
Comment by Art — February 19, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Krauze,
No, and I didn't imply that. However, he does clearly think this is a big deal and the appropriate forum is IDtheFuture. Making a connection between what Mr. Nelson thinks about the article and ID isn't a huge jump.
Well gee, the quote that explicitly states that GRN kernels would arise via the same mechanism as other biological components seems pretty obvious to me. And how hard is it to get a copy of the article to read it? You could have t inside 2 minutes by logging onto the website and purchasing (for a whopping $10) 24 hour access to it. That is how I read it. Heck I'm sure if you were to copy and paste the entire article into a word document then click save you could have access for far longer than 24 hours.
Well, I don't know. Do they have a history of doing this sort of thing? There is quite a collection of "quote mining" posts over at Panda's Thumb. Seems to be a real problem with the IDers.
Paul,
Why don't you explain exactly where in the article that Davidson and Erwin argue against neo-Darwinism in the Cambrian? They state quite clearly the GRN kernels would arise via mechanisms that produced other biological components. However, once the GRN kernels are in place they put devlopmental constraints on the future evolution of GRN kernels. There is nowhere in the article that speaks of the insufficiency of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to produce GRN kernels. Davidson and Erwin do argue that neo-Darwinian mechanisms do to impact the GRN kernels in a uniform manner over time as is commonly believed.
Comment by Steve Verdon — February 19, 2006 @ 5:41 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Steve, you'll have to take that question up — how GRN kernels originate — with Eric Davidson or Doug Erwin, because they don't actually say in their Science article. And I can tell you why they don't say: nobody knows.
The problem with evolving complex genetic circuitry to specify body parts is the unit under selection (the phenotype, i.e., the adult body part or plan) requires or presupposes a great deal of genetic and developmental architecture even to exist. The phenotype is downstream, in the sense that it lies at the end of a developmental process. For that process to unfold, it needs to exist (as GRN-specified instructions); but to exist, one must evolve the GRN kernel, but for that to happen, one needs a phenotype to select; in other words, you need the kernel right at the start. Paradox.
Davidson and I talked about this problem at some length (over the course of a week) in China. Even the simplest known metazoans (e.g., C. elegans, at about 1,000 cells), have 7-9 rounds of cell division between the egg and any cell in the adult. Eric knows this and knows how hard the evolutionary paradox is to solve. He has not provided any solution in his paper. He and Erwin presuppose the existence of GRN kernels. They have not explained their origin, in neo-Darwinian or any other terms.
Ask him for the answer. Apparently he answers your email.
Art, you're being tendentious. "Classic evolutionary theory," write Davidson & Erwin, "based on selection of small incremental changes, has sought explanations by extrapolation from observed patterns of adaptation." That's about as good a short description of neo-Darwinism as one could want.
Comment by Paul Nelson — February 19, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Hi Steve,
"Making a connection between what Mr. Nelson thinks about the article and ID isn't a huge jump."
But you weren't just making this connection. You were implying that Paul Nelson was claiming Davidson and Eric as proposing a "supernatural designer".
Krauze: "I didn't claim that your post was "simply about debunking the supernatural designer". I explicitly noted that you made other points, but acknowledged that since I hadn't read the article in question I couldn't comment on them."
Steve: "Well gee, the quote that explicitly states that GRN kernels would arise via the same mechanism as other biological components seems pretty obvious to me."
I prefer to read the entire article before comitting myself to a particular interpretation. Or are you telling me that it's impossible to quote a paragraph out of context?
Also, note that you were accusing me of misrepresenting your post as being "simply about debunking the supernatural designer", when this was clearly not the case. Shall we crank this up as another of your misrepresentations?
"And how hard is it to get a copy of the article to read it?"
Actually, I already have a PDF of it, which I expect to read at some point. But as I said, I'm not that interested in defending Paul from each and every attack, and we don't need the contents of the article to see that you were misrepresenting his post.
Comment by Krauze — February 19, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Steve:
And maybe Nelson is a Libertarian and his favorite television show is American Idol. This is all irrelevant. What is relevant is the actual argument on the table.
However, that you kick off your reply with this suggests that my perception of your argument was spot-on:
Which would mean my criticism was likewise spot-on:
Then again, you have your own version to tell:
Not so fast. Even if we accept your version at face value, you still have a problem. You chose a particular word and attached it to Nelson "“ DISHONESTY. Y'see, someone's blog can be misleading without it being dishonest. I explained this before.
Yes, and that "good measure" was misleading, as you made it sound like Nelson was arguing the Davidson paper argued for a supernatural designer.
Actually, just as you misrepresented Nelson, you now try to misrepresent Krauze. Krauze did not claim your post "is simply about debunking the supernatural designer." Krauze wrote the following:
I see no misrepresentation of you here.
Now you are over-reacting. According to Dictionary.com, libel is "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation." You accused Nelson of being dishonest. Such accusations are intended to damage a person's reputation. I simply found that irresponsible.
Sorry Steve, I suggest you need to get hold of your emotions as you were obviously over-reaching by accusing Nelson of dishonesty and throwing in some things for "good measure." As TelicThoughts readers watch you defend your rhetoric, they will not get the impression that critics can approach this topic in a fair and open-minded manner. That's why I sometimes ask, "If there was some truth to ID, why would anyone trust an ID critic's ability to find or acknowledge it?"
Comment by MikeGene — February 19, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
"If there was some truth to ID, why would anyone trust an ID critic's ability to find or acknowledge it?"
Because they're so fervent, and so confident in themselves and their judgment?
Comment by Douglas — February 19, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
February 19th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Hi Mike,
I think the accuracy of your description is confirmed by Steve's comment on his own blog: "What I have done it take apart the potential ID claims." Damn that rascal Paul Nelson. Potentially making an argument in which he qoute-mines!
Reminds me of Philip K. Dick's short story "The Minority Report", in which people are prosecuted for murders they are prophesied to have committed. ID critics really are a step ahead.
Comment by Krauze — February 19, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
February 20th, 2006 at 12:38 am
LOL. Good one.
Well, I did make this prediction about the post-Wedge world: "I am cynical enough to expect most will still cling to Wedge-centrism, and invent exotic and convoluted reasons as to why ID still must be viewed as a threat to our way of life and why our adrenalin levels need to remain high (after all, some have built quasi-careers around fighting the wedge)."
When you consider the tone of Verdon and TTam, it's as if no one has told them about the decision from the Dover trial. They are still stuck in the Wedge World. But that's so 2005ish.
Comment by MikeGene — February 20, 2006 @ 12:38 am
February 20th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
It always amuses me that anytime an IDP quotes a Darwinian's own words that cast doubts on some aspect of evolution, it is always the IDP who is "quotemining". Darwinians, as we all know, never misquote or take out of context anything said by an IDP.
Comment by DonaldM — February 20, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
February 20th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
My impression is that original scientific research hardly ever "quotes" but rather "cites." Anyone both quoting and citing can hardly be accused of "dishonestly" interpreting the research, as its is a simple matter to investigate the source. Much of this argument about "quote-mining" seems to assume that what scientists publish is a matter of their own (somehow "authoritative") opinions or interpretations. (Which is something they almost never actually say in their publications! Can you imagine a scientists, I mean a real scientist, actually writing, "This is what I have investigated, These are my findings. And they are not open to anyone's interpretation, understanding, or subject to any further analysis or investigation.") No scientist speaks (publishes) ex cathedra. Research is published to expose facts and theories to further analysis, exploration, investigation, interpretation, criticism, acceptance or rejection, in part or in whole, etc.
It's called the "free exchange" of ideas. Get used to it! That's how science works!
Or at least that's how it works outside the narrowly conceived world of the IDers and their critics
Comment by Rock — February 20, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
February 20th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Rock writes:
What makes this a bit more dicey, is when scientists, particularly those with a reputation (or who have a certain degree of notiriety), write popular books that are intended to explain the findings of science (what's reported in the peer reviewed journals) to the public at large. In many of those books, the interpretive nature of the explanations is hard to miss. Dawkins might perhaps be the worst offender in that regard, but he is by no means the only one. Then, when IDP's use direct quotes from those books…quotes which are themselves interpretive in nature and which often hint at real issues and problems with evolution…the IDPs are accused of 'quotemining' as if the orginal work itself was straightforward reporting and non-interpretive.
That part is often overlooked in these accuasations of 'quotemining.'
Comment by DonaldM — February 20, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
February 20th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Hi Rock,
One more thing: One of the things you teach undergraduates is never to trust review articles - that is, articles reviewing and summarizing the literature on a subject - as authors can put their own spin on things, sometimes to the point of completely distorting the findings of the original articles. So the practice of quote-mining isn't unheard of, even in the sanctums of science. Yet ID critics are more interested in what's written on some blog on the internet. Go figure.
Comment by Krauze — February 20, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
February 20th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
"Popular science" is an oxymoron.
Comment by Rock — February 20, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
February 20th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Paul wrote:
Tendentious? I don't think so. This short description is rather different than, say, the classical definition of neo-Darwinism that Kutschera and Niklas (Naturwissenschaften (2004) 91:255"“276) provide. I suspect (but cannot prove) that Davidson was being careful in avoiding the term, because it means different things to different people.
Be that as it may. The title of your piece, Paul, if you wish to adhere to this particular usage, should have been "Neo-Darwinism is dead, long live neo-Darwinism". This is because Davidson's review shows how small incremental molecular changes in fact can "extrapolate" (although this may not be the best word) into large phenotypic changes. Indeed, there is much irony here, since the revival of that which you wish to bury, Paul, is done by Davidson using a distinctive engineering metaphor "“ namely, that of an amplifier. Basically, Davidson is giving some technical detail to Carroll's assertion that macroevolution is microevolution writ large.
I'm finding it interesting that none of the bloggers here have cared to mention the ramifications of Davidson's ideas for front-loading. Does front-loading entail the "deposition" in some ancestral genome of all of the kernels and downstream modules that we see in all extant metazoans? If not, what is the means of origination of the evolutionarily new modules? Paul mentions C. elegans (somewhere) "“ does the small number of modules in this organism reflect a derivative state (= loss of developmental modules) or an ancestral one? How would you ask this question experimentally (assuming you don't already know the answer)? Do you even care?
Finally, Paul, I was sort of hoping to cull a question or two for Massimo from your ppt file. That's not looking too likely, is it?
Comment by Art — February 20, 2006 @ 11:27 pm