ID and the bias inherent in human nature

The Branding of a Heretic
Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?BY DAVID KLINGHOFFER
Friday, January 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. ESTGet The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion columnists, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and book and arts reviews.

Which only goes to show that you can't even rely on major ID proponents to accurately present ID.

quote:

---

The analogy he used was a long random string of letters (complex) versus a sentence (specified complexity).

---

Which looks like Dembski's definition. Unfortunately in Dembski's definition it's not information (complexity) that is hard to generate, but specified complexity. And even then Dembski recognised back in 1999, that cumulative selection could produce "apparent" specified complexity - by magnifying the probability of producing a specified result.http://www.leaderu.com/...ces/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html (Of course this follows from Dembski's definitions but perhaps it is aimed at a non-technical audience).

Jonathon Coddington's response to the Klinghoffer article:Page not found · GitHub Pages

This was discussed in the thread Meyer's Hopeless Monster, discussion begins at Message 185.In October of last year I predicted Sternberg would experience dire repercussions (Message 179), and this is what has happened. The issue is one of trust. Sternberg violated his trust as editor to sneak a pet paper into the BSOW journal. The paper didn't belong in the BSOW journal because, independent of the validity of ID, the paper was incredibly bad science, and it was written on a topic far outside the normal purview of BSOW, which confines itself to taxonomy.Sternberg's protests that the paper passed peer review just brings general guffaws from true scientists - even inexperienced undergrads in biology would have found the paper notable for its rambling style and its tendency toward unsupported assertions and assertions supported with specious or irrelevant arguments. The paper could only have passed peer review if the peer reviewers had been hand chosen by the editor to rubber stamp it. Any legitimate peer reviewer would have immediately responded, "What is a paper on biological information doing in a taxonomic journal?"Sternberg also protested that the BSOW journal does regularly deviate from its taxonomic focus, but my Message 177 makes clear this isn't so.Sternberg's protests of innocence are also responsible for causing distrust. If he really believes he did nothing wrong, then he could do it again, so everyone is steering clear.Sternberg's protest that he isn't really a supporter of ID, he is just keeping an open mind, rings so falsely that this, too, contributes to distrust. Why would an editor who doesn't accept or reject ID work so hard to include a spurious paper? It doesn't add up.Sternberg's defense of Meyer also causes distrust. The ID argument is no less superficial today then when Paley made it a couple hundred years ago. If Sternberg is unable to detect this, then is he really a scientist other scientists at the Smithsonian could have faith in?Sternberg's situation is of his own making. He'll have to start afresh somewhere else. My guess was Discovery Institute where he won't have to hide his true colors, but who knows? He seems intent on a serious science career, and that couldn't happen at DI.--Percy

I have just checked the OSC website and there is no mention of this case at present. Nor has Sternberg put anything up on his personal website. So even now it is still just Klinghoffer versus Coddington.

quote:

---

Can you suggest a system to overcome this problem? Maybe you know of an existing system that we could use?

---

A search using the key words "SCIENCE FRAUD" yielded over ten thousand hits. Scientific research, like other human activities, is built on a foundation of trust.Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias. But this trust will continue only if the scientific community devotes itself to transmitting and enforcing ethical scientific conduct.Scientists need a VERY well-defined and clearly written international code of conduct. Scientists should know the rules and the nature of their punishment if they fail to abide by their code of conduct. They should be frequently reminded of their professional obligations, formally or informally. Punishment for violation should be severe.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-01-2005 10:24 PM

And you should boycott all products that are the result of scientific developments until such time as the scientific community bows to your demands. --Percy

But Limbo really make a good point!I'm going to POTM now.

quote:

---

Scientists need a VERY well-defined and clearly written international code of conduct. Scientists should know the rules and the nature of their punishment if they fail to abide by their code of conduct. They should be frequently reminded of their professional obligations, formally or informally. Punishment for violation should be severe.

---

AFAIK, they are, and it is.Remember, science is very, very competative. The moment you manage to get your research published, other researchers pounce upon your claims and try to replicate them to see if your results hold up. This is even more evident as the "sexiness" of the finding increases. Like, the moment those researchers claimed to have succesfully performed "cold fusion", everybody in the field rushed to duplicate their findings. Nobody could, though, so the initial findings were clearly in error and not reliable.Likewise, in the rare cases of a researcher fudging data That I have heard of, it was the graduate students in the lab who turned the researcher in. A researcher who is known to lie in their research is basically not able to get any work as a researcher. No reputable university will hire such a person, and no other researcher will want to work or collaborate with them because it will taint their reputation by association. No graduate student will want to be known, before they even get their degree, to have helped to lie in research, so that's why those students turned in their professor.The penalties are very, very dire for lying in science. you basically throw your career away if you are caught, and since someone will eventually try to replicate your work, and science is so competeative, it's only a matter of time before you are found out.

Google "+science+fraud" to get listings with both terms.Number 1 respons is a U. Chicago "Ethics in Science link and the number 2 item is Albany University's Science Fraud Database.Seeing a pattern here?What you request is and has been done, and actually has been done for centuries. The basis of the scientific method is independant verification of the facts. Somebody else always checks your work.If you look at the world of science what you find is that frauds get caught, and they get caught, not be outside forces but by the scientific community itself. And the penalty when caught is extreme. The guilty party is out. No questions, no reprieve, out.This is particularly relevant and related to another thread, the one discussing Ron Wyatt. If Ron Wyatt were in the Scientific community, his actions related to the "Altar of Calves" would be sufficient for him to be castigated, ostracized and banned from all future research.IMHO until ID and Creationism can implement the standards and practices that are already in place within the scientific community, they can not be considered as Science or even as serious studies.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Example of bias causing acceptance of dismissal a priori.In case you didn't notice, you haven't posted anything with any meat to it. It's rather hard to argue against fluff. On dial-up? I think not.

And a search using, "Limbo is God," yielded 681,000.
Hi God. Two words: Cold fusion.Results are trusted to be valid only after they've been validated.
See how that works?

One factor I consider when I weigh the arguments on both side is psychology.People seem to assume that religious belief is based on all kinds of irrational needs, and that non-belief is based on a rational, no- nonsense appraisal of the way things really are.However my experience has shown me that the major barriers to religious belief are not rational but psychological. For every person persuaded one way or the other by rational argument there are many, many more affected by non-rational psychological factors.Personal convenience, social pressure, neurotic psychological barriers, or personal hardship or loss. Any one of these can influence someones choice not to believe.And then there is the erroneous perception that being "a genuinely religious person" would be too much trouble, too inconvenient in many cases. Darwinism is easier, right? Beware the easy road.And then theres the small, nagging fear that many non-believers have deep in their hearts that they may be wrong. Fear can motivate people in weird ways. It destroys reason.Now, before you all start screaming I am not saying every non-believer is like this. I know some rational, friendly, sincere, free-thinking non-believers. And I know there are some that post here.Even so, I take everything with a grain of salt.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 09:35 PMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 09:53 PMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:07 PMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:10 PMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 10:10 PM

Why do you keep saying things like What connection is there between Darwinism (whatever the hell that is) and being religious or non-religious? You keep saying stuff like that that simply makes no sense.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

this particular whine is just more evidence of why it should not be taught UNTIL it is developed. you don't teach half vast concepts. My impression is that the opening credits have finished and the screen has gone white because there is no movie or the film broke and the projectionist is asleep.

---

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