Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
24 online now:
GDR, Tanypteryx (2 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 147 of 207 (146122)
09-30-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ID man
09-30-2004 1:08 PM


Keep moving the goalposts. That is all you have.

I realize many people have been accusing you of doing this, but that doesn't mean you get to start using it as if it applies to anyone else.

I was quite clear in making a distinction and NOT moving a goalpost. In essence I am accusing Sternberg of either equivocation or moving the goalpost himself.

The accusation (by the people IN CHARGE OF THE JOURNAL I MIGHT ADD) is that he allowed a paper to be published which deviated from the journal's purpose.

His defense was bringing up articles that deviated from pure taxonomy. While that may be true, deviating from pure taxonomy may not be the ONLY prerequisite for deviating from the purpose of the journal. The article clearly deviated in other manners (which is what I was pointing out).

Why should we accept Sternberg's criteria for what deviation would be, when the people in charge say it was a deviation?

You mean another scientist who was on the committee? LoL! Also don't forget the three qualified biologists who reviewed the article.

Yes I mean the other scientist on the commitee. He stated that he knew it could be controversial and so goes to one person? Doesn't that seem a bit strange to you?

And I didn't forget the reviewers. They are irrelevant to the discussion. The question I am addressing is whether it was appropriate for the journal whether it was good science or not.

That involved only sternberg and his one friend.

Which group do you belong to holmes?

I never wrote him a response so I am not in any of them. If I did I would also not be in any of them. Clearly he is discussing the types he had received, not all the kinds there could be.

I agree with the sentiment that ID as well as IDIOT theory will have to be addressed at some point (the fact that IDIOT theory was shot down almost 2 centuries ago not withstanding). The sooner the better as far as I am concerned.

That does not alter the valid question of whether it should have been addressed in that particular journal. As well as being a lousy entry into getting journal publication (the science was lacking), that specific journal also seemed poorly suited as a venue for the debate.

Given that the people in charge of the Journal said it wasn't appropriate, kind of makes your arguments moot.

By the way... remember when you earlier agreed with Boyle about ultimate versus sufficient causes in science? How do you square your agreement with Boyle, with Sternberg's statement:

since I don't do politically correct science and since I think that human reason (i.e., science) is capable of at least considering questions about ultimate causes, no, I don't think his paper was inappropriate in any meaningful sense.

Who do you agree with? Boyle or Sternberg?

I have yet to spot one consistent position in your posts.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:08 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 2:56 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 152 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:06 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 150 of 207 (146140)
09-30-2004 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Percy
09-30-2004 2:56 PM


The description of himself and baraminology (I think it was at the baraminology site) was equally antagonistic in tone. Or should I say messianic?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 2:56 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 153 of 207 (146145)
09-30-2004 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ID man
09-30-2004 2:52 PM


As for the AAAS I would say they wouldn't know evidence if it hit them in the face

Why?

nor would they understand the criteria which Behe clearly put forth.

I don't know about the AAAS but I have stated that Behe did not prove any criteria for detecting design. Essentially Ratzsch conceded that in his comments that ID (in general) has not proven anything and its next step is proving criteria.

It has also been pointed out that Behe did not sufficiently tie IC to SC.

Perhaps you can show which criteria he clearly setup as valid criteria?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 2:52 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:22 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 156 of 207 (146159)
09-30-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by ID man
09-30-2004 3:06 PM


as for in charge- is not the editor in charge of the content of the journal he/ she edits?

In an practical/temporal sense an editor has been put in charge of a journal's content by a group of people. More accurately though, an editor is NOT objectively in charge.

If you are familiar with publications or editing, then you would know an editor is expected to stick within parameters of content set by those in charge. Deviations should be brought to the higher ups.

Why didn't the President say something at that time? Why did he wait for the sh_t to hit the fan, then react?

That is an interesting question which I believe was somewhat answered by another poster. It was along the lines that following proper review is different than proper oversight.

This vindicates Sternberg on the charge of sneaking it into publication without review (I believe Percy has dropped that criticism), but does not change whether it should have been in the journal according to its subject matter.

I would also add that the controversy occured after publication. Since your quote indicates he did not see it till after the controversy began, how was he supposed to do anything BEFORE the shit hit the fan.

Let me run that by you again...

Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file

Doesn't that suggest that he reviewed it AFTER the shit hit the fan?

I take umbrage with your "IDIOT" theory bull. Why do you have to do that? Idiots usually mock what they can't understand or comprehend. In this case thyat would be you.

In this case I am mocking what I do understand and comprehend. You can always prove me wrong by addressing any of the posts you have left dangling on specific problems of ID, or your position on ID.

And it is my understanding of ID tactics which has shaped this mocking. I have already stated that pure ID could be scientific. However the leaders of the ID movement are using it to further nonscientific political/religious goals.

Though not all, many of them use derisive and odd terminology instead of "evolutionary theory" in order to make it unpalatable, furthering their antievolutionary goals.

Since I needed a way to distinguish the (possible) scientifically valid program, from the poorly constructed anti-evolutionary program, I decided to use a derisive term for the latter. But it is not wholly unfair. Where ID is about the DETECTION of intelligent design in an object, the much weaker program is about Intelligent Design INFERENCE and Organic Teleology. IDIOT happens to be very accurate.

Now this directly impacts the reviewers. I would doubt your scientific credentials to make a determination on Meyer's paper.

Why?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:06 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:01 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 157 of 207 (146161)
09-30-2004 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by ID man
09-30-2004 3:22 PM


Science is not about proof. if it were then the theory of evo would have been discounted long ago.

This is cute but does not address what I said. I suppose you will never admit that Ratzsch has contradicted your position, and clearly stated that ID is not in a position to challenge evolutionary theory... nor its model for speciation.

This is not to mention that he has stated that there are problems with Dembski's work.

Dembski has.

No he hasn't, which Ratzsch pretty well made clear.

Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems.

Do you realize that there is a significant difference between setting out an INTUITIVE CRITERIA for SUSPECTING DESIGN in DISCRETE PHYSICAL SYSTEMS, and his actually VALIDATING criteria for DETECTING DESIGN?

I have not said that Behe did not outline criteria, nor that he did not show how they could theoretically be applied to actual systems.

The problem is that he has not defined the criteria then tested them. Neither has he shown how it is related to the mathematical concept of SC. Instead a semantic description was used to suggest this was so (or more accurately COULD be so).

The positive evidence for ID has been presented and according to what Percy posted the AAAS states that the evidence doesn't exist. It is that simple.

Ratzsch has said that it has NOT been presented. It is that simple. Now do I trust what you say or Ratzsch?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:22 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 6:54 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 162 of 207 (146240)
09-30-2004 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ID man
09-30-2004 6:48 PM


holmes calling the ID theory an "IDIOT" theory is abuse aimed at IDists. I am an IDist. That is abuse. Have you called him on that?

You have not understood my position, which I just described to you so I am curious as to why you don't get it.

I call the theory which explicitly examines criteria for detecting intelligent design of objects ID theory. Anyone that sticks to this I call an ID theorist. I have even defended that it can be a scientific theory and does not require supernatural designers and so is NOT a religion.

The problem is that a lot of socalled ID theorists have departed from this program... ironically most of the ones who started it. I think there is a valid question if they ever even wanted to pursue ID. From that program they quickly used semantic arguments to weaken detection criteria to merely suggested design inference, and added a component of knowing what our end design is FOR (aka teleology).

I am making fun of those who depart from science. If you are not one of these it should be pretty easy to prove by just answering my questions in support of strict ID theory. And then I am not referring to you.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 6:48 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 163 of 207 (146242)
09-30-2004 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by ID man
09-30-2004 6:54 PM


I will deal with your BS about Del in another thread.

Great. Look forward to it. About time.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 6:54 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 164 of 207 (146256)
09-30-2004 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by ID man
09-30-2004 7:01 PM


Once again

Once again you quote the guy who is trying to defend himself, while trying to defend himself. You have to move beyond just his own statements.

Within his statements (and backed up by the president's comments) he did follow correct editorial procedure in trying to get it reviewed for the journal. I admit I am a bit stunned by the reviewer's acceptance of that specific article, but if they agreed then they agreed.

Within this latest quote he gives an argument that he believes backs up that he had the ability to choose whatever to print in the Journal. That does not actually seem vindicated by the evidence.

Look at it carefully. He was in charge of the process and could control reviewers and even direction of papers through that process.

But this does not suggest he was under no expectation for what kind of material would or would not be appropriate.

I am baffled of your lack of understanding of this usual setup.

For example the editor of Time may have lots of leeway in publishing articles, but if he took it into his mind to do a graphic sexual article with full color centerfold, that would clearly be a violation of the expectations of those in charge. He would not be vindicated just because it was a piece on Hugh Hefner and he asked the associate editor because he realized it might be controversial.

Indeed his own knowledge of its controversial nature is exactly what I have hinges my argument on. He details precedents of not purely taxonomic articles, but is there ONE CONTROVERSIAL article? Specifically one well outside of Taxonomy itself to address general biological science?

It is UNUSUAL for an editor to take known controversial articles into their own hands without passing it upwards.

And I am still not sure why there is any debate at all...

Given that the president and board have said it was outside the scope, why are we to believe all of them are lying, but this one guy is not?

And your evidence for this is what?

The political/moral/religious content of the discovery institute website. The testimony of Johnson and Dembski before congress where they said ID would help push out materialist moral theories in favor of conservative religious ones. Books such as Dembski's "Intelligent Design" which directly connects ID with Biblical Xianity and its morals. Do I need to continue?

I have mentioned two of those at least twice and the last one numerous times, asking you to explain the problem it presents. So far you have not responded to any of those requests. Will you address his book this time?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:01 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 167 of 207 (146286)
09-30-2004 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
09-30-2004 7:36 PM


No, I'm not happy about that.

I don't get it. I have made a clear distinction between ID and what I call IDIOT theory. I happen to side with him that ID can be scientific even if is not in any position to replace evolutionary theory, and that it is being used by others for nonscientific purposes.

How can this be an insult to HIM, if he is engaged in actual scientific pursuits? The only way it could be an insult is if he is misrepresenting himself and following those I am referring to as IDIOT theorists.

Unless you are saying you dislike my using that term? I find this a bit odd since you are obviously insulting ID theorists by lumping them under the Creationist title which (even according to your description) comes from the discredited movement of nonscientific ends.

Is there a reason why IDIOT theory to directly label the true theory being advanced is any worse than labelling it Creationist? It appears different to me only in degree of bluntness.

If you are saying it just sounds stupid, or childish, and not clever (ah well) and so you think I oughta drop it, that's something else entirely.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 7:36 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 10:35 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 169 of 207 (146291)
09-30-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by ID man
09-30-2004 7:52 PM


appear to be engaged in what might be called "literature bluffing.

Uhhhh... this appears to be your forte. Contrary to your announcement the Discovery Institute has NOT responded to GME's critique of the Meyer article.

I went there expecting SOMETHING, but all there was was an ad hominem attack followed by a promise to back it up with something more substantial in coming weeks.

I am glad you mentioned the DI website. Can you explain how it does not advance religious/political agendas along with ID?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:52 PM ID man has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019