Letter to the Editor: 'Dialogue' a farce
jspa...@linuxquestions.net
-----------------------------------------------------
To the editor:
The Hall Center for the Humanities and the Biodiversity Institute are
sponsoring presentations by Michael Behe, proponent of intelligent
design theory, as part of their "Difficult Dialogues" series. Thus,
Kansas University is providing Behe a platform to espouse his
discredited pseudoscientific ideas that engender them with an air of
respectability and credibility that they do not deserve.
The idea that there can be a dialogue between scientists at KU and
Behe, or any advocate of intelligent design, is worse than a sham; it
is a cynical farce. It is cynical because the number of professors
appointed to the department of ecology and evolutionary biology who are
genuinely interested in a scientific dialogue with Behe is zero. L.
Frank Baum's scarecrow is a beloved Kansas icon, but evolutionary
biologists have never needed to make an argument against a straw man as
a means to inform the public.
John Morris is a faculty member at the Institute for Creation Research
(ICR). Morris firmly believes and asserts the Earth is merely a few
thousand years old. I am confident that the department of geology will
not sponsor a farcical public dialogue about the age of the Earth with
Morris. Hopefully, the Biodiversity Institute will not lure Duane T.
Gish out of retirement from ICR for a dialogue about his crackpot
anti-evolutionary theories that are no less discredited than
intelligent design and irreducible complexity.
Walter Dimmick,
Lawrence
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec/01/dialogue_farce/
J. Spaceman
in...@ccicenter.org
no better side-by-side comparison than an onstage argument. I've often
heard of science's unwillingness to debate, I suppose they see no
possibility to debate something baseless. On the other hand I think it
would be such a "no contest" kind of argument that it would be
beneficial for science. Many people are ignorant of the kind of
research that's out there. They aren't going to go look it up on
their own. A debate such as this holds peoples attention because of
controversy. Perhaps they'll learn something while in attendance.
However, I know little of the KU science staff however. Are they just
ID cronies? Would the argument be jury-rigged for Behe?
Bobby Bryant
in...@ccicenter.org writes:
> I think a dialogue would be helpful for education purposes... there's
> no better side-by-side comparison than an onstage argument.
No, live performances are often misleading to the audience. It takes
about a second to make up a lie, but minutes, hours, or days to dig
up the documentation that refutes it.
Live debates reward showmanship rather than scholarship.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
danehut...@hotmail.com
Good point, totally understandable. But debate and argumentation are
supported by evidence. And we know which side has the evidence. With
argumentation evidence must have of the following... (A scorecard if
you will, TOE vs. ID)
Recency: Is the support recent enough, or is it contradicted by more
recent information?
(TOE 1, ID 0.)
Sufficiency. Is the support sufficient, or is it insufficient to make
any conclusions?
(TOE 2, ID 0.)
Relevancy. Is the support directly relevant to the argument?
(TOE 2, ID 0.)
Clarity. Is the support clear and easy to understand, or is it marred
by obfuscations?
(TOE 3, ID 1... maybe we'll give them this one... TOE might need some
work here.)
Consistency. Is the support resonant with other evidence, or are there
some discrepancies with individual or collective experience that make
it unverifiable?
(TOE 4, ID 1.)
Qualification. Is the support qualified and reliable enough to assess
the issue, or is it merely expressing an uninformed, untrustworthy
opinion?
(TOE 5, ID 1.)
Bias. Is the support neutral, fair, reliable, and evenhanded, or is
there some bias present?
(TOE 5, ID 1... nobody gets a point for this one)
Representative. Is the support representative of the information
available, or are there substantial counterexamples that cast doubt
upon the evidence?
(TOE 6, ID 1... TOE relies on falsifiability ID casts doubt on
everything)
Look at that... why do you think ID could ever show up TOE in an
argument. But it isn't only about evidence. The formula also includes
slanting, connotation and abstraction.. Which the ID people use soooo
well. But they should never be able to use those tactics so well that
evidence becomes inconsequential. Perhaps evolutionists need to learn
some argumentative skill. Or perhaps the public does, so that this
"showmanship" is disregarded. As long as TOE has contempt for debating
with ID there will be no change with public opinion.
Also, are these KU profs jury-rigged?
TomS
<1164990318.3...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
danehut...@hotmail.com stated..."
>
>> live performances are often misleading to the audience.
>> Live debates reward showmanship rather than scholarship.
>
>Good point, totally understandable. But debate and argumentation are
>supported by evidence. And we know which side has the evidence. With
>argumentation evidence must have of the following... (A scorecard if
>you will, TOE vs. ID)
The most critical issue is: What is the alternative theory?
Is there any creation/design alternative description of what
happened? What was it like, when a particular "kind" was
created/designed?
It seems that the only alternative that has ever been spelled
out is "omphalism": that the kinds of life were created/designed
with the appearance of having had a history. Trees with several
annual growth rings, animals at some stage of life, ... It's
understandable that they wouldn't want to make that explicit,
but they have no other scenario, and remain in the "negative"
mode: something, somehow, somewhere, is wrong with evolution.
We don't need to get into "details" like the evidence, if there
is the open question "evidence for what?"
--
---Tom S.
God might have created, and doubtless did create, the world with all the marks
of antiquity and completeness which it now exhibits.
Chateaubriand, Genius of Christianity (1802), 1.4.5
noctiluca
Would that it were this easy.
> Look at that... why do you think ID could ever show up TOE in an
> argument.
Because it has happened, many times.
It does no good to consider this question from the perspective of those
who are truly familiar with the evidence. Among those of us who have a
deeper understanding than your average citizen it will seldom happen
that we witness a debate on this issue and come away thinking that the
side of IDeology won fairly.
The only value in answering your query above lies in evaluating the
public reaction to such encounters, and the fact of the matter is that
it happens often that the scientific side appears hesitant and meek in
comparison. Even when the defenders of evolution appear to at least
hold their own, the effect serves only to strengthen the notion, for
some, that there is an empirical equivalence between the two sides.
The reasons for this are many, not the least of which is that
scientific understanding is built from the ground up, facts and
observations serving elucidation of higher level mechanisms and
processes which are subsumed into even higher level theories. There is
no capacity, in a debate format, for giving an audience a broad based
understanding of the research which supports many of the conceptual
aspects of evolutionary theory. It is a simple matter for an
obfuscationist to create strawmen based upon misunderstandings or
misstatements of the scientific record, and, as Bobby said, nearly
impossible to effectively respond to the volume and breadth of these
distortions with the brevity required by a debate setting.
I know of only two mechanisms for sorting out the truth of these
matters, one is the peer review process - extremely effecaceous but not
very conducive to public event organization. The other is the process
of cross-examination - highly dependent upon a well informed and
careful inquisitor but not particularly attractive as an event format
(at least not to the ID guys).
> But it isn't only about evidence. The formula also includes
> slanting, connotation and abstraction.. Which the ID people use soooo
> well. But they should never be able to use those tactics so well that
> evidence becomes inconsequential.
Even so, they do. It is actually a rather simple matter to make the
evidence *appear* inconsequential in the debate format. A specious
argument here, a deceptive bit of demagoguery there, and an audience,
which most often is lacking a formal understanding of the methods of
science as well of the specifics of biological research, can easily be
so swayed.
> Perhaps evolutionists need to learn
> some argumentative skill. Or perhaps the public does, so that this
> "showmanship" is disregarded.
'Tis a thing to be fervently hoped for. We have talked often about how
to meet the challenge of an ID approach which leans heavily on
marketing and showmanship. The best ideas so far seem to run to finding
scientists and experts who are presentable as well as knowledgeable.
That doesn't change the nature of most of the venues for discussion,
however. Consider, for example, a ten minute TV segment in which three
"panelists" are invited to respond to each other as well as the
specifics of the issue, often with a poorly informed host acting as
moderator. It's a recipe for misunderstanding and misinformation, and
plays directly into the tactics of purveyors of pseudo-science.
> As long as TOE has contempt for debating
> with ID there will be no change with public opinion.
You may be correct. I'm not so sure. There others methods for
dissemination of information. The challenge to reason must be met, I
agree, but I'm not convinced pulic debates will serve that purpose.
RLC
danehut...@hotmail.com
> The most critical issue is: What is the alternative theory?
> Is there any creation/design alternative description of what
> happened? What was it like, when a particular "kind" was
> created/designed?
Unfortunately subjective matters can live and thrive in the realm of
debate. The ID side has a multitudes of answers for these questions
that you ask. It's easy to come up with plenty of answers when you pit
the abstract against the concrete. Tangibility is the issue for
evolutionists.
> It seems that the only alternative that has ever been spelled
> out is "omphalism"
Come on now... that only applies to young earth advocates. ID leaves a
bit of room for adaptation, "created evolution" etc.
> We don't need to get into "details" like the evidence, if there
> is the open question "evidence for what?"
Unfortunately (once again... why must things always be so unfortunate)
the public views values on a similar level with facts. And they need
to be first taught (or retaught) a proper rubric.
It has occurred to me that since many school districts feel that there
is a place for ID in curriculum the real question is where? A
Philosophy class? There is an utter lack of philosophy curriculum in
many schools. Perhaps if Logic, Philosophy and Reason had some sort of
outlet in high school we wouldn't be having this talk.
in...@ccicenter.org
> hold their own, the effect serves only to strengthen the notion, for
> some, that there is an empirical equivalence between the two sides.
I don't think the public looks for empirical value or equivalence...
it's more like dandH wrote... they see values and facts as being on the
same level. But I don't think that is unfortunate! Without that we
would have no moral basis to any public policy.
> I know of only two mechanisms for sorting out the truth of these
> matters, one is the peer review process - extremely effecaceous but not
> very conducive to public event organization.
Good luck.
>The other is the process
> of cross-examination - highly dependent upon a well informed and
> careful inquisitor but not particularly attractive as an event format
> (at least not to the ID guys).
Ohhh I like this one.
> they do... make the
> evidence *appear* inconsequential in the debate format. A specious
> argument here, a deceptive bit of demagoguery there, and an audience,
> which most often is lacking a formal understanding of the methods of
> science as well of the specifics of biological research, can easily be
> so swayed.
>
Perhaps if evolutionists shifted their arguments to include value-based
notions they could better compete. I know... that sounds
preposterous... but the concept that evolution is a principle in the
universe similar to gravity holds some simple
layman-lightbulb-over-head weight. And that is the general concept
with no complicated data. Also the notions such as "see how much
different, physically, you are from your grandparents... and your
grandparents from you... take that to it's logical consequences."
Is there room for subjective discourse on the TOE side?
noctiluca
i...@ccicenter.org wrote:
> > Even when the defenders of evolution appear to at least
> > hold their own, the effect serves only to strengthen the notion, for
> > some, that there is an empirical equivalence between the two sides.
>
> I don't think the public looks for empirical value or equivalence...
> it's more like dandH wrote... they see values and facts as being on the
> same level. But I don't think that is unfortunate! Without that we
> would have no moral basis to any public policy.
>
> > I know of only two mechanisms for sorting out the truth of these
> > matters, one is the peer review process - extremely effecaceous but not
> > very conducive to public event organization.
>
> Good luck.
Well, in this case luck is not needed, as the issue has already been
decided. The absence of any body of work in the peer-reviewed
literature speaks clearly as to the vapidity of creationist
pseudo-science.
I included it only for completeness.
> >The other is the process
> > of cross-examination - highly dependent upon a well informed and
> > careful inquisitor but not particularly attractive as an event format
> > (at least not to the ID guys).
>
> Ohhh I like this one.
So do I. It worked out pretty well in Dover.
> > they do... make the
> > evidence *appear* inconsequential in the debate format. A specious
> > argument here, a deceptive bit of demagoguery there, and an audience,
> > which most often is lacking a formal understanding of the methods of
> > science as well of the specifics of biological research, can easily be
> > so swayed.
> >
>
> Perhaps if evolutionists shifted their arguments to include value-based
> notions they could better compete. I know... that sounds
> preposterous... but the concept that evolution is a principle in the
> universe similar to gravity holds some simple
> layman-lightbulb-over-head weight. And that is the general concept
> with no complicated data. Also the notions such as "see how much
> different, physically, you are from your grandparents... and your
> grandparents from you... take that to it's logical consequences."
I do think it is important to be able to speak clearly and without
jargon if you want to communicate with non-professionals. The problem
lies in whether that message is an accurate representation of the
literature or a dumbed-down distortion. Those kinds of mistakes
inevitably end up coming back to bite science in the ass.
Nor do I think values based notions is a good approach. That plays
right into the hands and strategy of the opposition, who very much want
to make this about the supposed value-based implications of evolution
rather than the science.
> Is there room for subjective discourse on the TOE side?
A little time in the monkey house should answer that question..
RLC
in...@ccicenter.org
> decided. The absence of any body of work in the peer-reviewed
> literature speaks clearly as to the vapidity of creationist
> pseudo-science.
But saying no-contest before the fight starts doesn't win it. I think
we agree on that. Right? Debate is not just an option. It is
necessary.
> Nor do I think values based notions is a good approach. That plays
> right into the hands and strategy of the opposition, who very much want
> to make this about the supposed value-based implications of evolution
> rather than the science.
I bet this is how ID people feel about using science in their arguments
(it's their playing field) But no one thing in the world is composed
entirely of facts or entirely of values. This distinction is man made.
In order to debate the whole argument, evolutionists must fight on
their turf using their tactics. A real problem now that I am realizing
is that the burden of proof is not certain in this case. Each side
thinks it's the other side's job to prove itself. And each side
doesn't respect the type of argument that the other is making.
> A little time in the monkey house should answer that question..
haha... I wish.
Don Cates
posted:
>
>i...@ccicenter.org wrote:
[snip]
You mean have them participate on TO?
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
<in...@ccicenter.org> wrote in message
news:1165011140.4...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>> Well, in this case luck is not needed, as the issue has already been
>> decided. The absence of any body of work in the peer-reviewed
>> literature speaks clearly as to the vapidity of creationist
>> pseudo-science.
>
> But saying no-contest before the fight starts doesn't win it. I think
> we agree on that. Right? Debate is not just an option. It is
> necessary.
>
a long, long time. How long should one wait for them to come up with *any*
evidence for their side of the debate? The theory of evolution is supported
by the evidence in almost all scientific disciplines. Creationism is
supported by no evidence, made up evidence, or blatantly made up and
dishonest assertions. What is their to debate, scientifically?
On the other hand, if you want to have a philosophical discussion, then no
probelm....debate away. Just so long as no one tries to sneek it into
science classes.
>> Nor do I think values based notions is a good approach. That plays
>> right into the hands and strategy of the opposition, who very much want
>> to make this about the supposed value-based implications of evolution
>> rather than the science.
>
> I bet this is how ID people feel about using science in their arguments
> (it's their playing field) But no one thing in the world is composed
> entirely of facts or entirely of values.
The topic of values is philosophical.
> This distinction is man made.
> In order to debate the whole argument, evolutionists must fight on
> their turf using their tactics. A real problem now that I am realizing
> is that the burden of proof is not certain in this case.
Not true. The burden of proof is *always* on the one making the assertion.
>Each side
> thinks it's the other side's job to prove itself.
Science doesn't prove things.
> And each side
> doesn't respect the type of argument that the other is making.
That's because one side supports its assertions based on evidence, and the
other side doesn't think that evidence is important.
Robert Carnegie
Bobby Bryant wrote:
> In article <1164982951.4...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> in...@ccicenter.org writes:
>
> > I think a dialogue would be helpful for education purposes... there's
> > no better side-by-side comparison than an onstage argument.
>
> No, live performances are often misleading to the audience. It takes
> about a second to make up a lie, but minutes, hours, or days to dig
> up the documentation that refutes it.
>
> Live debates reward showmanship rather than scholarship.
I want to know if the man is afraid to debate a Pastafarian. I'm not a
believer but I enjoy the music.
Bobby Bryant
TomS
<1164998080.2...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
danehut...@hotmail.com stated..."
>
>TomS wrote:
>> The most critical issue is: What is the alternative theory?
>> Is there any creation/design alternative description of what
>> happened? What was it like, when a particular "kind" was
>> created/designed?
>
>Unfortunately subjective matters can live and thrive in the realm of
>debate. The ID side has a multitudes of answers for these questions
>that you ask. It's easy to come up with plenty of answers when you pit
>the abstract against the concrete. Tangibility is the issue for
>evolutionists.
>
>> It seems that the only alternative that has ever been spelled
>> out is "omphalism"
>
>Come on now... that only applies to young earth advocates. ID leaves a
>bit of room for adaptation, "created evolution" etc.
I'd be interested in any answer to the question about what it is
that happens when a "design event" takes place. What is there
before it happens, and what is different after it happens.
>
>> We don't need to get into "details" like the evidence, if there
>> is the open question "evidence for what?"
>
>Unfortunately (once again... why must things always be so unfortunate)
>the public views values on a similar level with facts. And they need
>to be first taught (or retaught) a proper rubric.
>
>It has occurred to me that since many school districts feel that there
>is a place for ID in curriculum the real question is where? A
>Philosophy class? There is an utter lack of philosophy curriculum in
>many schools. Perhaps if Logic, Philosophy and Reason had some sort of
>outlet in high school we wouldn't be having this talk.
>
Robert Carnegie
> Perhaps if evolutionists shifted their arguments to include value-based
> notions they could better compete. I know... that sounds
> preposterous... but the concept that evolution is a principle in the
> universe similar to gravity holds some simple
> layman-lightbulb-over-head weight. And that is the general concept
> with no complicated data. Also the notions such as "see how much
> different, physically, you are from your grandparents... and your
> grandparents from you... take that to it's logical consequences."
>
> Is there room for subjective discourse on the TOE side?
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at, but there seems to
be some difference between "value" and "fact" in your mind. But what's
the value of untruth, of misleading, of deliberate misinformation? Or
what's the worth of values that don't correspond to the actual world
that we live in? Where it's immoral to be sick, for instance?
Robert Carnegie
> In article <1165022504....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
> > I want to know if the man is afraid to debate a Pastafarian. I'm
> > not a believer but I enjoy the music.
>
> And the snack afterward...
Oh yeah. Come to pray and stay to scoff.
Bobby Bryant
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> writes:
> "On 1 Dec 2006 10:34:40 -0800, in article
> <1164998080.2...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> danehut...@hotmail.com stated..."
>>
>>TomS wrote:
>>> The most critical issue is: What is the alternative theory?
>>> Is there any creation/design alternative description of what
>>> happened? What was it like, when a particular "kind" was
>>> created/designed?
>>
>>Unfortunately subjective matters can live and thrive in the realm of
>>debate. The ID side has a multitudes of answers for these questions
>>that you ask. It's easy to come up with plenty of answers when you pit
>>the abstract against the concrete. Tangibility is the issue for
>>evolutionists.
>>
>>> It seems that the only alternative that has ever been spelled
>>> out is "omphalism"
>>
>>Come on now... that only applies to young earth advocates. ID leaves a
>>bit of room for adaptation, "created evolution" etc.
>
> I'd be interested in any answer to the question about what it is
> that happens when a "design event" takes place. What is there
> before it happens, and what is different after it happens.
Beforehand there's a big sheet of paper, and afterward there's blue
ink on it.
Or sometimes it's just pencil marks on a napkin.
in...@ccicenter.org
> But what's
> the value of untruth, of misleading, of deliberate misinformation?
These are the same arguments that creationists bring against
evolutionists... "Misleading or deliberate misinformation." Science
seems to be an easy target for their attacks because step #1 of the
scientific method is "develop a hypothesis" They see this as opinion
being fed in to the process form the start. The general public see the
existence of values within science and the coexistence of each of these
explanations as being possible (<a
href="http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm">See this public opinion
poll for source</a>. Still none of this is exempt from argument in the
style of rhetoric. A serious problem here is called "clash" where the
two arguments cannot exist together. It's more of an assumption of
clash... because obviously pieces of these two can exist together.
Science cannot rule out God... it would have to be all-knowing to do
so. Religion cannot rule out science (such as evolution), it would
need evidence of God and a created order to do so.
> what's the worth of values that don't correspond to the actual world
> that we live in?
Woah woah woah... I don't know what world you live in, but my world is
filled with them. We cannot explain empirically why it is wrong to
murder. We cannot write up an equation for hatred. Most importantly,
for this argument, we can't explain the value of curiosity which both
science and religion are all about answering. Now by "values which
don't correspond to our world" I suppose you mean values that are not
only unexplainable but are contrary to empirical evidence. Let me
provide some examples which we let slide. 1.) The weatherman measures,
observes and predicts but oftentimes is very wrong while things like
the farmers almanac which utilize inference and often "baseless"
methods comes up with another prediction which ends up being right.
I'd like to see the statistics on how often this happens. Gallup and
Zogby need to get on that one. 2.) Empirical evidence shows that an
embryo has a <a
href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm">spine,
brain and heart at 3 weeks and a heartbeat at 4 weeks</a> (all the
signs of life) but there is a value out there (which I agree with) that
says women should have the right to abort it. 3.) Homosexuals (which
I have nothing against) are physically functional to reproduce with
those of the opposite sex... but a value is what says it should be fine
to do the opposite. 4.) Euthanasia: value says "keep them
alive"... facts say they have the brain functions of a dead person.
Or on the other hand... a value says "pull the plug" while facts
say "they still have a heartbeat!" 5.) String theory, quantum
mechanics etc... these fields abound with theories and concepts which
were derived by the value that there might be other dimensions,
realities etc. This is treated as science. I'm sure that there are
more.
But he main point is that if we disregard the values that part-way run
this world we are never going to be able to debate with ID. So we
need to manufacture values. Make logic something that is "good"
Make empirical evidence something that is "right" And the way that
you manufacture these values is through argument... sentiment
building... abstraction. Do you agree?
Immoral to be sick??? what do you mean?
tgde...@earthlink.net
It is very difficult to convince members of a specialist group to
abandon their particular 'style' since they have worked so hard to
develop it. That's why there are PR firms and political strategists,
and that's why PR firms and political strategists argue with their
clients.
Creationists are trying to establish an us v. them
situation---scientists are elitist snobs, they talk down to people,
they are boring and pedantic, and so on. Just look at the last two
presidential elections to see how it works.
Some of your ideas have merit. But you need a debater on your side who
is playing to the general public and not her colleagues. People have to
*like* the person, and that requires making a connection with the
language that is used---style matters more than substance.
-tg
Bobby Bryant
in...@ccicenter.org writes:
>
>> But what's the value of untruth, of misleading, of deliberate
>> misinformation?
>
> These are the same arguments that creationists bring against
> evolutionists... "Misleading or deliberate misinformation." Science
> seems to be an easy target for their attacks because step #1 of the
> scientific method is "develop a hypothesis" They see this as opinion
> being fed in to the process form the start.
It essentially is. But the difference in science and religion is that
that's the beginning of the process, not the entire process.
Science proceeds with a sanity check called "hypothesis testing".
Robert Carnegie
in...@ccicenter.org wrote:
> > what's the worth of values that don't correspond to the actual world
> > that we live in?
>
> Woah woah woah... I don't know what world you live in, but my world is
> filled with them. We cannot explain empirically why it is wrong to
> murder. We cannot write up an equation for hatred. Most importantly,
> for this argument, we can't explain the value of curiosity which both
> science and religion are all about answering. Now by "values which
> don't correspond to our world" I suppose you mean values that are not
> only unexplainable but are contrary to empirical evidence.
Yes. Lies.
> Let me
> provide some examples which we let slide. 1.) The weatherman measures,
> observes and predicts but oftentimes is very wrong while things like
> the farmers almanac which utilize inference and often "baseless"
> methods comes up with another prediction which ends up being right.
> I'd like to see the statistics on how often this happens. Gallup and
> Zogby need to get on that one.
You're making assumptions about the farmer's almanac - that they don't
measure and observe and predict. And from either source, a prediction
is only a prediction and is offered as such.
You don't need to worry about the statistics either. Farmers who would
use the farmer's almanac for forecasts are serious people whose whole
personal fortune depends partly on the weather. So do they use the
almanac for forecasting, for planning their activities? Or do they use
the up-to-date commercial forecast?
> 2.) Empirical evidence shows that an
> embryo has a <a
> href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm">spine,
> brain and heart at 3 weeks and a heartbeat at 4 weeks</a> (all the
> signs of life) but there is a value out there (which I agree with) that
> says women should have the right to abort it.
A dog has a spine, brain, and heart, and in Korea they'd eat it. These
are relative values.
> 3.) Homosexuals (which
> I have nothing against) are physically functional to reproduce with
> those of the opposite sex... but a value is what says it should be fine
> to do the opposite.
Not to reproduce with the opposite sex? I've been doing that for
years.
> 4.) Euthanasia: value says "keep them
> alive"... facts say they have the brain functions of a dead person.
> Or on the other hand... a value says "pull the plug" while facts
> say "they still have a heartbeat!"
And "who's paying for this!"
> 5.) String theory, quantum
> mechanics etc... these fields abound with theories and concepts which
> were derived by the value that there might be other dimensions,
> realities etc. This is treated as science.
It's treated as speculation. But there is an intellectual need for a
comprehensive theory - notably, one that combines most of general
relativity, which appears to be true, and most of quantum theory, which
appears to be true, and deals with the places where they don't give
similar and comprehensible answers. This isn't /just/ for fun and to
make everything nice and simple, although that is the other main goal.
> But he main point is that if we disregard the values that part-way run
> this world we are never going to be able to debate with ID. So we
> need to manufacture values. Make logic something that is "good"
> Make empirical evidence something that is "right" And the way that
> you manufacture these values is through argument... sentiment
> building... abstraction. Do you agree?
I guess I'm fixated on "telling the truth as you find it" versus
"lying" thing.
> Immoral to be sick??? what do you mean?
Why, you don't think good people get sick, do you? Look at AIDS for
instance.
I am being sarcastic. But you can find people around who believe that
if you get sick it's because you sinned. I don't mean Original Sin
either, I mean you personally.
Free Lunch
bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote in
<YMlch.327$hI....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>:
Have you ever noticed that those who accuse scientists of lying never
bother to test the claims of scientists? All they would have to do is
test what the scientists say to find out if they are lying. Of course
they never test the claims they support, either. Maybe they're just
incredibly lazy.
Robert Grumbine
This might be a good one for 'info' to expand on the science (in this
case, meteorology) vs. 'values' (in this case, the farmer's almanac)
as to what it is it means by the latter.
n.b. anyone may be a 'weatherman', including David Letterman.
Study of meteorology is not necessary, but a good on-camera presence
(if TV) or voice (if radio) is. I'm limiting to those who have
studied meteorology or are doing the science. Tom Skilling, say,
would be one such. The forecasters for the national weather service
would be others, though less well-known. The even less well-known
scientists are perhaps more relevant.
Anyhow ...
The meteorologists first spend (spent) time working out just how
far to the future one could make valid forecasts. Valid not requiring
(obviously) that they be exactly correct all the time. But it _is_
necessary that they be better than some 'null' forecasts (climatology,
persistence, and the like). In other words, nobody gets forecast
credit for predicting that July in DC will generally see highs in
the 80s and 90s, while January will see highs in the 20s and 30s.
We knew that before we hired the forecaster. A forecaster also
has to beat persistence -- in the short range, weather tends to be
similar day to day. If today was much colder than usual (climatology)
tomorrow probably will be too, and the day after. (Persistence is
a fairly good forecaster for 2 days.) Forecasters have to beat
both climatology and persistence. This winds up limiting weather
prediction to 5-10 days. Some hopes of going out to 10-14, but
that's about it for weather (instantaneous conditions).
The Farmer's Almanac (FA) differs not only in method (being science-free)
but in the standard it's held to. Most well-known is that it makes
_weather_ predictions far in advance of the event -- 2 feet of snow
on such and so date, predicted 3-6 months in advance. If one casts
a broad enough net, and makes enough predictions, _some_ of these
will hit. Touters of the FA then cherry-pick those successes and
list only those. (Not at all unlike the YEC approach.)
If you (as a couple of friends did, independantly and a few years
apart) actually sit down and systematically look at the FA forecasts --
all the storms that did happen and didn't get 'forecast' by the FA,
and all the ones forecast that didn't, as well as the successes, it
actually turns out worse than taking climatology. If you add up
the snow forecasts (including those dramatic 2 feet of snow blizzards)
for the winter, it comes out to record dry winters -- less snow than
had ever been observed.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Frank J
You mean reggaetoni?
Frank J
jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> >From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> To the editor:
>
> The Hall Center for the Humanities and the Biodiversity Institute are
> sponsoring presentations by Michael Behe, proponent of intelligent
> design theory, as part of their "Difficult Dialogues" series. Thus,
> Kansas University is providing Behe a platform to espouse his
> discredited pseudoscientific ideas that engender them with an air of
> respectability and credibility that they do not deserve.
>
> The idea that there can be a dialogue between scientists at KU and
> Behe, or any advocate of intelligent design, is worse than a sham; it
> is a cynical farce. It is cynical because the number of professors
> appointed to the department of ecology and evolutionary biology who are
> genuinely interested in a scientific dialogue with Behe is zero.
Huh? Behe is the one who has spent more than a decade avoiding a
scientific dialogue. Nearly every biologist and biology professor who
has heard of Behe would love to discuss exactly what he proposes as an
alternative to evolution, and how to test it. Those who believe in a
designer (but not the ID scam) would ask "how does the designer create
new IC systems if not by evolution?" The only reason that no one
bothers is that they know that he will keep pulling the same old
bait-and-switch, and give the nonscientists in the audience the
misleading, but feel-good sound bites that they want.
Maybe that's what the author means, but it is sure a "quote mine
alert."
> L.
> Frank Baum's scarecrow is a beloved Kansas icon, but evolutionary
> biologists have never needed to make an argument against a straw man as
> a means to inform the public.
>
> John Morris is a faculty member at the Institute for Creation Research
> (ICR). Morris firmly believes and asserts the Earth is merely a few
> thousand years old. I am confident that the department of geology will
> not sponsor a farcical public dialogue about the age of the Earth with
> Morris. Hopefully, the Biodiversity Institute will not lure Duane T.
> Gish out of retirement from ICR for a dialogue about his crackpot
> anti-evolutionary theories that are no less discredited than
> intelligent design and irreducible complexity.
But if anything, YEC and classic OEC make testable predictions. Instead
of dismissing ID as "creationism" it would be nice to show how its
arguments are really no comfort whatever to those who desperately want
to believe that humans are not related to broccoli, or that all life
was created in a week, ~6000 years ago. The public needs to see why
IDers do not want to debate YECs - not because IDers "are closet YECs"
(as too many critics imply) but because most ID leaders know that YEC
is nonsense, but can't draw too much attention to it for the sake of
the big tent. If anything, YEC leaders, while being embarrasingly wrong
about the science, to their credit occasionally criticize ID for the
evasion scam that it is.
Robert Carnegie
Frank J wrote:
> jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> > >From the article:
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > To the editor:
> >
> > The Hall Center for the Humanities and the Biodiversity Institute are
> > sponsoring presentations by Michael Behe, proponent of intelligent
> > design theory, as part of their "Difficult Dialogues" series. Thus,
> > Kansas University is providing Behe a platform to espouse his
> > discredited pseudoscientific ideas that engender them with an air of
> > respectability and credibility that they do not deserve.
> >
> > The idea that there can be a dialogue between scientists at KU and
> > Behe, or any advocate of intelligent design, is worse than a sham; it
> > is a cynical farce. It is cynical because the number of professors
> > appointed to the department of ecology and evolutionary biology who are
> > genuinely interested in a scientific dialogue with Behe is zero.
>
> Huh? Behe is the one who has spent more than a decade avoiding a
> scientific dialogue. Nearly every biologist and biology professor who
> has heard of Behe would love to discuss exactly what he proposes as an
> alternative to evolution, and how to test it.
I think "love" is putting it many times too strongly. I think
responsible scientists would be very surprised if Behe had anything
worth talking about for more than seconds.
Behe isn't one of those who says that the ur-cell contained all the
genetic information required for life on earth, is he? Or is he? Put
it this way, now - if Darwinianists don't have to explain where their
first cell came from, then a designed ur-cell doesn't have to be
accounted for, either - at least not by the same guy. On the other
hand, there isn't an ur-cell of that sort in conventional creationism.
in...@ccicenter.org
> > But the main point is that if we disregard the values that part-way run
> > this world we are never going to be able to debate with ID. So we
> > need to manufacture values. Make logic something that is "good"
> > Make empirical evidence something that is "right" And the way that
> > you manufacture these values is through argument... sentiment
> > building... abstraction. Do you agree?
>
> I guess I'm fixated on "telling the truth as you find it" versus
> "lying" thing.
This is the problem... just calling ID-proponents liars doesn't work
when they call evolutionists liars as well. Evolutionists have the
evidence... but evidence can be used to prove anything. They now need
the values, the "rights" the "goods" the rational/personal approaches.
These things come through debate, public discourse and
cross-examination, not stuffy, complicated arrogance. My final point
is that debate should not be scoffed at, as it has been in this "letter
to the editor"
I've entered into this argument as a project for a university class on
argument... this "letter to the editor" seemed like perfect debate
fodder and it even concerned debate itself. It has always struck me as
odd as to why evolutionists feel like the argument is over before it
has begun. Anyhow... Thanks for verifying and perpetuating that
stereotype for me.
Frank J
Yes. In "Darwin's Black Box" it's the only idea that he put forth as a
possible alternative of how the design might have been actuated other
than by evolution. It was just a brief speculation, after 200+ pages of
misrepresenting evolution. He has been trying to disown it ever since,
but it stands on record as the only testable alternative that any major
IDer ever suggested. For all their gyrations about the insufficiency of
"Darwinism," the Cambrian "mystery" and other anti-evolution canards
borrowed from classic creationism, ID has not offered one positive
argument in support of YEC or classic (no common descent) OEC. Then
again, neither has YEC or OEC.
in...@ccicenter.org
http://upwithargument.wordpress.com/files/2006/09/brockriede-wayne-arguers-as-lovers.pdf
which proposes a metaphor for argument based on love. He brings up
several definitional distinctions such as a Rapist: who will not
concede, argues by submission and censors the other side via not
recognizing their argument. The Seducer: who charms and tricks
through argument via begging questions, appealing to ignorance etc.
And a Lover: who risks himself through argument, asks free-assent to
propositions and does not objectify his co-arguers.
Brockriede argues, "If science deals with matters that are
fundamentally uncertain, the scientist must argue his position but
cannot demand acquiescence." If you say that TOE is fundamentally
certain you should step back and realize that science itself isn't.
Positivism is no longer a viable methodological standpoint in science.
It seems via this metaphor that TOE argues as a rapist and ID argues as
a seducer. Neither are a fulfilling way to hold such discourse.
Arguing as lovers establishes a bilateral relationship between the
co-arguers and will more readily lead closer to conclusion rather than
the default censorship of TOE or the ignorant charms of ID.
Robert Carnegie
I see Creationism more as a brother. An annoying kid brother who
namecalls. It most absolutely is not a romantic relationship.
Your metaphor is an attempt to set aside facts in favour of slickness
of presentation and good manners. This is not valid in science,
religion, politics, anywhere. There are sweet people who are totally
wrongheaded and there are misanthropes who do know what they are
talking about. Follow the reality, not the charm.
Science isn't certain but people pay to fly in aeroplanes and have
mostly left off from ensuring the rising of the sun by human sacrifice.