Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable

On Dec 23, 11:15 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


After you finish building your Wicken straw demon be careful striking
the match .....remember last year when you set fire to the family dog
instead. of the beheaded sacrifical rooster.

It isn't clear whether you are trying to say "wicker" or "Wiccan", but
I suppose it doesn't really matter since neither is required or
helpful in elaborating the concept of a strawman. A concept you
perhaps do not understand, since you then fail to demonstrate how it
might apply here.

But let me review (for the benefit of late arrivals) my point - that
you have failed to support the claims made in your initial post, and
have studiously avoided addressing any and all refutations of them.

You described Dembski's work as "well reasoned" and went on to extol
the virtues of "open inquiry, critical thinking, rational debate and
mutual respect". You decried the breakdown of the relationship
between science and religion. To those familiar with Dembski, his
claims, and his responses to criticism, this seems an oddly ill-
informed juxtaposition of concepts. To help you understand why, let
me first provide an example of how this sort of thing works when
actually approached with the methodology you endorse above.

Prior to the 1980's there had been an off and on debate about the
causes of peptic ulcers, with excess acidity and other etiological
factors generally being favored over bacterial infection. In the
early '80's Marshall and Warren hypothesized a relationship between H.
pylori and peptic ulcer disease. To make a long story short, their
hypothesis was met with much skepticism and resistance. They and the
group that came to work on the subject published on the order of 250
papers on the subject. Papers that followed the path of critical
thinking - that is, they examined their own hypothesis by repeatedly
setting up and testing scenarios that could have falsified it. By
2002 there was a general consensus that antibiotic treatment of H.
pylori was the treatment of choice for peptic ulcers in most
situations. That change in consensus was brought about by simple
research and by the presentation of evidence.

There are some things to note in this story. Marshall and Warren did
not publish hard cover books to the general public. They did not set
up blogs (of course that would have been impossible in the early
years, but you take my general point). They did not host innumerable
lectures to undergraduates and church groups sponsored by Campus
Crusade for Gastroenterology. They did not found an Institute. They
did not claim persecution or martyrdom. They did not introduce the
supernatural. They simply did the work necessary to support their
claims and published the results of that work to their peers for
criticism. Over two hundred times.

Compare this style of real science with Dembski's version. To change
a relatively small paradigm in medicine they published over two
hundred papers. Contrast this with Dembski, Meyer, Behe, et al, who
studiously avoid their peers and have published next to nothing on a
subject they claim to be revolutionizing. That was my point in
directing you to the Febble thread. Dembski publishes to the public
and hides from actual scientists. On the occasions when someone like
Elizabeth Liddle goes to the trouble of actively seeking him out on
his blog and raises technical issues that are not easily answered, his
response is to ban her from posting. Yet you read that thread (or
claim to have) and found nothing amiss? And you wonder why people
mock you for blathering on about critical thinking and rational debate
on this subject?

And now, instead of following through on your claims, instead of
rebutting the initial criticisms, instead of presenting the "well
reasoned arguments for ID" you claim to see, you are reduced to ad
populum fallacies, misdirected one-liners, and geriatric creationist
analogies about turtles. Why don't you return to your original post
and support your claims about Dembski and the nature of rational
scientific debate? Why don't you get off your ass and do the work
required to find out where the actual roadblocks to the acceptance of
this "well reasoned" idea are located? Does your understanding of
this subject really end at the level of turtle analogies from musty
Bible tracts? I suggest that the reason you have sunk to a style you
initially deplored is that you cannot support your own claims of
having a grand and open vision. I suggest that you, like Dembski and
his other followers, deliberately and actively avoid the kind of real
debate and research that you claim to champion. By conflating
religion and science while misrepresenting your motives, it is you who
bring science and religion into conflict and your version of religion
into disrepute.

KP-



So there are no evolution camp writers publishing hardback books
belittling ID or creationism as their only objective?
I can recite about a dozen examples if you insist, by prominent
evolutionists.

So there are no blogs dedicated to same with hordes of slobbering evo
haters attaching every opponent in every respect?
Panda's Thumb, TO,,, etc.

So the NCSE is not a think tank dedicated to one objective of cramming
evolution down the public's throat, attacking any and all opponents
vociferously, promoting a political agenda, using the courts in
scientific activism.

Your moral and intellectual highground is made laughable by the prima
facia evidence.


I'm really not sure how to respond to a post that so widely misses the
point. You have literally taken my breath away with your ignorance.
Did you miss the part about there being a scientific literature that
pre-exists popularization? No one has suggested that scientists or
mathematicians or anyone else shouldn't write to the public, only that
actual research and peer review should precede any claims that the
work presented is actually science. This is most particularly true
when claims are made that well established theories are being
overthrown or redefined and attempts are being made to change school
curricula. Are you really this dense?


In America we are free to pursue our public debate in the broad arena
of public opinion, the open battle ground of competing ideas, in any
legal and accepted manner. I'm sure your team would like to destroy by
any means necessary any publishing house, or university press, that
chooses in its own interest to publish Denton, Behe, Meyers, Dembski,
or any number of others. That would permit you 100% suppression of any
competeing ideas by the extant methods of rejecting any application
for publication and persecuting anyone who dares permit such
publication (see Smithsonian ordeal). There have been and will be
societies which supress dissent, criminalize opponents, persecute the
unfaithful, and attempt to preserve their power and monied influences
against the tides....but it won't be America!!!


Paranoia.


History reveals all such efforts fail in due course particularly in a
free society that embraces free and open debate, new ideas, open
inquirey and understands that from time to time little authoritarian
groups have to be exposed and dealt with.

The Ben Stein movie, the DI, various expose', pending civil cases in
academia, and broad coverage in the media will handle this shortly.

Bluster.


I furnish evidence from respected historians, dictionary clear
definitions of terms, scientific respected authorities, and my own
experience ...to what end...

Appeals to authority.


Dictionaries are a sign of weakness. Yeah we'll define the terms and
the definition because we are the iintelligencia.

Appeal to an "established" authority is a fallacy. Wrong by every
critical thinking authority one can reference.


(ahem) Did you miss your previous paragraph? The one containing 4
appeals to authority in one sentence?


Redefining my words, attributing secret motives, rephrasing my
arguments.

Says the man who just accused others of plotting to destroy free
speech.


Constant ad hpominem attacks, crude language constantly, attacking my
personal life and career...even deceased loved ones.

A personal life and career that were introduced why and by whom? Oh
yes, by you and because you were attempting to argue from your own
authority.


NO my friend, you should be reflecting on your own camp's activities,
approaches, strategies, and motives...its called removing the log from
your own eye.

And it's done with painful regularity in the academic world. Your
ignorance of how aggressive this world can be puts the lie to your
claims of academic worldliness. Your repeated attempts to validate
Dembski's authority smell more of a failed Miss Atlanta contestant who
has become enamored of her junior college professor than of the
background you claim for yourself.



This is no attack on the people in your example...would such courtesy
could be extended to the DI and Demski and Behe and many others.


The courtesy of peer review is open to them. They flee it. Did I
mention the contrast between 250 papers and... how many was that
again?



In twenty years of posting, reading other posts, reviewing the
literature and personal contact I have never, never, never seen one
example of your team admitting to a single error, an overstep, a lie,
a mistake etc. not once on any subject of weight in the context of
tens of debates where I was not even active participant.

Then you read as poorly as you spell. Review again your claim that
Dembski's blog is open to free debate for demonstrable evidence that
you are not able to discriminate accurately in such matters.


My friend...that's a mental illness of the most severe sort and
illuminates a danger to our culture and to science that scarcely can
be exaggerated.

When all else fails, project your own ignorance of academia in general
and science in particular as a mental defect in others.
Sad, sad, sad.



KP

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... claims, and his responses to criticism, this seems an oddly ill- ... Prior to the 1980's there had been an off and on debate about the ... So there are no evolution camp writers publishing hardback books ... publication. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: WHAT A BOLT IS, AND HOW IT WORKS
    ... Publication of that exchange doesn't bother me at all, ... at a site that's suppose to focus on helping people fix their Honda cars. ... for the posting of a debate between you and me (not rendering my position ... I agree the pulley bolt discussion has borne fruit. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.honda)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... To those familiar with Dembski, ... claims, and his responses to criticism, this seems an oddly ill- ... Prior to the 1980's there had been an off and on debate about the ... Compare this style of real science with Dembski's version. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Excellent article
    ... the debate between the two is just as ... accurate description of academia. ... this to shield their side form criticism. ... I find that critics of religion ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... way here do not use up some energy changing direction. ... Looks like the community systematically fails to pass my little ... Where is the debate? ... formal publication dates back to the Bohm paper 50 years ago. ...
    (sci.physics)