Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 125 (237956)
08-28-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Sylas
08-28-2005 8:52 AM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
There is no targeting. We are asking. "Are you aware that you are on this list? And if so, are on it intentionally?" I, for one, don't intend to ridicule anyone.

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Sylas, posted 08-28-2005 8:52 AM Sylas has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 125 (237968)
08-28-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Sylas
08-28-2005 8:52 AM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
Your concerns are valid, and posting names and e-mails may be flirting with that.
But I look at it as confirmation of the list, not attacking the credibility\opinions of the people, but questioning the validity of the list and the manner it is posted by DI.
Look at it as a scientific attempt to duplicate results?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Sylas, posted 08-28-2005 8:52 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 11:57 AM RAZD has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 48 of 125 (237970)
08-28-2005 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
08-28-2005 11:51 AM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
I can understand the concern but at the end of the day we are sending out a polite short questionnaire - they either answer it or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 11:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 12:38 PM CK has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 125 (237984)
08-28-2005 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by CK
08-28-2005 11:57 AM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
and that's the way it needs to be.
I'm still thinking about the {protocols\questions\goals}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 11:57 AM CK has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 125 (237989)
08-28-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Sylas
08-28-2005 8:52 AM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
I completely agree. It serves no real purpose and does nothing to advance or refute evidentiary agruments.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Sylas, posted 08-28-2005 8:52 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by mick, posted 08-28-2005 2:41 PM jar has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4976 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 51 of 125 (238006)
08-28-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
08-28-2005 12:51 PM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
I'm in two minds about it. I definitely think that the questionnaire or draft email should be written before any more email addresses, names and telephone numbers are posted on the web. I certainly wouldn't want my phone number posted here, no matter what I signed in the past.
If we write a proposed email that people wish to send out, then we can better decide whether it's worth doing.
I think in general it might be a useful thing. But the email would have to be VERY polite and perhaps not be associated specifically with evc forum (just to save Percy from headaches).
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 08-28-2005 12:51 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 2:45 PM mick has not replied
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 4:40 PM mick has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 52 of 125 (238007)
08-28-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mick
08-28-2005 2:41 PM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
I think we are totally upfront - "you are listed as having signed the document and as we are interested in this debate we were wondering if your views have shifted since you did and would you be so kind to complete our short survey" (more polished than that of course but that's the nub of it).
I still think a websurvey is the best way forward, they can complete it with no name required (unless they want to make an additional comment and want to identify themselves in some manner).
Percy is right that it serves no purpose at all in terms of evidence but then nothing at all we do here does that. I think it's at least a geniune attempt to engage with the supporters of ID and try and better understand their position. I honestly don't see the harm in that.
As for the email issue - if we can google and find it, then anyone who wants to contact them can google and find it.
In regards to point of contact - I am quite happy to be the person who puts his name at the bottom of the mail along with a short history about myself and my background,further contact details and so on.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 02:53 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 02:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mick, posted 08-28-2005 2:41 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 3:59 PM CK has not replied
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 4:48 PM CK has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 125 (238018)
08-28-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by CK
08-28-2005 2:45 PM


Can we take care of the concerns?
I think it's at least a geniune attempt to engage with the supporters of ID and try and better understand their position. I honestly don't see the harm in that.
Who knows, we might even encourage some to become active members on this forum.
As for the email issue - if we can google and find it, then anyone who wants to contact them can google and find it.
This is easy to resolve by emailing this information to the keeper of the list rather than posting it here. This would also help develop a separation between the forum and the activity.
Anyone looking up the data can check the list to see who is already covered.
In regards to point of contact - I am quite happy to be the person who puts his name at the bottom of the mail along with a short history about myself and my background,further contact details and so on.
Or we could set up a new website dedicated to the truth of alternate viewpoints, kind of like a scientific SCOPES site
There are a number of places you can get free hosting, netscape is one, with sufficient capacity for this project.
There is another way to attack the implications of the posting, however, without contacting a single one of these people:
Do an independent survey with exactly the same phrasing, but add on to it:
"WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.
THIS IS BECAUSE SKEPTICISM OF ALL CLAIMS, AND CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF ALL EVIDENCE, IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF EVERY SCIENCE, AND NOT BECAUSE THERE ARE ANY MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION.
400 signatures on that should not be too hard to get, especially from biologists, and would totally invalidate the postion made by DI because their statement is unqualified.
{getting signatures on that form from people on the DI list, however, would be priceless ... )

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 2:45 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 4:58 PM RAZD has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 54 of 125 (238028)
08-28-2005 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by CK
08-28-2005 6:34 AM


Re: MASTER LIST 08/28/05
(Excel format - let me know if this a problem for anyone).
oddly enough, i don't have excel. but i have it at the office, so it's no biggie. i'll trust that you're taking care of the list.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 6:34 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 4:32 PM arachnophilia has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 55 of 125 (238033)
08-28-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by arachnophilia
08-28-2005 4:24 PM


Excel viewer
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=...
for reference
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Aug-2005 04:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 4:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 4:41 PM CK has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 56 of 125 (238034)
08-28-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Sylas
08-28-2005 8:52 AM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
I don't like the idea of targetting people who sign a petition we disagree with. I'm concerned that this will appear as a kind of witchhunt. I'm not saying it is a witchhunt; but I think it will be easy to make it appear that way. It may come across as a confirmation that this is about peer pressure and intolerance of dissent.
The strength of the conventional model is that it is NOT based on stiffling dissent, but on following the data and evidence.
well, i want to make this point absolutely clear.
this is not a witchhunt.
if people with degrees in various sciences choose to dissent, that's fine. that's their choice. we're not trying to ridicule anyone (not even mrs. gauger -- being a homeschool mother is a very noble choice, and one i admire very much).
the list is being billed as people who "dissent." but it's not. it's people who are skeptical, as per their own wording. and we already know that there is one person on the list who does not dissent.
we're not going to hound people because of their beliefs, we're going to send them a very polite questionaire where they can clarify their exact position on the debate. basically, we're trying to see if the list is in fact accurate in what it claims to be: a list of 400 scientists who dissent with darwin.
so far, we haven't even emailed these people yet, and we're finding problems. many don't seem to be scientists, and many don't seem to work in applicable fields. as noble a choice as home schooling your children is, it does not make you a scientist.
Trying to root out dissent in the petition is probably a bad idea, that will not win over many of the folks we need to be reaching.
basically, consider this a retest with a better procedure. we're not trying to blacklist people who don't like darwin. we're trying to find out who really dissents, who's just skeptical, who was looking for a theistic evolution group, and who just signed up for a few cd's. we're trying to see how accurate this list is in its billing and content.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Sylas, posted 08-28-2005 8:52 AM Sylas has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 57 of 125 (238038)
08-28-2005 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mick
08-28-2005 2:41 PM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
I definitely think that the questionnaire or draft email should be written before any more email addresses,
i've started a thread for that here because i realize this is going to be a concern very quickly. it just has to get through the pnt, but i imagine the admins are kind of debating it.
also, do you think that as charles is updating the file, we (i) should go back and remove the emails?
names and telephone numbers are posted on the web.
well, their names have been posted to the web already by the discovery institute. but yes, i totally agree about phone numbers. if other people are going to help with this, PLEASE do not post phone numbers. we don't want people calling and bothering these people at work.
I think in general it might be a useful thing. But the email would have to be VERY polite and perhaps not be associated specifically with evc forum (just to save Percy from headaches).
yes, i was thinking of having it sent by my 13 year old brother, as a science fair project. that's pretty innocuous, i think.
and yes, the email is very important. it does have to be very respectable, polite, and more importantly allow for both sides. we can't lead people down a particular path with questioning, nor can we make a position seem silly with questions. we just want to find out what the actual positions are.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mick, posted 08-28-2005 2:41 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 4:42 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 58 of 125 (238040)
08-28-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by CK
08-28-2005 4:32 PM


Re: Excel viewer
hawt. thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 4:32 PM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 59 of 125 (238041)
08-28-2005 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
08-28-2005 4:40 PM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
I have all of the current email - feel free to edit them out.
You pull the master and then I'll remove the link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 4:40 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 4:52 PM CK has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 125 (238044)
08-28-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by CK
08-28-2005 2:45 PM


Re: I'm concerned this may not be a good idea...
I think we are totally upfront - "you are listed as having signed the document and as we are interested in this debate we were wondering if your views have shifted since you did and would you be so kind to complete our short survey" (more polished than that of course but that's the nub of it).
well, i think we should first ask if they did indeed sign the petition (or whatever). remember, both fraud and incorrect emails ARE concerns. we might very well get the wrong people.
I still think a websurvey is the best way forward, they can complete it with no name required (unless they want to make an additional comment and want to identify themselves in some manner).
i'm not sure. i thought about this, because the anonymity would be comforting. but it'd be a headache for us. how do we know it's the right people? password it?
and what about cross referencing opinion with field and qualifications? i think that's a pretty important point -- if all of the biologists for instance do not dissent with darwin, then we have a pretty substantial claim, even if the physicists don't agree.
Percy is right that it serves no purpose at all in terms of evidence but then nothing at all we do here does that. I think it's at least a geniune attempt to engage with the supporters of ID and try and better understand their position. I honestly don't see the harm in that.
or at least see if there is indeed as much support as the movement claims.
As for the email issue - if we can google and find it, then anyone who wants to contact them can google and find it.
quite. but google can also turn up phone numbers (i know -- i've gotten office numbers for just about everyone so far). we should still keep those private. there's a difference between email and phones. people get spam all the time.
if they don't want to answer our email, they don't have to. i suspect we'll probably only get a return rate of 50% at best anyways.
n regards to point of contact - I am quite happy to be the person who puts his name at the bottom of the mail along with a short history about myself and my background,further contact details and so on.
i would too.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-28-2005 04:48 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 2:45 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by CK, posted 08-28-2005 4:50 PM arachnophilia has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024