|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Apparently not. Those documents are what each side wants the court to find. It is apparently normal for the Judge to largely copy material from the winning side when their arguments prevailed. So all it really means is that the ID side lost, badly.
If their claims of errors didn't amount to "telling the truth instead of agreeing with us" then that might be a problem - although even that would depend on the significance of the actual errors. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: Apparently not. Those documents are what each side wants the court to find. It is apparently normal for the Judge to largely copy material from the winning side when their arguments prevailed. So all it really means is that the ID side lost, badly. Call me naive, but I've never heard of this, and it seems strange that no credit was given to the original source. But I do see that on page 7 Judge Jones says, "This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law which are based upon the Court’s review of the evidence presented at trial, the testimony of the witnesses at trial, the parties’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with supporting briefs,..." What we need is link to the defendant's findings and conclusions document. Parts of that document should also have found its way into Jones's brief, even if only the parts characterizing the defendant's position. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clark Inactive Member |
Apparently it is not unusual and perfectly legal. Here is Ed Brayton and Timothy Sandefur's take on it:
Page not found · GitHub Pages Page not found | ScienceBlogs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
But Sandefur's Supreme Court quote was apparently incomplete, as someone else points out, quoting this portion from UNITED STATES v. EL PASO GAS CO:
[ Footnote 4 ] Judge J. Skelly Wright of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently said: “Who shall prepare the findings? Rule 52 says the court shall prepare the findings. “The court shall find the facts specially and [376 U.S. 651, 657] state separately its conclusions of law.’ We all know what has happened. Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them. This has been denounced by every court of appeals save one. This is an abandonment of the duty and the trust that has been placed in the judge by these rules. It is a non-compliance with Rule 52 specifically and it betrays the primary purpose of Rule 52 – the primary purpose being that the preparation of these findings by the judge shall assist in the adjudication of the lawsuit. “I suggest to you strongly that you avoid as far as you possibly can simply signing what some lawyer puts under your nose. These lawyers, and properly so, in their zeal and advocacy and their enthusiasm are going to state the case for their side in these findings as strongly as they possibly can. When these findings get to the courts of appeals they won’t be worth the paper they are written on as far as assisting the court of appeals in determining why the judge decided the case.” Seminars for Newly Appointed United States District Judges (1963), p. 166. (emphasis added) The person providing this information over at Panda's Thumb was IDiot Savant, and he went on to say:
One thing we now know - Judge Jones was falsely given credit for a lot of stuff he did not write. I find myself equally disappointed in Judge Jones. The extent of his changes to the ACLU document are little more than wordsmithing and context massaging. On the other hand, one has to ask that if such rulings really aren't "worth the paper they are written on" at the court of appeals, then why don't the defendants appeal? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What they can do, is show people that something of a Higher Cognizance is most parsimonious. You are miss-using parsimony here. It is not just the simplest explanation, but the simplest explanation that explains all the facts. The earth at the center of the universe is the simplest explanation for why we see everything else appear to orbit the earth, but it doesn't explain retrograde movements. A heliocentric model does explain retrograde motion, but then there are motions in deep space that are not explained until you open to modern astronomy with our planet orbiting a sun in the arm of a galaxy that is itself travelling through space. This explanation is much more complex than the geocentric model but it is the simplest one that explains all the facts. The concept of an intelligent designer involved in the evolution of organisms on earth doesn't predict the guinea worm (Message 98) or even that whole classes of organisms would behave in this manner - rather it would predict the opposite. Evolution does predict them. That is what makes it a useful scientific theory, and not pie in the sky pseudomythology involving miniature magic elephants. The problem with the design concept is that there is insufficient design evidence in the universe to make a case for it in any {system\feature\function\ability}. It may be "simple" but that doesn't make it more powerful, more useful OR more valid, it just makes it "simple" ... in several connotations of the word. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
...as being a prime example of living in a "fallen world" that is "not" how the Intelligent Designer designed the world... As I've said before, when creationists attempt to use ID they only do so half-heartedly and they will always revert to their creationist roots when pushed to explain the contradictions inherent in the ID position. This is a prime example. ID cannot use this excuse, or it fails to carry it's precepts to their logical conclusions. John 10.10 also invalidates his own argument:
Message 96 The basic principle of design works this way: Purpose/Plan Preceeds Product. I reflect on the Intelligent Designer's amazing creativeness to create such incredible cosmologies that mankind can use for good or for evil. For now we have an unknown purpose or an evil purpose, some "plan" that cannot be to our knowing, and this makes the "product" totally unpredictable. If you cannot discern a purpose and you cannot discern a plan then you cannot conclude design. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I suspect that the findings of law may be more important. It is only the findings of fact that are largely copied. And even they are not completely the same.
But there are good reasons why there was no appeal. Firstly the case against the school board was too clear - appealing would only be throwing good money after bad. The original case cost the board a lot of money, even with the Thomas More Law Institute covering their own legal costs. And secondly, the board were elected out of office and the new board had no interest in pursuing the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clark Inactive Member |
Percy quotes:
We all know what has happened. Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them. Yes Judge Jones quoted the findings of fact but not the findings of law. From what I understand judges will sometimes simply sign the plaintiffs or the defendants findings in toto and essentially do no work of their own. That is what Rule 52 is about. This is not what happened here. The copying and pasting the DI is going on about is from one section of the decision. That 90% figure they mention is 90% of 1/3 of the ruling. Nick Matzke on PT explains:
This is not the situation in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Judge Jones did not declare on the last day of the bench trial, “OK, I’m ruling for the plaintiffs. Prepare some findings and I will sign them. Defense, don’t bother.” This is the practice that is frowned upon, although I gather that cases have been upheld even in this situation. Instead, Jones followed the regular procedure - both sides submitted Proposed Findings, then both sides submitted rebuttals, and then he went through, adopted points he liked, excluded points he didn’t like, added numerous pieces from his own observations (e.g.: “breathtaking inanity”) and synthesized it into a coherent document (rather than just a list of individual points, which is what the parties submit). This constitutes the ruling. This is far different than just signing one side’s brief. The question that the cranks have not answered is: What do you think Proposed Findings are for? Why do you think the parties right them in the voice of the court? (e.g., “The Court finds X, the Court finds Y.”) A judge’s job is to judge, not to re-do all of the research from scratch himself, for each of the 100+ cases he will have on his docket at any given time. I don’t think it’s surprising that a judge would quote one side’s findings of fact in a case dealing with science. To appeal to yours and my biases, one side’s findings of fact are from science and scientists, and the other side’s are utter pseudo-science. Don’t we all want the judge to quote the scientific findings of fact? What alternative do you propose? That Judge Jones perform experiments on the bac flag, get the experiments peer-reviewed, etc.? Also, Ed Brayton’s treatment of the issue demonstrates how the judge is quoting verbatim from the findings of fact of the plaintiff, because their findings of fact are true. There are only so many ways to say something. If the plaintiff says that, “ID is, in fact, based on a false dichotomy,” how else should the judge express this?
[W]hy don't the defendants appeal? Because this isn’t about law, it’s nothing but PR.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clark Inactive Member |
Ed Brayton has a lot of good stuff at that link I posted earlier. I particularly like this one, from the defendant's finding of fact, apparently not used by Judge Jones:
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the primary purpose of the curriculum change adopted by the DASD on October 18, 2004, was to advance religion. LOL Obviously, both sides wanted their findings of fact to be a part of the decision. You don't always get what you want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3627 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Monty Python
quote: Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Intelligent design: The God Lab
This describes some biochemical work being done by IDists. A new strategy in reaction to the Dover decision is what it appears to be. They seem to think that if they can find a gap in knowledge they have a place to stuff a little god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Good read thanks.
I was particularly interested in the attempts to somehow disprove the interesting emerging evidence that self-replicating artificial organism can mutate unpredictably or evolve as hinted at in the Nature Paper by Pennock. This is damning to the ID point-of-view that information can be created by purely random processes.
New Scientist writes: "That one really got to them," says Barbara Forrest, a philosopher at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond who studies the anti-evolution movement. It would not be surprising if Biologic wanted to challenge the impact of Pennock's work by finding a counter-example in which a computer simulation fails to produce complexity by random mutation alone. Such a counter-example, once published, would be available for citation by proponents of ID. Even if the citations do not appear in peer-reviewed literature, says Forrest, they could still have an influence on politicians and school board officials, who might not be sensitive to this distinction. I do not see how Dixon of the Discovery Institute ...err Biologic Institute ... is going to discredit this by some negative case or counter example - all you need to do is show that it can happen in certain situations - not necessarily every case. My guess is they are going to try to show the improbability in biological systems as compared to artificial systems via statistics. This is a fools errand as statistics greatly depend on assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Nem, you are sufficiently clear that you do not understand what constitutes science. I don't say this as an insult, but as a scientist to a non-scientist. Teach me, mold me, o'wise sage.
Please listen to what Percy is saying regarding science... he is correct. You are exhibiting classic confusion over the definition of a scientific theory. There is no confusion. Scientific theory employs branches of science to verify its claims. Where's the ambiguity in that? Theory does not encompass its own branch of science. "With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Funny how those creationists keep popping out of the ID woodwork eh?
quote: Color for emphasis to those who think ID is not creationism in a box. FUNDED by the gullible. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There is no confusion. Scientific theory employs branches of science to verify its claims. That's the confusion. The branches of science don't represent fundamentally different modes of knowledge, or something to be employed. They're just informal domains used to make the paperwork easier. Different institutions draw the boundaries in different places, and they overlap in many situations. For instance, what "branch" of science does biochemistry represent? Biology or chemistry? It's a bit of both, of course. Just like genetic programming, or bioinformatics, or computational metallurgy, or nuclear chemistry, and so on. Science is the body of knowledge derived by the application of the scientific method. Evolution is a part of science because the theory of evolution was derived via the scientific method. ID was not. That's the big difference, really.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024