Comments on: What do the Wedge and the dodo have in common? http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/ An independent blog about intelligent design Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:54:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Joy http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/#comment-27903 Joy Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:41:12 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=826#comment-27903 I'm as likely to commit a "genetic fallacy" as the next person, John. The biases we bring to the table - confirmational or disconfirmational - are often earned honestly and not corrected by further experience. Sometimes further experience will modify our biases. This possibility can be desirable and should not be dismissed out of hand. I have reasons for taking the positions I do on the issue of ID/teleology in evolution, and these are related to the totality of my experience of life in and out of the natural world. I try not to project, but sometimes an issue gets the better of me - I've definitely been known to go off like a Roman candle when my buttons get pushed. I calm down eventually. Or not. Depends on the issue... §;o) Democracy cannot thrive - or even exist as an ideal - in a black-or-white world. Humans are extremely dangerous critters, prone to such outrageous behaviors as can (and do!) threaten the entirety of life on this planet. Worse, they don't much care about their own survival if someone else bothers 'em enough. Evolutionarily Suicidal and proud of it! We're so smart, and so incredibly stupid at the same time. From my half-century+ vantage point (and I've lived a lot of places and seen a lot of things) it looks to me like human beings are either the absolute biggest mistake nature ever made, or the absolute most dangerous thing God ever thought of. In fair democratic fashion, I've settled myself somewhere in between, investing hopefully toward the endearment of everything noble and brave and kind and precious beyond tally that we CAN be when we try. But then, life itself is conducted as a tightrope act above an abyss of chaos (populated with clowns). The Circus of the Absurd. We have no choice but to be, unless we choose not to be (and, because we humans can, take everything else with us when we go). If one side or the other were to magically 'win' this duel of metaphysical worldviews - and we all woke up tomorrow to believe that there's nothing more than what we're told by our authoritarian masters we must see - the tragic contradiction would remain and would inevitably have to rise and erupt like a geyser (or a melting PWR) in desperate need of pressure-relief. No one's belief, no matter how strong, can make it go away. And when it blows it can manifest as everything you DON'T want to believe in. I'm as likely to commit a "genetic fallacy" as the next person, John. The biases we bring to the table - confirmational or disconfirmational - are often earned honestly and not corrected by further experience. Sometimes further experience will modify our biases. This possibility can be desirable and should not be dismissed out of hand.

I have reasons for taking the positions I do on the issue of ID/teleology in evolution, and these are related to the totality of my experience of life in and out of the natural world. I try not to project, but sometimes an issue gets the better of me - I've definitely been known to go off like a Roman candle when my buttons get pushed. I calm down eventually. Or not. Depends on the issue… §;o)

Democracy cannot thrive - or even exist as an ideal - in a black-or-white world. Humans are extremely dangerous critters, prone to such outrageous behaviors as can (and do!) threaten the entirety of life on this planet. Worse, they don't much care about their own survival if someone else bothers 'em enough. Evolutionarily Suicidal and proud of it!

We're so smart, and so incredibly stupid at the same time. From my half-century+ vantage point (and I've lived a lot of places and seen a lot of things) it looks to me like human beings are either the absolute biggest mistake nature ever made, or the absolute most dangerous thing God ever thought of. In fair democratic fashion, I've settled myself somewhere in between, investing hopefully toward the endearment of everything noble and brave and kind and precious beyond tally that we CAN be when we try.

But then, life itself is conducted as a tightrope act above an abyss of chaos (populated with clowns). The Circus of the Absurd. We have no choice but to be, unless we choose not to be (and, because we humans can, take everything else with us when we go).

If one side or the other were to magically 'win' this duel of metaphysical worldviews - and we all woke up tomorrow to believe that there's nothing more than what we're told by our authoritarian masters we must see - the tragic contradiction would remain and would inevitably have to rise and erupt like a geyser (or a melting PWR) in desperate need of pressure-relief.

No one's belief, no matter how strong, can make it go away. And when it blows it can manifest as everything you DON'T want to believe in.

]]> By: JOHN_A_DESIGNER http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/#comment-27899 JOHN_A_DESIGNER Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:14:35 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=826#comment-27899 Hi Joy, I do think that Nick and others from his side are often guilty of committing what is called the genetic fallacy. Briefly, the genetic fallacy is disregarding an idea simply because we don't care for the source. For example, suppose a school board discovers that students are not being taught the truth about the harsh and dangerous conditions that factory workers faced in the 19 th century; something that most people, I think, would agree is factually true. Now, suppose that the person who is pushing for the change is a known Marxist and known to be politically active. Certainly others know that he believes that the poor labor conditions in the 19th century proves in his mind that capitalism is fundamentally corrupt. Should we disregard any changes to the curriculum because of his beliefs? I don't think so and neither, I believe, would most honest logicians. Furthermore, the school board can adopt his suggestions in such a way as not to endorse Marxism or advance his personal agenda. He is on the school board. He has a right to make suggestions and offer motions. They have the responsibilty to consider what he says as an elected representative of his constituents... What results may be a compromise, but that's the way democracy works. Hi Joy,
I do think that Nick and others from his side are often guilty of committing what is called the genetic fallacy. Briefly, the genetic fallacy is disregarding an idea simply because we don't care for the source. For example, suppose a school board discovers that students are not being taught the truth about the harsh and dangerous conditions that factory workers faced in the 19 th century; something that most people, I think, would agree is factually true. Now, suppose that the person who is pushing for the change is a known Marxist and known to be politically active. Certainly others know that he believes that the poor labor conditions in the 19th century proves in his mind that capitalism is fundamentally corrupt. Should we disregard any changes to the curriculum because of his beliefs? I don't think so and neither, I believe, would most honest logicians. Furthermore, the school board can adopt his suggestions in such a way as not to endorse Marxism or advance his personal agenda. He is on the school board. He has a right to make suggestions and offer motions. They have the responsibilty to consider what he says as an elected representative of his constituents… What results may be a compromise, but that's the way democracy works.

]]> By: Nick Matzke http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/#comment-27894 Nick Matzke Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:11:32 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=826#comment-27894 Bilbo writes, <blockquote>Nick, I read your commentary in <i>Natural Immunology</i>. And then read your reply to Behe's reply to Bottaro's paper. Gosh. I'm not sure I have time to try to figure out who's right and who's wrong. Maybe if I read Bottaro's paper. Is it online? </blockquote> Not sure what you are referring to. There has been no reply to the <i>Nature Immunology</i> essay from any IDer as far as I know. It appears they would prefer to ignore it. Now, <i>before</i> that essay, there were a number of exchanges that are all online. * In Summer 2005, Bottaro and Behe went back and forth on the RAG1 homolog discovery (links in the NI essay). * Then there was the trial, the decision, and Behe's response to the decision (on the DI website and the "Traipsing into Evolution" book -- the immune system bit of that was very short). * The new edition of <i>Darwin's Black Box</i> also had some short comments from Behe, where he maintained his position that the scientific literature had no answers on the evolutionary origin of complex systems. * Then there was the NI essay and my comments in the Annotated Bibliography. Which you should make sure you read, if you are trying to assess the NI essay: http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/immune_evo_annotated_bib.html http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/immune_evo_bib_long.html A separate issue is that Andrea Bottaro has a recent research paper out that confirms some work on another aspect of evolutionary immunology, the origin of Class-Switch Recombination: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/3_recent_report.html ...but I doubt you were thinking of that. Bilbo writes,

Nick,

I read your commentary in Natural Immunology. And then read your reply to Behe's reply to Bottaro's paper. Gosh. I'm not sure I have time to try to figure out who's right and who's wrong. Maybe if I read Bottaro's paper. Is it online?

Not sure what you are referring to. There has been no reply to the Nature Immunology essay from any IDer as far as I know. It appears they would prefer to ignore it.

Now, before that essay, there were a number of exchanges that are all online.

* In Summer 2005, Bottaro and Behe went back and forth on the RAG1 homolog discovery (links in the NI essay).

* Then there was the trial, the decision, and Behe's response to the decision (on the DI website and the "Traipsing into Evolution" book — the immune system bit of that was very short).

* The new edition of Darwin's Black Box also had some short comments from Behe, where he maintained his position that the scientific literature had no answers on the evolutionary origin of complex systems.

* Then there was the NI essay and my comments in the Annotated Bibliography. Which you should make sure you read, if you are trying to assess the NI essay:

http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/ex...
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/ex...

A separate issue is that Andrea Bottaro has a recent research paper out that confirms some work on another aspect of evolutionary immunology, the origin of Class-Switch Recombination:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc...

…but I doubt you were thinking of that.

]]> By: Joy http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/#comment-27859 Joy Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:30:29 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=826#comment-27859 Hi again, John. The dynamic between Art and me here is, far as I can tell, a leftover angst from several circular debates on another forum where Art came up a bit short on the logical end per an application of genetic determinism that I see as short-sighted, intrinsically dangerous and entirely greed-based from the git-go. Because this application is professionally and economically important to him personally (from what I could gather), he must of course defend it even if it's dead wrong. IOW, he sees me as a threat to his livelihood and he takes it personally. Matzke, on the other hand, does not appear to be so personally and metaphysically invested, even though he is a committed (and successful) scientist. He values honesty as well as logical consistency and has demonstrated that several times. I think his misunderstanding of my position here was more a product of confirmation bias than any real analysis of what I've said in this forum. Heck, he may not have read much of what I've said, and that's okay. I'm known to be somewhat linguistically obscure... [yes, that's a self-depreciating understatement]. The really strange thing is that I do understand where they're coming from. I understand the fears that motivate participation in these sociopolitical debates, as well as the pride of achievement both Art and Nick have in the scientific endeavor. Which they would protect and defend because it's worth protecting and defending (when it's not deployed for nefarious purposes in defiance of the general welfare). A value judgment strong Atheists and die-hard materialists can make as legitimately and as wholeheartedly as any religious person or agnostic. I understand it, but have a pre-existing protect and defend commitment which is wary (by design) of the authoritarian pretensions coming from both fringes. IOW, there are more important things in life than mere dueling metaphysics and the personal existential fears of any wannabe tyrant or group of wannabes. To the extent that pot-stirring fringe radicals on either end of the bell curve threaten the more important sociopolitical construct, I will resist as best I can. This will not make me popular with radicals, but it will fulfill my vow to protect and defend the greater good. Hi again, John. The dynamic between Art and me here is, far as I can tell, a leftover angst from several circular debates on another forum where Art came up a bit short on the logical end per an application of genetic determinism that I see as short-sighted, intrinsically dangerous and entirely greed-based from the git-go. Because this application is professionally and economically important to him personally (from what I could gather), he must of course defend it even if it's dead wrong. IOW, he sees me as a threat to his livelihood and he takes it personally.

Matzke, on the other hand, does not appear to be so personally and metaphysically invested, even though he is a committed (and successful) scientist. He values honesty as well as logical consistency and has demonstrated that several times. I think his misunderstanding of my position here was more a product of confirmation bias than any real analysis of what I've said in this forum. Heck, he may not have read much of what I've said, and that's okay. I'm known to be somewhat linguistically obscure… [yes, that's a self-depreciating understatement].

The really strange thing is that I do understand where they're coming from. I understand the fears that motivate participation in these sociopolitical debates, as well as the pride of achievement both Art and Nick have in the scientific endeavor. Which they would protect and defend because it's worth protecting and defending (when it's not deployed for nefarious purposes in defiance of the general welfare). A value judgment strong Atheists and die-hard materialists can make as legitimately and as wholeheartedly as any religious person or agnostic.

I understand it, but have a pre-existing protect and defend commitment which is wary (by design) of the authoritarian pretensions coming from both fringes. IOW, there are more important things in life than mere dueling metaphysics and the personal existential fears of any wannabe tyrant or group of wannabes. To the extent that pot-stirring fringe radicals on either end of the bell curve threaten the more important sociopolitical construct, I will resist as best I can. This will not make me popular with radicals, but it will fulfill my vow to protect and defend the greater good.

]]> By: Guts http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/#comment-27858 Guts Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:28:07 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=826#comment-27858 Hey guys whats the mystery here? Art and many other anti-ID activists live in their own post wedge world which they created ex nihilo. It doesn't matter that IDers and TTers actually espouse and employ the HTR process, or that Kcat is rate limited by the product release, or that Joy is not actually part of the wedge, or that Paul Nelson never said those things, or that Mader's textbook is not creationist (nor are many ID proponents for that matter), or that the "looks designed" argument can be measured non-subjectively, or that one can scientifically demonstrate through experimentation that the flagellum is IC, or that tricking someone to stick their neck out for free speech rights is unethical, etc, etc (i can go all night). It's what you <em>feel in your heart </em>that is important and trumps "reality" for many anti-IDists such as Art (and the reason for their many science-related faux pas). Hey guys whats the mystery here? Art and many other anti-ID activists live in their own post wedge world which they created ex nihilo. It doesn't matter that IDers and TTers actually espouse and employ the HTR process, or that Kcat is rate limited by the product release, or that Joy is not actually part of the wedge, or that Paul Nelson never said those things, or that Mader's textbook is not creationist (nor are many ID proponents for that matter), or that the "looks designed" argument can be measured non-subjectively, or that one can scientifically demonstrate through experimentation that the flagellum is IC, or that tricking someone to stick their neck out for free speech rights is unethical, etc, etc (i can go all night). It's what you feel in your heart that is important and trumps "reality" for many anti-IDists such as Art (and the reason for their many science-related faux pas).

]]> By: JOHN_A_DESIGNER http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/#comment-27840 JOHN_A_DESIGNER Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:27:42 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=826#comment-27840 Mike: I've been reading this thread for the past couple of days trying to figure out Art and Nick M's thinking. It occurred to me this morning that that Nick and Art are following a Medical Model: ID or anything associated with ID needs to be treated like a disease. Think about it, consider it, or even openmindedly discuss it in any way you're are contaminated and contagious. I don't think they're (especially Art) going to stoop low enough to recognise any inconsistencies in their thinking. Afterall, If you know you're right why let a little thing like logic bother you. Mike:
I've been reading this thread for the past couple of days trying to figure out Art and Nick M's thinking. It occurred to me this morning that that Nick and Art are following a Medical Model: ID or anything associated with ID needs to be treated like a disease. Think about it, consider it, or even openmindedly discuss it in any way you're are contaminated and contagious. I don't think they're (especially Art) going to stoop low enough to recognise any inconsistencies in their thinking. Afterall, If you know you're right why let a little thing like logic bother you.

]]> By: MikeGene http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/#comment-27819 MikeGene Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:50:09 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=826#comment-27819 If Art pops in, you guys are all in trouble. Y'see, anyone who uses critical thinking to support/defend an ID proponent is, de facto, supporting the Wedge. You've all just made it clear to Art that you are part of the Wedge. And part of the Problem. Be careful, Mesk. Remember that Michael Ruse is considered too close to the Forces of Darkness. If Art pops in, you guys are all in trouble. Y'see, anyone who uses critical thinking to support/defend an ID proponent is, de facto, supporting the Wedge. You've all just made it clear to Art that you are part of the Wedge. And part of the Problem. Be careful, Mesk. Remember that Michael Ruse is considered too close to the Forces of Darkness.

]]> By: Deuce http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/#comment-27801 Deuce Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:56:21 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=826#comment-27801 Mesk: <blockquote>Art, Ah, I see: Joy is an anti-materialist. The members of the Wedge movement are also anti-materialist. Therefore, Joy is a member of the Wedge movement.</blockquote> You see, Art has discovered a new rule of logical proof: the law of misduction. It goes like this: If A shares a property with members of class B, then A is a member of class B. Example: P1) Oranges are fruits P2) An apple is also a fruit C) Therefore, an apple is a type of orange. (by misduction) Now, you may try to deny the law of misduction, but relativists deny laws of logic, so that would make you a relativist. Mesk:

Art,

Ah, I see: Joy is an anti-materialist. The members of the Wedge movement are also anti-materialist. Therefore, Joy is a member of the Wedge movement.

You see, Art has discovered a new rule of logical proof: the law of misduction. It goes like this: If A shares a property with members of class B, then A is a member of class B.

Example:
P1) Oranges are fruits
P2) An apple is also a fruit
C) Therefore, an apple is a type of orange. (by misduction)

Now, you may try to deny the law of misduction, but relativists deny laws of logic, so that would make you a relativist.

]]> By: Krauze http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/#comment-27798 Krauze Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:41:02 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=826#comment-27798 Considering my success <a href="http://telicthoughts.com/?p=831#comment-27651" rel="nofollow">elsewhere</a>, I've constructed a hypothesis for Art to have some fun with: Joy talks about the Cambrian explosion, but ignores plants. Wedgists ignore plants. Therefore, Joy is a Wedgist. Considering my success elsewhere, I've constructed a hypothesis for Art to have some fun with:

Joy talks about the Cambrian explosion, but ignores plants.

Wedgists ignore plants.

Therefore, Joy is a Wedgist.

]]> By: Mesk http://telicthoughts.com/what-do-the-wedge-and-the-dodo-have-in-common/#comment-27797 Mesk Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:40:03 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=826#comment-27797 Art, Ah, I see: Joy is an anti-materialist. The members of the Wedge movement are also anti-materialist. Therefore, Joy is a member of the Wedge movement. Or: Joy has a "curious" focus on the Cambrian "explosion". The members of the Wedge movement also focus on the Cambrian "explosion". Therefore, Joy is a member of the Wedge movement. Or, even more tortuously: Joy's "focus includes an almost denial of 90% or more of all life, including plants". The members of the Wedge movement "ignore plants when talking about deep evolutionary trends". Therefore, Joy is a member of the Wedge movement. See, Art, here's where I have a problem - you and I are, broadly speaking, on "the same side". We're on the side that routinely boasts of rigorous standards of logic and evidence. I like to argue, on occasion, that those boasts are not simply empty rhetoric. However, when someone on "my side" manages, with a straight face, to claim that a string of unsupported logical fallacies is a valid basis for classifying someone who simply happens to disagree with him as a die-hard theocrat, this little argument of mine starts to look a little shaky. How can I argue that I'm on the side of logic and evidence when people on my side are clearly paying scant regard to either? You can see my problem here. Can you see your way clear to helping me solve it? Art,

Ah, I see: Joy is an anti-materialist. The members of the Wedge movement are also anti-materialist. Therefore, Joy is a member of the Wedge movement.

Or: Joy has a "curious" focus on the Cambrian "explosion". The members of the Wedge movement also focus on the Cambrian "explosion". Therefore, Joy is a member of the Wedge movement.

Or, even more tortuously: Joy's "focus includes an almost denial of 90% or more of all life, including plants". The members of the Wedge movement "ignore plants when talking about deep evolutionary trends". Therefore, Joy is a member of the Wedge movement.

See, Art, here's where I have a problem - you and I are, broadly speaking, on "the same side". We're on the side that routinely boasts of rigorous standards of logic and evidence. I like to argue, on occasion, that those boasts are not simply empty rhetoric. However, when someone on "my side" manages, with a straight face, to claim that a string of unsupported logical fallacies is a valid basis for classifying someone who simply happens to disagree with him as a die-hard theocrat, this little argument of mine starts to look a little shaky. How can I argue that I'm on the side of logic and evidence when people on my side are clearly paying scant regard to either? You can see my problem here. Can you see your way clear to helping me solve it?

]]>