Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Chris Lehmann reviews an account of the Scopes trial that bristles at the notion we're related to damn, dirty apes.
|10.13.05 @ 9:39AM|#
Humans aren't primates! THEY'RE PEOPLE! THEYYYYYYY'RRRRRRRE PEEEEEOPLLLLLLLE!!!
|10.13.05 @ 9:43AM|#
I actually just finished a good book on this subject called
Summer of the Gods. It's written from a neutral perspective, and
tells the Scopes story pretty well.
Just thought I'd toss that in for anyone who wants to read a real
book on Scopes.
|10.13.05 @ 9:45AM|#
I like the observation that the least remembered part of the Scopes trial was the verdict.
|10.13.05 @ 9:45AM|#
And I should have finished the article before posting. That way, I would have avoided mentioning something already covered therin. I'll just go back to my coffee and wait for my brain to wake up.
|10.13.05 @ 9:48AM|#
Yeah, it is foolish, in the absence of contratry evidence, to
point to steadily diminishing gaps of knowledge in an effort to
refute the conclusions of scientists, when the vast majority of
reasearchers in the field are confident that there is sufficient
evidence to draw a conclustion.
But people determined that the scientific consensus can't be true,
because it suggests that some socio-political outcome they dislike,
can be counted on to put their faith the God of the Gaps.
|10.13.05 @ 9:51AM|#
"if God is an uninterested or helpless bystander and pointless
random chemical reactions underlie all of life, God�s law is
superfluous."
But if not superfluous, then God's law is as ambiguous and
transmutable as his will or the weather. It is tied to the
seemingly constant changing whim of a petulant adolescent. Yes, I
know, mysterious ways and all that.
Thanks for the further background on Silverstein's "A Boy Named
Sue." I've learned my new thing for the day, it all cream and sugar
from here.
|10.13.05 @ 9:53AM|#
Joe-that's the truly infuriating thing about the ID people (and most ideologues): the desire to derive facts from what is perceived as an already established truth. That tendency is the precise opposite of science, or anything resembling careful and honest thought.
|10.13.05 @ 9:56AM|#
Number 6, it's similar to Soviet biology, which rejected Mendelian genetic on the grounds that a pair of genes just HAD to operate dialectically. All of this dominant-recessive stuff was so capitalist...
|10.13.05 @ 10:11AM|#
But the important question is: did John Scopes ever hook up with that fetching blonde he had his eye on?
|10.13.05 @ 10:21AM|#
Ironically, a comparison of the Scopes trial with the Dover
trial shows that Creationists are capable of evolving: They've gone
from bans on evolution to a short disclaimer before evolution is
taught. Whatever you may think of the merits or demerits of that
statement, it definitely shows a movement that has evolved in
response to a changing legal environment.
And they've gone from young earth creationism to ID, which
basically says "Well, yeah, there has been a progression of life
forms over hundreds of millions of years, and, yeah, a lot of that
progression is the result of natural selection acting on random
variation. But there are a few gaps that we might be able
to attribute to divine intervention..."
Which shows a movement that can evolve in response to a constant
barrage of data, facts, etc.
Here's my question: When will they finally evolve an open mind? Or
does that require a leap too large for natural selection and random
variation?
|10.13.05 @ 10:36AM|#
thoreau,
Doesn't it go that species that are unable to adapt become
extinct?
Personally, I see a lot of similarities in the broad
generalizations between darwinism and traditional religion. Both
give people a crutch to lean on when they can't come up with the
answer on their own or don't like the obvious conclusion. In the
case of darwinists, its all about social darwinism. In the case of
biblicalists(?) its all about absolute morality.
I think both sides are unwilling to back down from their own
assumptions.
The question here is, can darwinists evolve?
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 10:37AM|#
the confusion of science with faith is amazing to me.
so too, though, are the scientists evolving. they called on expert
testimony in the dover trial from from theologians.
|10.13.05 @ 10:38AM|#
In the case of darwinists, its all about social
darwinism.
Huh? Evidence please. I am yet to hear a modern "darwinist"
seriously (or even satirically) defend social darwinism.
|10.13.05 @ 10:44AM|#
I may have used the term social darwinism incorrectly. What I mean is the idea that almost everything can be explained through the notion of "survival of the fittest". And, that whatever works out the best must be the right and good thing even if traditional morality says its wrong. Perhaps I meant to say moral relativism. But, I apologize. I am not as well read in philosophy and science as some of you are.
|10.13.05 @ 10:51AM|#
Mattc- Evolution is an explanation of how species change. That's it. Any moral conclusions drawn from evolution are outside the provice of scientific evolution. In other words, the science of evolution does not have thing one to do with ethics.
|10.13.05 @ 10:53AM|#
Where is Jennifer on all of this? On a previous post on this
subject she had a great point:
If we stop teaching evolution because we don't understand
EVERYTHING about it, then we should stop teaching
conception because we don't understand every detail of cellular
mitosis.
Something along those lines.
|10.13.05 @ 10:54AM|#
mattc,
I think we all seek "a crutch to lean on," if you mean the desire
to see a pattern in the complexity of existence. Scientists call
such patterns theories, but, unlike religionists, they don't demand
faith in any particular theory.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 10:58AM|#
steadily diminishing gaps of knowledge
let's take Johnson's suggestion of life being planted on earth by
aliens. This is a gap in knowledge that was substantially the same
size now as when I was born. It will probably be just as large when
I die. This gap is not diminishing. And even with diminishing gaps
-- often the diminishments don't matter. For example: scientists
are presumably tighening up the genetic links and mutation paths
that lead from earlier primates to humans. Great, let's say this
gap diminished and diminishes and diminished until we have the DNA
of every primate that ever lived! We still don't know the agency
that caused the mutations. Even if we knew that the agency was a
beam of electromagnetic radiation, or some other known agency, we
still would not know if the conditions that caused that beam of
radiation to strike that DNA molecule was the result of
intelligently set preconditions. In other words, as much as this
gap diminishes, it doesn't really go away in a meaningful
sense.
FINAL NOTE: Johnson' suggestion of life from outerspace doesn't
sound Christian, neither in the theological nor cultural senses of
the word. It sounds agnostic. It sounds like someone who is open to
all possibilities until they are proven or disproven. Modern
evolutionary science could use a dose of this agnosticism. It is
the reasoned response to radical uncertainty, but it is not what we
are seeing. Author Lehman sees this as a conflict between beliefs.
That is window dressing. The serious intellectual conflict is
between affirmative belief (evolutionary scientists, Christians)
and non-belief (evolutionary agnostics, AIDS dissenters).
|10.13.05 @ 11:04AM|#
number 6,
That's not entirely true about evolutionary science and ethics.
Mayr and Pinker are just two of many scientists that have broached
the combined subject. Much of the entire field of evolutionary
biology is based on the same. Nascent science, to be sure, but
neither non-existent nor unimportant.
|10.13.05 @ 11:06AM|#
"Modern evolutionary science could use a dose of this
agnosticism"
I've tried to make this point several times. Questioning a theory
is the basis of scientific methodology. Also, presenting an
alternative theory is a bedrock in the scientific method. Critics
of ID who lose sight of these two facts just provide more ammo for
junk science to exploit.
So avoid blasting ID for questioning evolution. Or for proposing an
alternate theory. By all means blast those who are using it as a
Trojan horse to get Judeo-Christian creation taught as science
(which is the case for most of these people, and specifically in
the Dover case when they reference the Pandas and people book.)
|10.13.05 @ 11:11AM|#
Hi, Smalls. Kids should certainly be taught about the unanswered
questions of evolutionary theory, but it is inherently dishonest to
START class by pointing out the gaps, just as it would be dishonest
to start a class on human reproduction with the disclaimer "The
sperm + egg = pregnancy theory has not been able to answer
all the questions of human reproduction, like cell division or how
much maternal hormones impact the developing fetus, so when you're
told that 'S+E=P' explains where babies come from, remember to keep
an open mind."
The words may not be dishonest, but the implication certainly
is.
|10.13.05 @ 11:13AM|#
Actually, my original explanation was better, but today is the seventh consecutive day of rain here, and I have no energy because my very soul has become waterlogged.
|10.13.05 @ 11:14AM|#
Dave W.,
One of the people involved in the production of the book "Of Pandas
and People," the favored text of the Intelligent Design crowd,
testified recently that the book as originally written extolled the
virtues of "creationism." At a certain point, the editors went
through the text with a "Find and Replace" tool and replaced all
references to "creationsim" with the phrase "Intelligent
Design."
Open to all possibilities my ass.
|10.13.05 @ 11:15AM|#
Jennifer,
I knew your input would be more concise and pointed than I
remembered it.
Thanks!
|10.13.05 @ 11:17AM|#
Jennifer,
Why doesn't every teacher begin every class with a disclaimer? Soon
all disclaimers would be as ignored as the side effects that come
with every TV commercial for a drug. Or the "fine print" of auto
financing that comes in those commercials.
(I feel like adding a disclaimer to what I just posted.)
|10.13.05 @ 11:17AM|#
You're all crazy, we know that man was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Dear Monster, please help them to see the error of their
ways...
Ramen.
|10.13.05 @ 11:18AM|#
Hey MattC, if you are truly interested in the subject you broached, allow me to recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. An examination of evolutionary biology at the level of the gene, rather than organism, a great review of game theory, and the origins of the word, Meme, which gets tossed around on this site rather frequently.
|10.13.05 @ 11:18AM|#
Also, David W., the space aliens hypothesis is not a gap in
evolutionary theory. It has nothing to do with evolution, and is
not promulgated by biologists who have concluded that species
evolved over time (also knows as "biologists.")
You might as well argue that we haven't closed the gap on whether
the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendages stick to the wall
or not.
|10.13.05 @ 11:18AM|#
ID doesn't present an alternate theory or even hypothesis. It
presents an unfalsifiable 'just so' story for the lazy and
impatient. Here's another example of the same:
chthus' theory of out of nowhere design (OOND) - We haven't figured
out the how everthing came to be, therefore it appeared - OUT OF
NOWHERE. No god, no evolution, just BAM. One minute there's fuck
all and the next, well, just look around.
Put that in your schools and teach it. It's a theory, isn't it? I
sure called it one. And of course, if you're open minded or
agnostic enough, you'll recognize that it hasn't been
disproven.
|10.13.05 @ 11:19AM|#
So avoid blasting ID for questioning evolution. Or for
proposing an alternate theory.
What "alternate theory," in the scientific sense of the word
"theory," has ID proposed?
|10.13.05 @ 11:19AM|#
mattc:
Evolution--indeed, science in general--has NOTHING to do with
morality, politics, or ethics. It merely collects, analyzes, and
explains data. While certain ideologues have hijacked the concept
of natural selection for their nefarious goals, that hardly makes
the theory any less valid.
|10.13.05 @ 11:20AM|#
joe,
I don't mean to send this thread on a tangent, but you said your
girlfriend when you were a high school senior was "frisky." What
did you mean?
That she believed in ID?
|10.13.05 @ 11:20AM|#
No one seems to have commented on the tremendous irony that a Law Professor from Berkely is the leading proponent for ID. Or maybe silliness from Berkely professors is all thats expected from this site, regardless of how it cuts politically.
|10.13.05 @ 11:40AM|#
Note, you say he's a LAW professor. Not a biologist, not a
paleontologist, not a geneticist. A law professor.
And Harriet Meiers is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court because
she was the chair of the TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION... oh and because
she's a Christian.
|10.13.05 @ 11:40AM|#
"ID doesn't present an alternate theory or even
hypothesis"
Actually, it does. As you note, it is generally not falsifiable, at
least as presented by the staunch advocates. But that doesn't
change the fact that it is a hypothesis. And in history, many
truths started out as equally unfalsifiable hypotheses.
Even your OOND hypothesis is a hypothesis. It's not falsifiable,
but a prudent scientist would acknowledge that it is a possibility,
and can't be entirely excluded from a thorough discussion.
Which is the other point - these alternative hypotheses are
probably too far on the edge for an intro level discussion of a
subject. But it wouldn't even be necessary to talk about
maintaining an open mind if more people actually learned the
scientific method and understood how it actually works - that would
just be implicit in all science.
It is reflective of the poor state of our science education that so
many people have such closed minds about the fallibility of
scientific theories.
|10.13.05 @ 11:43AM|#
thoreau,
They've gone from bans on evolution to a short disclaimer
before evolution is taught.
And harrassment of teachers, etc. And the "disclaimer" is a wedge;
its not the end of their efforts by any means. Their vile agenda
includes far more than this.
quasibill,
By all means blast those who are using it as a Trojan horse to
get Judeo-Christian creation taught as science (which is the case
for most of these people, and specifically in the Dover case when
they reference the Pandas and people book.)
That would be about everyone involved with I.D.
Dave W.,
Don't confuse evolution with a question of origins.
Akira MacKenzie,
If morality, etc. has nothing to do with science then why don't we
experiment on humans against their will (or at least find such
morally appropriate)? Science is a human created institution,
method, etc., thus its as moral, political, etc. as the humans that
practice it. You can't really disengage science from society or
culture. That doesn't mean science isn't very useful, productive,
irrational, etc.
|10.13.05 @ 11:43AM|#
hypothesis - A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
|10.13.05 @ 11:51AM|#
"As you note, it is generally not falsifiable, at least as
presented by the staunch advocates. But that doesn't change the
fact that it is a hypothesis." OK, it's a hypothesis. It's just not
a scientific hypothesis. You shouldn't be lecturing other people
about the scientific method if you don't understand the
difference.
"And in history, many truths started out as equally unfalsifiable
hypotheses." They were only unfalisifiable because the people of
the time lacked the means to test them. There actually are methods
to test Demosthenes' theory that matter consists of atoms - we just
had to wait for technology to advance far enough to construct those
means.
ID, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and the BAM! Hypothesis, on the
other hand, cannot ever be tested. There is not possible way that
any method of falsifying them could be developed.
It's the difference between saying "joe cannot travel 50,000 mph"
and "joe can be in two places at once." The former could be
possible with the right technology, the latter cannot, ever. You're
hiding behind the conflation of two definitions of the term
"falsifiable."
|10.13.05 @ 11:56AM|#
joe,
"Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through
the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive
features already intact � fish with fins and scales, birds with
feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." � Version of textbook Of
Pandas and People, before 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard striking down the concept of creation
science as legitimate science.
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly
through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features
already intact � fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers,
beaks, and wings, etc." � Of Pandas and People, after 1987
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 11:56AM|#
You might as well argue that we haven't closed the gap on
whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendages stick to
the wall or not.
That is correct Joe. Scientists don't know the answer to the
question, not to the more fundamental question of which dimensions
(if any) the monster manifests itself in. This is the nature of not
knowing, honestly and forthrightly. This is what the scientists
need to learn.
Know and respect the limits of your own knowledge. The motto. Not
just for lawyers anymore.
|10.13.05 @ 11:57AM|#
"hypothesis - A tentative explanation for an observation,
phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further
investigation."
Are you stating that you know for certain that ID and OOND will
NEVER be able to be tested? Just because it can't be tested now,
doesn't mean it won't be in the future. As the article notes, the
"gaps" where creationists can make their arguments now are
significantly smaller than they were 70 years ago. Therefore,
they've adapted their arguments. Again, that opens them up for
personal criticism as agenda driven. But dismissing a hypothesis
out of hand without using evidence that supports its exclusion is
unscientific in the extreme.
Science isn't (although academia certainly is) about whose theory
is the most popular among a given population. It is about what the
available evidence tells about our universe and about gathering
more evidence to understand more. Excluding a hypothesis because it
is unlikely is okay from an economic standpoint (conservation of
resources) but not a scientific standpoint (search for truth).
|10.13.05 @ 11:57AM|#
Anybody who's ever watched TV weathermen, and noted the accuracy (or lack thereof) of their predictions, has noticed that modern meteorological theory, with all its talk of pressure systems and cold fronts and climate cycles, CLEARLY has a lot of gaps. Which is why I think students of meteorology should also learn the theory of "Intelligent Weather."
|10.13.05 @ 11:58AM|#
joe,
BAM! Hypothesis, I like it (though theory would give us more
clout). I was going to go with OND theory initially, but didn't
want to have it mixed up with a certain band, so I added the extra
O.
BAM! Hypothesis it is. You may share the Nobel when it arrives.
|10.13.05 @ 11:59AM|#
Part of the problem with science is that it doesn't address the
moral issues it brings up. Morality has traditionally been the
domain of religion. Now, with Creationism and I.D., we have a clash
of science and religion. The problem is the argument is on two
different, unassociated levels. I think that is why most scientists
refuse to debate I.D. directly. I agree with that because I.D. does
not belong in a science class. It belongs in a philosophy,
religion, psychology, or even a history class. It is clearly not
science.
Unfortunately, most normal people don't see it that way. We've been
raised on sci-fi that adresses moral issues like right and wrong.
If indeed evolutinary science has nothing to do with morality, then
perhaps there needs to be a way to link them. Right now, the I.D.
proponents and the scientists are always going to see themselves as
winning the argument because they are not debating the same
thing.
Another problem is that science can't explain religion and religion
can't explain science. They are both an anathema to each other
because each one points out the other's weakness.
Thanks for the recommended reading, Matt.
|10.13.05 @ 12:01PM|#
"You shouldn't be lecturing other people about the scientific
method if you don't understand the difference."
Oh, I know it much better than you do, apparently. So tell me, oh
great diviner of the scientific method, how many years have you
spent in an R&D laboratory?
"They were only unfalisifiable because the people of the time
lacked the means to test them. There actually are methods to test
Demosthenes' theory that matter consists of atoms - we just had to
wait for technology to advance far enough to construct those
means."
Exactly why the rest of your post is pure rubbish.
|10.13.05 @ 12:04PM|#
Another problem is that science can't explain religion and
religion can't explain science.
Are we sure
about that?
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 12:04PM|#
But people determined that the scientific consensus can't be
true, because it suggests that some socio-political outcome they
dislike, can be counted on to put their faith the God of the
Gaps.
I don't know the subtext, but I do know that while Christians may
put faith in the God of the Gaps, modern scientists are putting
faith in the God Of the First Time Derivative Of the Gaps. Not
really an improvement.
|10.13.05 @ 12:06PM|#
Demosthenes, in his own time, came up with a possible way to
test his hypothesis - the improvement of the ability to see very
small objects.
What is a possible way to test whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster
created the world with his noodly appendages?
|10.13.05 @ 12:07PM|#
"So tell me, oh great diviner of the scientific method, how many
years have you spent in an R&D laboratory?"
Appeal to authority, deduct five points. *tweet* Resume play.
|10.13.05 @ 12:08PM|#
Another problem is that science can't explain religion and
religion can't explain science.
mattc, would you care to make sense out of this statement,
please?
|10.13.05 @ 12:09PM|#
"Which is why I think students of meteorology should also learn
the theory of "Intelligent Weather." "
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Pandas and People makes such a
point. And of course, as I have stated previously, and Hak has
pointed out with his quote, that book is blatantly tied to an
attempt to push judeo-christian creationism. So it is an
inappropriate source material for a science class.
Better to just acknowledge that we know less about our atmosphere
than atmosphere scientists like us to believe.
|10.13.05 @ 12:12PM|#
Dave W.,
Why? The issue of origins and evolution are quite seperate; which
is why many theists take no issue with evolution. And let's fall
into the false notion that Darwin is the end all, be all of what
evolutionary theory has to say.
|10.13.05 @ 12:13PM|#
"What is a possible way to test whether the Flying Spaghetti
Monster created the world with his noodly appendages?"
Perhaps by examining quantam physics. Perhaps by examining other
physical laws. In fact, I bet some theoretical physicists could
come pretty close to excluding it based upon evidence, even
today.
"Appeal to authority, deduct five points. *tweet* Resume
play."
Boy, sometimes I wonder if you are out of high school. You
certainly act less mature than my 12 year old niece. But if you
want to challenge me on my knowledge of a subject, expect to be
challenged on your knowledge. Such is not an appeal to authority.
It is a direct response to your challenge. So tabulate that on your
scorecard.
|10.13.05 @ 12:14PM|#
"Are you stating that you know for certain that ID and OOND will
NEVER be able to be tested?"
The BAM! Hypothesis, the Spaghetti Monster, and Creationism, I am
saying with absolute certainty, will never be able to be tested,
because by their very nature, they not falsifiable. There is no
possible way to disprove the existence of any of them. Their very
nature makes it impossible to do so. Since the essence of their
being is subjective, no amount of objective evidence could ever
definitively disprove them.
M1EK|10.13.05 @ 12:15PM|#
"Are you stating that you know for certain that ID and OOND will
NEVER be able to be tested?"
Yes. Positive. Because the Pastafarians posit that the Flying
Spaghetti Monster touches experiments with his Noodly Appendage to
get the result he wants.
There is no way to falsify that theory. Period.
Same with the so-called Christian "God". If you posit the existence
of a deity who is omnipotent, there is of course no way to prove he
doesn't exist. A god who is omnipotent could easily hide from any
science, even future science.
|10.13.05 @ 12:16PM|#
joe,
For more on the evolution Of Panda's and People go here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html#more
Its the Dover case that brought this information to light,
BTW. Rather humorous to see the creationist twits shoot themselves
in the foot.
|10.13.05 @ 12:18PM|#
Don't confuse evolution with a question of
origins.
Tell it to Darwin.
Don't confuse a discussion of the origins of species with a
discussion of the origin of life itself.
|10.13.05 @ 12:19PM|#
Only God can prove he doesn't exist. Or make himself not exist I suppose, so I guess there is a god. Like in Marvel's Secret Wars II.
|10.13.05 @ 12:19PM|#
"Perhaps by examining quantam physics. Perhaps by examining
other physical laws. In fact, I bet some theoretical physicists
could come pretty close to excluding it based upon evidence, even
today."
Except that the nature of the Spaghetti Monster, like that of The
Intelligent Designer, is such that any evidence can be rejected as
simply being insufficent to understand its true nature. "Who made
thunder?" was considered evidence of God, until we answered that
question. Did this disprove God? No, believers simply reoriented
their beliefs. Does this disprove God? No, it just shows that the
existence of God is not something that can proven scientifically.
Ergo, the God hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis.
You didn't challenge my knowledge, son. You told me I wrong, and
that you *bows head, makes sign of the cross* work in "an R & D
lab."
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 12:20PM|#
What is a possible way to test whether the Flying Spaghetti
Monster created the world with his noodly appendages?
we wait for evidence that he did or didn't. If we don't have the
evidence, then we either don't draw a conclusion. Scientific
concensus is not a substitute for scientiffic truth.
we may have to live our whole lives not knowing whether there was a
monster. so what? why is the vacuum apparently so abhorrent to you?
I find it liberating and can't believe that scientists want to take
this freedom from me with an appeal to a democracy of qualified
experts, rather than specific, persuasive evidence.
Science is great at investigating things it can observe directly or
indirectly. However, when the observations become too indirect, and
the requisite inferences too speculative, there is no reason to
believe scientists have any expertise in this domain.
In this domain, I would rather have a philosopher as my Virgil, or,
failing that, a law professor. The law has a track record of
analyzing issues of intermediate determinancy (and even radical
indeterminancy) in a scholarly way that science does not. But
really, society has no experts in the field of what we humans don't
or can't know. It is sad that this major is lacking at all the
major unniversities (Berkeley included).
|10.13.05 @ 12:23PM|#
Has anyone figured out the subtext of my 9:48 post
yet?
Awww, come on Joe. We all know that we can fix Global Warming with
an overall increase in the pirate population. ;)
ARRRRRRGH, me matey!
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 12:25PM|#
Don't confuse a discussion of the origins of species with a
discussion of the origin of life itself.
First, my example above with the primates and the stray
electromagnetic radiation beam demonstrates my understanding of the
(potential) interrelationship between origin of species and origins
of life itself.
Second, it seems like you are implying that Intelligent Design is a
plausible theory of origins of life itself. Is that really what you
and Hak are trying to tell us?
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 12:26PM|#
It is reflective of the poor state of our science education
that so many people have such closed minds about the fallibility of
scientific theories.
mr quasibill, while i agree with you on this point, this
generally not falsifiable
is the deathknell for ID in the context of science.
by all means, i am an advocate of reintroducting philosophy into
secondary schooling -- but it is philosophy, and ID should not be
taught as though it met the strict qualifications of a scientific
theory.
|10.13.05 @ 12:32PM|#
Dave W., I confess to having absolutely no fucking idea what you're either saying or trying to ask me.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 12:32PM|#
The issue of origins and evolution are quite seperate; which
is why many theists take no issue with evolution.
this is an exceedingly important point, gg, which is totally
overlooked thanks to the accidents of history that put the catholic
church in charge of an immense aristotlean legacy following the
collapse of hellenic civilization.
devout christians would do well to heed the words of their god:
"render unto caesar the things that are caesar's" -- "my kingdom is
not of this world".
|10.13.05 @ 12:34PM|#
"we wait for evidence that he did or didn't. If we don't have
the evidence, then we either don't draw a conclusion."
That is not the method of proving or disproving a theory, but of
generating a hypothesis. I learned this in fourth grade.
But just for fun, by what theoretic method, consistent with the
laws of physics, could such evidence be gleaned?
"we may have to live our whole lives not knowing whether there was
a monster." No, we don't. We know that there is no flying
spaghetting monster.
"why is the vacuum apparently so abhorrent to you?" It's not. I
gaze at the stars in wondermend, too, speculating about whether
there is intelligent life. I don't need to make shit up to
appreciate this sense of wonder.
"an appeal to a democracy of qualified experts" This is not how
scientists derive their conclusions. They base them on objective
evidence. Cute ju jitsu, but it's painfully transparent to anyone
who isn't already determined to believe you are correct.
"However, when the observations become too indirect, and the
requisite inferences too speculative, there is no reason to believe
scientists have any expertise in this domain." Yes, you are
correct, there are certain fields of thought that are so
speculative that scientists using the scientific method cannot
answer the questions they raise. These fields are not science, and
honest practitioners (like the past two popes, for example) are
quite forthright about this.
|10.13.05 @ 12:37PM|#
In honor of Pinter's Nobel mentioned in a thread above, here's a
quote of his that seems likely to settle all of the
arguing/discussion on this thread:
"There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is
unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not
necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and
false."
Well then, looks like we're all right. He should get Med/Phys prize
next year. A true scientific genius.
|10.13.05 @ 12:39PM|#
Is it possible that ID will some day be testable? Maybe. I've
suggested one avenue for formulating testable hypotheses in other
threads. (I'll regurgitate my proposal later, maybe. You can always
check out this
thread.) Or maybe somebody could come up with a rigorous
constraint on evolutionary pathways.
Now, I'm quite skeptical that work along those lines will ever
yield something, but I won't completely rule it out either. Open
mind and whatnot.
However, until work along those lines
does come to fruition, there's no reason to teach about
those completely unsubstantiated ideas in science class. Otherwise
we might as well include "intelligent falling" (see: The Onion) in
science class.
Until the ID folks actually substantiate any of their ideas, the
only avenue that they can (and do) pursue is to rub our faces in
the gaps. Fortunately, science has an excellent way of handling
gaps: The cautious language of scientific writing. Read a
scientific journal and you'll encounter lots of error bars and
caveats, lots of discussions about instrumental resolution,
assumptions that are explicitly listed, discussion of how the
analysis would fail if one of those assumptions is false,
acknowledgement of testable ideas that the experiment failed to
rule out, and calls for further work to clarify open questions.
You'll see phrases like "The data is consistent with this
theory....provided that the assumptions of our model....within
experimental error...but the present experiment could not rule
out...further work is needed to...."
The cautious, modest language of science is a much better way of
approaching gaps than giving "equal time" to every unsubstantiated
idea that gets enough popular support.
So, even if we ignore all of the religious and political baggage
attached to ID, and treat it like any other scientific theory,
there's still no reason to include it in science class. However
many disclaimers you want to put before the evolution lesson, an ID
lesson would need many, many more disclaimers due to the dearth of
evidence.
Finally, I'd actually be all in favor of honest and intellectually
stimulating disclaimers. Evolution, unlike many areas of science,
has a strong historical component to it, and so some of the
conceptual, methodological, and philosophical issues are indeed
different from those faced in other sciences. I'd be all in favor
of an honest and enlightening discussion of the associated
challenges. It might stimulate a few students to think more deeply
about what's entailed in saying that you really know
something.
Sadly, the disclaimers that the ID folks want, even in their tamest
form, are designed to promote the closed-mind form of skepticism
("I don't have to take this shit seriously"), not the open-mind
form of skepticism ("I'd better not assume too much, and treat data
with caution"). Leaving aside the legal issues, their disclaimers
are hardly conducive to careful thought.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 12:41PM|#
But just for fun, by what theoretic method, consistent with the
laws of physics, could such evidence be gleaned?
THe answer is to live with the uncertainty. You are very resistant
to it. Just like my Mom is reluctant to miss her Tridentine
Mass.
As far as the distinction between hypotheses, theories and proven
facts -- that is a false trichotomy. Shades of certainty are
continuous and infinite. However, when scientists say they have a
"theory" of origin, we take that as fact. The easier way to explain
to a child or a complacent adult is to say that science doesn't
know origins (species nor life), but it has some ideas about some
of the liklier possibilities. Any stronger statement than this is
misleading -- and we see that misleading nature when you &
Akira & the rest argue any theory of origins as if it were
proven beyond a preponderance standard. They got you.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 12:46PM|#
The discussion here suggests a better approach to accomodate
everyone (I think I have seen variation(s) on this idea before at
H'n"r):
Do a chapter in the high school science carefully explaining that
science does not know the correct explanation of origin, why
science is not able to know the correct explanation of origin right
now and maybe even a little speculation about what kinds of
evidence might be collected to get past science's current
(understandable) ignorance on the origins question.
Maybe ppl will object that such a unit isn't science, but: (1) it
is true; and (2) it is helpful for ppl to know (esp young
scientists). Maybe they can call this new subject "Ignorance" and
teach it in place of where they used to teach penmanship.
|10.13.05 @ 12:49PM|#
chthus,
Yes and no.
thoreau, I'll admit to not fully understanding your test. But I
understand it enough to know that IDers would have to make much
more definitive, objective claims than they are making now in order
for your test, or any test, to falsify their hypothesis.
Dave, I'm quite happy to live with philosophical uncertainty (which
is an existential state, and is therefore different from scientific
uncertainty). I just don't pretend confuse the subjects.
And I've never made any definitive statements about an origins
theory being proven.
|10.13.05 @ 12:51PM|#
Do a chapter in the high school science carefully explaining
that science does not know the correct explanation of origin, why
science is not able to know the correct explanation of origin right
now and maybe even a little speculation about what kinds of
evidence might be collected to get past science's current
(understandable) ignorance on the origins question.
They already have that. It's called "biology class." All of these
points were mentioned when I took high school biology in the 10th
grade, and that was 22 years ago.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 12:55PM|#
false trichotomy
no, mr w, there is a clearly delineated standard of what is and is
not a theory, is an is not a hypothesis. these are terms which are
not nebulous in and of themselves to a good scientist.
i completely agree with you that science cannot render final proof
to any hypothesis, and that uncertainty ultimately underlies all
valid conceptions of the physical. but let's not obfuscate the fact
that theory and hypothesis are words with meanings.
|10.13.05 @ 12:55PM|#
joe-
If you don't fully understand my test it's because it's just the
beginnings of an idea. Maybe I'll write it up into something more
formal, eventually.
The basic idea is this: They claim that they can examine an
organism and point to features that are clearly the product of
intelligent intervention. If so, then they should be able to put
together criteria or algorithms that can distinguish between, say,
genetically modified bacteria and bacteria that evolved resistance
to antibiotics. Or distinguish between the roaches in my apartment
complex (which have evolved resistance to every egg-stopping agent
known to mankind) and genetically modified roaches produced in
laboratories.
I'm not sure how to make the test more formal, but I'm thinking
along those lines.
Now, failing that test won't refute any of their
historical claims ("The bacterial flagellum was put there
by God") but it will refute their methodological claims ("The
methods that we're currently using prove that the bacterial
flagellum was put there by God"). There's a subtle difference
there.
Again, this test has not been rigorously formulated, but it's an
idea that I've thought about. I hope to eventually team up with a
more qualified person and write something up on it. Then again, in
addition to my main projects I have a lot of other projects on the
back burner, so this might take a while.
I'm confident that however long it takes me to eventually write
this one up, there will still be some creationists out there when I
do. They may evolve, but they never go extinct.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 12:56PM|#
philosophical uncertainty (which is an existential state,
and is therefore different from scientific uncertainty). I just
don't pretend confuse the subjects.
There is no difference, Joe. That is the confusion. Uncertainty
about origins is uncertainty about origins. Adjectivize it as
scientific, theological, metaphysical, philosophical, an open issue
in city planning if that helps, whatever and a rose by another
name, etc. -- it all amounts to the same thing.
|10.13.05 @ 12:58PM|#
""Who made thunder?" was considered evidence of God, until we
answered that question. Did this disprove God? No, believers simply
reoriented their beliefs. Does this disprove God? No, it just shows
that the existence of God is not something that can proven
scientifically. Ergo, the God hypothesis is not a scientific
hypothesis."
No, the God hypothesis as a general hypothesis isn't. But then,
most general hypotheses aren't - just like saying evolution in
general is true. Well, the details matter. and as you admit, the
details of the God hypothesis have changed dramatically in the last
100 years, to say nothing of before.
"You didn't challenge my knowledge, son. You told me I wrong, and
that you *bows head, makes sign of the cross* work in "an R & D
lab.""
I know this is a waste of time, because Joe = God and is therefore
infallible, but here's the timeline:
Joe sez [QB] doesn't understand the difference between a hypothesis
and a scientific hypothesis.
I respond that I do, and challenge your credentials at making such
an opinion. I know that I understand it because I have applied it
in the real world, achieved real results, and been promoted for
doing so in a major corporation. I'm curious at what credentials
allow you to judge that my understanding of the concept is wrong,
while yours is correct. Noticeably:
Joe whines and makes snarky comment about "appeal to authority".
This is your response, which just confirms that you are speaking
out of your nether regions on yet another subject.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 12:59PM|#
as far as evolution goes, what is verifiable is that species
change over successive generations -- this has been observed in
fruit flies, for example.
what is theoretical is the mechanism of such change, and why
evolution remains a theory.
creationists would have you believe, contra evidence, that species
do not change over time and through reproduction. that is
demonstrably false. (though i realize i haven't touched on ID
here.)
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 1:02PM|#
theory and hypothesis are words with meanings
Okay help me out here. Someone flips a coin. I am close enough to
see that the coin has indeed landed so that one of its two major
surfaces faces up. However, I am not close enough to see which
surface. As I begin to walk toward the coin, a thief snatched the
coin and runs away.
At this point, I say: I think that coin landed heads up. Have I
stated a hypothesis or a theory? Is there any reason the hypothesis
/ theory distinction is important here?
|10.13.05 @ 1:03PM|#
"There is no way to falsify that theory. Period.
Same with the so-called Christian "God". If you posit the existence
of a deity who is omnipotent, there is of course no way to prove he
doesn't exist. A god who is omnipotent could easily hide from any
science, even future science."
See thoreau's post, and my response to Joe regarding the difference
between a general hypothesis and a detailed one. The details are
changing constantly for the God hypothesis. And if someone is going
to start with the assumption that we can't learn a fact, then it is
no longer science.
The details of OOND, ID, and FSM can all be falsified. Of course,
as you note, cause advocates will change their details or propose
"unknowable facts". In the case of the first, as I have noted, you
can rightfully criticize them as cause advocates and not
scientists. In the second, stating that something is unknowable
does not fit into the definition of science. Science requires
observation. So they have by definition excluded themselves from a
scientific discussion.
As an aside, I agree with every point Dr. T. made.
|10.13.05 @ 1:04PM|#
gaius-
Not only has the change been observed in small organisms with short
lifespans, but the amount of random variation can be understood
theoretically, and natural selection has been observed acting on
these random variations (hence drug resistance in bacteria, for
instance).
Creationists acknowledge these observations and refer to them as
"microevolution", which is short-hand for "things that even
creationists aren't dumb enough to argue against."
Where the speculation/extrapolation comes in is assuming that the
same mechanisms can explain changes in organisms over millions of
years. The fossil record and genetic record are consistent with
that hypothesis, but we have no direct observations. Most
scientists accept these indirect observations as sufficient.
Creationists usually either remind us that these observations are
"only" indirect (yeah, well, what else are you gonna go by?), or
else they accept the necessity of indirect observations but try to
make hay out of the gaps.
|10.13.05 @ 1:05PM|#
quasibill, I feel you, man. I feel you. Mindreading, it seems,
is all the rage these days.
Anybody who is really interested in this topic should be reading
Pharyngula every.
Single. Day.
|10.13.05 @ 1:06PM|#
Cthus-I've read Pinker, and still say that any ethical
conclusions drawn from evolution or evolutionary psychology are, at
best, extrapoalations from facts established by science. While I
recall Pinker making some comments about the futility of political
or social ideologies based on the notion of a Blank Slate, that's
not the same as positing an ethical system, and nowhere near social
darwinism.
As for Dawkins' book. As I recall, he went out of his way to point
out that his book was not about ethics, nor should any conclusions
about morality be drawn from it.
|10.13.05 @ 1:06PM|#
"is the deathknell for ID in the context of science."
As I noted. But it is the deathknell either because the theory is
constantly in flux to try to adapt to new contradictory evidence,
or it is the deathknell because the proponent acknowledges that his
theory can never be falsifiable, in which case he has defined
himself out of "science". And it is an important distinction to
make.
|10.13.05 @ 1:07PM|#
Hakluyt-
Where ever you are, I hope the weather there is nicer than the
weather back here on the east coast.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 1:13PM|#
mr w, a scientific hypothesis must be testable. whatever the
coin was, it is not testable. therefore, you have not stated a
scientific hypothesis (and certainly not a scientific theory, which
is a hypothesis supported by a model which is predictive and has
never been falsified).
in saying "i think it was heads", you have stated a conjecture or
something even less -- my memory of the ins-and-outs of logic is
fuzzy at a distance in time.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 1:17PM|#
his theory can never be falsifiable
it is not a scientific theory, mr quasibill, *because* it is not
falsifiable. if it is not falsifiable, it cannot be a theory. ID is
(i think) a conjecture which cannot be falsified, and therefore
belongs properly in the study of religion -- not of science nor
even potentially of philosophy.
|10.13.05 @ 1:19PM|#
Not much to ad, except for this:
The Seven
Warning Signs of Bogus Science
Boiled down to it's essence, take this list and compare 'n'
contrast with what the "Intelligent Design" crowd circulates:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the
media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is
trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very
limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has
endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to
explain an observation.
|10.13.05 @ 1:22PM|#
To sum up, "Intelligent Design" is no more scientific than Phrenology, Astrology, Feng Shui, Alchemy, or Time Cube.
|10.13.05 @ 1:26PM|#
thoreau,
While your thought experiment on the falsifiablility is
interesting, I think it only addresses part of or something other
than, what ID claims. While your experimental model would work for
determining patterns which showed appearance of design, it wouldn't
be able to make testable a core aspect of ID, that there is an
intelligent designer (whatever that may be).
The existence and action of a designer is part of every ID
variation I've seen. Without this, there's not a lot of new
information that ID can offer. Your potential model shows that an
Appearance of Design (AD) theory is indeed falsifiable, but without
the intelligent designer, AD wuold merely be a novel gap
identifier.
ed|10.13.05 @ 1:30PM|#
"Intelligent Design, the...life sciences equivalent of Hooked on
Phonics."
Say what? Phonics takes a conceptual approach to reading, as
opposed to the perceptual "whole word" approach which treats words
as pictures to be memorized. Very poor analogy, though it probably
seemed clever when he typed it.
|10.13.05 @ 1:31PM|#
"it is not a scientific theory, mr quasibill, *because* it is
not falsifiable"
we must be talking past each other, because that was exactly my
point when I said he then defined himself out of science.
"ID is (i think) a conjecture which cannot be falsified"
This is the fundamental problem. ID, like many ideas, means
different things to different people. As you note, you don't really
know what ID is - that's because there is no single meaning
applicable to all its proponents. Some argue the "unknowable"
aspect. I agree that these people cannot make any pretension to
speaking on science. Others make more detailed claims, such
flagella on a bacteria, or the complexity of a g-protein. These
people can have their ID theory falsified on details - there is
actually a fair amount of scholarship on self-organization (in
fact, it is through such scholarship in the bio-chemical sciences
that led me to my first libertarian readings on self-organization
of human societies). So research pathways are being followed that
have the potential of falsfying these detailed ID theories, in the
same manner that the judeo-christian creation ID theory has been
thoroughly falsified.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 1:32PM|#
The details of OOND, ID, and FSM can all be falsified.
as i understand it, mr quasibill, fundamental to ID is the
conjecture that "this is too sophisticated to explain by nature --
therefore, it is supernatural in origin".
how is that a falsifiable statement? by proving that something is
in fact not too sophisticated to be evolved? how is it predictive?
how is it reliant observations yielded in testing?
and -- in a different line of questioning -- would not a prima
facie examination of the universe immediately dispel such a
conjecture? in a universe where there are some 400 billion stars
and a multiple of that in planets aged some 14 billion years --
numbers which truly defy the human capacity for imagination -- is
it not equally valid to say that almost everything that we CAN
potentially imagine as a physical reality has found manifestation
somewhere in the universe?
|10.13.05 @ 1:33PM|#
chthus-
I don't claim that I'm proposing a nail in the coffin. I'm
proposing a "put up or shut up" test. They either develop some
methodology beyond "Hey, look, something that you're having a hard
time explaining!" or they shut up.
Besides, if what they're saying is true, if they can do what they
claim, then they should be able to do what I challenged them to do.
If they can't do it, then they can't test their hypothesis and it
joins the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the list of non-falsifiable
hypotheses.
So, basically, my challenge can't falsify their theory, but it can
prove that their theory is non-falsifiable.
|10.13.05 @ 1:35PM|#
number 6,
I wasn't saying that science is able to lead us towards a choice of
ethic so much as there is scientific investigation into the
development of ethics in humans.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 1:35PM|#
So research pathways are being followed that have the
potential of falsfying these detailed ID theories, in the same
manner that the judeo-christian creation ID theory has been
thoroughly falsified.
which answers me
how is that a falsifiable statement?
however, here we have only a hypothesis, correct? this does not
rise to the level of a theory because, while the hypothesis is
falsifiable, the mechanism -- therefore, it is supernatural in
origin -- is not.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 1:37PM|#
nor is it potentially predictive, mr quasibill -- which further disqualifies ID as a theory.
|10.13.05 @ 1:38PM|#
The meaning of words doesn't depend on my credentials,
quasibill. Neither do they depend on your credentials, or your
capacity to design and carry out lab tests.
FYI, all the "credentials" you need to correctly define
"hypothesis" and "theory" is a fourth grade education or the
capacity to google the phrase "scientific method." The fact that
you haven't actually raised an objection to the definitions I've
provided, but rather, questioned whether I have the proper degree
to regurgitate this information, is pretty much a text book appeal
to authority.
Dave W.
You have made a guess. A hypothesis is a statement that attempts to
explain observations. A theory is a hypothesis that has been born
our by tests. You have made no observations that could be explained
by your statement that it's heads.
Get over it, Phil. You're just whining.
|10.13.05 @ 1:39PM|#
At this point, I say: I think that coin landed heads up.
Have I stated a hypothesis or a theory?
Sounds like you made a wild-assed guess and as such it does not
qualify as anything "scientific".
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 1:40PM|#
what i'm getting at is that ID is philosophical -- and bully for
that, i can entertain it on philosophical grounds. many
philosophies incorporate proper hypotheses.
but it is not a scientific theory, and that it quite clear.
|10.13.05 @ 1:48PM|#
How rare it is to have a 100+ post thread where I am in
agreement with gaius marius.
How is gaius minimus?
|10.13.05 @ 1:48PM|#
Even on philosophical grounds Intelligent Design is still not terribly enlightening, though I suppose it has a number of comrades-in-arms with Marxism and Post-Modernism.
|10.13.05 @ 1:52PM|#
At a certain point, the dog's howling gets sufficiently irritating to warrant a "shaddap."
|10.13.05 @ 1:56PM|#
Blah, blah, blah. Don't like it? Don't read it. Any time you want to shut me up, feel free to give it a whirl.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 1:57PM|#
in saying "i think it was heads", you have stated a
conjecture or something even less -- my memory of the ins-and-outs
of logic is fuzzy at a distance in time.
Gosh, I was 50% sure, maybe a little more depending upon the
quality of my eyesight and how close I got to the coin before it
was snatched.
Does a scientific "theory of origins" have to be substantially
greater than 50% probable to qualify as a theory or even a
hypothesis? Under your standard, it seems like any theories of
origin would not qualify as theories. I can posit that stray
radiation, or localized heating or entropy or whatever caused the
genetic mutations that originated species back in prehistoric
times, but do I really have 50%+ certainty on that? I know
radiation (and a few other agencies) can cause mutations, but do I
know that this is these are the only agencies that ever operated?
Also, experiments in the lab show that directed radiation and other
types of chemical tampering can cause deliberate, controlled (to a
greater or lesser extent) mutations. How many probability points
does the deliberated-radiation possibility eat up? After all of
these i.d. type possibilities stake their claims, do I really have
60 percentage points left for the idea that stray radiation and/or
random heating and/or random chemical reaction caused the patterns
we observe? If so, what persuaded you?
Of course, if science classes want to talk about
"something-less-than-a-conjecture of origins" then I have no
problem. This honest approach would also probably result in a
marginal quieting of silly Christian fundies, so -- have we got our
approach here?
dhex|10.13.05 @ 2:01PM|#
gawd, would you guys get a room already? the tension is
*killing* me!
personally, i prefer the theory of unintelligent design. god is a
slackjawed yokel!
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 2:03PM|#
You have made a guess. A hypothesis is a statement that
attempts to explain observations. A theory is a hypothesis that has
been born our by tests. You have made no observations that could be
explained by your statement that it's heads.
What do you mean I have no evidence or observations. I have reams
of incontrovertible evidence about how the overwhelming majority of
coins have a heads side. I myself saw that it landed with a major
surface facing up, so I have eliminated possibilities that the coin
didn't land or didn't land true from my own observations.
Maybe I even got close enough to the coin to kinda sorta make out
the contours of the head. In fact, let's make it scientific -- we
repeat the experiment 1,000,000 times and we find out that I have a
75.00% success rate calling coin flips from the vantage point I
occupied at the time the coin was snatched.
Am I scientific enough yet? Do I have a theory? What clinched
it?
|10.13.05 @ 2:04PM|#
"nor is it potentially predictive, mr quasibill -- which further
disqualifies ID as a theory."
I've always thought that there must be some way for some
philosopher somewhere to define the "scientificness" of a theory
based on whether or not it constrains future outcomes, as well as
predicts. This would immediatly squash arguments that ID,
creationism, etc., are scientific. It may well do a number on any
theory of origins being the domain of science as well.
Evolution is scientific, because it rules out the possibility of a
racoon evolving into a slug in 2 generations. (Or at least gives it
essentially zero odds.) ID has nothing to constrain it. What stops
God from making a pangolin's offspring immediately evolve into
humans? Or from new humans appearing in a new Eden? Any theory that
does not constrain its outcomes invalidates the causal universe
science depends on for its utility.
|10.13.05 @ 2:08PM|#
I think H&R should have an online fighter's pit for when
exchanges get too heated. I imagine something like Rock-em Sock-em
Robots.
"I wager 10 quatloos on the liberal!"
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 2:09PM|#
Evolution is scientific, because it rules out the
possibility of a racoon evolving into a slug in 2
generations.
Fundamentalist Christians conjectures rule out the same
possibility. Under your reasoning, this makes them science too.
|10.13.05 @ 2:10PM|#
"maybe a little more depending upon the quality of my eyesight
and how close I got to the coin before it was snatched." Now you're
changing the scenario. If you actually saw something that suggested
to you, however unreliably, that it was heads and not tails, that's
an observation.
"Does a scientific "theory of origins" have to be substantially
greater than 50% probable to qualify as a theory or even a
hypothesis?"
We have no way of knowing what the odds are when the theory or
hypothesis is created, so there's really no answer to this
question. The hypothesis has to explain observed phenomena, and the
theory has to hold under repeated testing.
Also, your "mutations" example isn't the best one. An experiment
was done in the 70s in which simple chemicals - water, carbon
dioxide, nitrogen gas, oxygen gas - were combined in a jar and
subjected to an electrical charge. Within a week, a simple amino
acid had formed.
|10.13.05 @ 2:14PM|#
Dave W:
If I postulate that the world was created whole in 1973, with false
memories and deceptive historical records, when my mom baked a
Cosmic Pie, on what basis would you conclude that my hypothesis is
in any way qualitatively inferior to any general expression of
ID?
In any words, is it your belief that every conceivable origins
story deserves the status of 'hypothesis' and should therefore
share time with evolution?
|10.13.05 @ 2:14PM|#
"Fundamentalist Christians conjectures rule out the same
possibility."
How so? Whatever God wants, he does. His actions are completely
unconstrained. Evolution becomes stronger as it's constraints are
shown to be molecular biology, chemistry, etc.
ID breaks the constraints of the other sciences.
|10.13.05 @ 2:14PM|#
Dave's got me thinking, maybe his wild-assed guess is a
hypothesis, just a really, really shaky one.
"It landed heads" does explain the observed facts "a coin was
flipped" and "it landed heads or tails."
But since the coin was picked up and no further observation of
testing is possible, it can never become a theory.
|10.13.05 @ 2:17PM|#
ID breaks the constraints of the other sciences.
To be fair, some ID proponents are arguing that some biological
phenomena do not fit the constraints of chemistry, physics,
molecular biology, etc.
The problem is that they have yet to present any strong evidence
for this argument, or use it to formulate testable hypotheses, or
even devise methodologies to attack these issues. Meanwhile,
biochemists have found that every reaction they study obeys the
laws of thermodynamics, and descent with modification has been
directly observed (albeit only on small scales).
It's pretty clear what the score is, if one wants to compare
theories.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 2:21PM|#
We have no way of knowing what the odds are when the theory
or hypothesis is created, so there's really no answer to this
question. The hypothesis has to explain observed phenomena, and the
theory has to hold under repeated testing.
Also, your "mutations" example isn't the best one. An
experiment was done in the 70s in which simple chemicals - water,
carbon dioxide, nitrogen gas, oxygen gas - were combined in a jar
and subjected to an electrical charge. Within a week, a simple
amino acid had formed.
Putting this together, we tested to see whether simple chemicals
and electricity could be combined to form self-replicating matter.
This test was failed, yielding only non-replicating acids.
Therefore we know that a simple mix of chemical and electricity
isn't sufficient to cause life in and of itself. We know this
because the very first test (apparently done in the 70s)
failed.
But, really, what I am saying here is that what you propose can't
be the method. Hypotheses and theories are worse than useless
constructs if they don't have anything to do with actual
probabilities that a thing happened or didn't happened. Of course,
when you peek under the skirts of a theory or hypothesis, you see
that qualifying a theory or a hypothesis has little to do with
quantifying probabilities -- and that is important to note because
the very fact that you can conceive of non-probabilistic-based
criterion for "theories" and "hypotheses" shows the violence that
has been done to your thought processes by the scientists.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 2:24PM|#
But since the coin was picked up and no further observation
of testing is possible, it can never become a theory.
How do you know there wasn't a camera in the room that caught the
action? Did you check? If there was a hidden camera (that is
currently lost but might be found) does that confer theory status
on me? Does it depend on whether I know the camera was there? What
if I am uncertain about the camera -- am I back in weak hypothesis
land?
|10.13.05 @ 2:25PM|#
ID in the history class: "Rome fell because God wanted it
to."
ID in the math class: "Angles A and B are congruent because God
said so."
ID in literature: "There is no tragic flaw. The fate of a character
is determined by God's will in the mind of the author."
Anyone want to take a flight on the ID-engineered aircraft?
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 2:27PM|#
How is gaius minimus?
growing steadily and sleeping soundly, mr thoreau -- thanks.
Am I scientific enough yet? Do I have a theory? What clinched
it?
no, mr w -- again, a scientific theory is predictive and
falsifiable. you are not even attempting a theory -- nor are you
attempting a hypothesis -- but an observation.
once you had an observation (that coin flip resulted in a head),
you could begin to propose a hypothesis which fits your observation
(a coin flip will yield heads all the time). only upon stating a
hypothesis, then, could you attempt to test it for falsity by
testing (your second flip yields a tail).
this is not that difficult. i think i understand the place where
you are attempting to go -- hume's statement that induction by
enumeration is not a valid method of estblishing causation -- that
is, there can always be a black swan in the wings -- therefore
there is no such thing as certainty in science -- but your example
is extremely poor, and the point isn't relevant to ID. to say that
ID could be true because science cannot finally disprove it is not
enough to make ID science.
|10.13.05 @ 2:27PM|#
Um, Dave, you might want to read up on current thoughts on, refinements of, and results of the
|10.13.05 @ 2:29PM|#
Um, Dave, you might want to read up on current thoughts on, refinements of, and results of the
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 2:29PM|#
that is, if you have a point at all, considering all this
blather
How do you know there wasn't a camera in the room that caught
the action? Did you check? If there was a hidden camera (that is
currently lost but might be found) does that confer theory status
on me? Does it depend on whether I know the camera was there? What
if I am uncertain about the camera -- am I back in weak hypothesis
land?
do you have a point?
|10.13.05 @ 2:40PM|#
How about we all just concede that if somebody steals the coin after you toss it, maybe it's just better to toss it again rather than doing an error analysis?
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 2:41PM|#
How so? Whatever God wants, he does. His actions are
completely unconstrained.
I assumed you meant that evolutionists predict that a slug will not
evolve into a raccoon absent some deliberate intervention. I
imagine that an evolutionist understands that a genetic engineer,
or even the Big Cheese Engineer, could accomplish this more
quickly. In the same way that a Fundie would say that the genetic
engineer could, but so could her God.
|10.13.05 @ 2:42PM|#
Gaius, his point is to spin and obfuscate in the paltry hope he
might somehow get us to question evolutionary theory and the
biological sciences.
More than likely, he has to resort to such asininity in order to
keep believing the C/ID line of thinking.
|10.13.05 @ 2:42PM|#
That is, toss a new coin, rather than do an
error analysis on the interrupted toss.
Just my $0.02 worth on coin tosses.
|10.13.05 @ 2:43PM|#
gaius:
"to say that ID could be true because science cannot finally
disprove it is not enough to make ID science."
Hume, of course, goes on to note that while our intuitions about
inductive reasoning are not based on reason but on belief (habit),
there is a difference between an empirical belief and beliefs in
general. To wit, the empirical belief exists in a public space, is
subject to testability, and disagreements about the accuracy of
your theory can consequently be addressed in some way other than
duking it out over Jesus vs. Allah.
|10.13.05 @ 2:51PM|#
"Therefore we know that a simple mix of chemical and electricity
isn't sufficient to cause life in and of itself."
Uh, no, we know it isn't sufficient to do so in a week. And we
don't actually have a billion years of lab time to block out to
test the broader hypothesis.
"How do you know there wasn't a camera in the room that caught the
action?" It's YOUR simplistic hypothetical, dude. Do you want to
ask the question when there's a camera involved?
You know what? Don't bother to answer. You long ago ceased to
actually try to understand the truth, and are just throwin shit
against the wall to see what you can get to stick.
Good bye.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 2:53PM|#
How about we all just concede that if somebody steals the
coin after you toss it, maybe it's just better to toss it again
rather than doing an error analysis?
You asked my point about evolution. My point is that these labels
like "theory," hypothesis," "scientifically tested," "science,"
"evolution," and "origin" hurt more than they help here. I think we
know that the replicating matter we have here on earth has changed
in chemical structure, following easily perceivable patterns over
time. We have a high confidence level that some of these changes
were accomplished by genetic mutations. We have a high confidence
level that some of these mutations provided survival advantages,
which helped get the mutated DNA propagated and continuing.
Beyond that, we don't know. We don't know whether mutations are the
only way that the chemical identity of the self-replicating matter
can change. We don't know what caused the mutations. We don't know
whether the muations were random and directed. Even with the
increasing length of the swallow bills, we don't know whether the
longer bills were given them so that they could continue to thrive
or whether they the longer-billed birds received the windfall of a
happy coincidence.
What has all this got to do with my coin? I am trying to show the
practical uselessness of distinctions like hypothesis / theory /
conjecture when applied to probabilistic situations we are familar
with, where we can understand and control the variables. If these
terms don't help us where we can quantify and identify our
uncertainties, then they can be expected to be less than helpful as
the number and nature and identity of the variables become large
and difficult to manage in our heads.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 2:55PM|#
there is a difference between an empirical belief and
beliefs in general.
agreed, mr ligon. but hume's brilliance should not be overshadowed
-- men of his day assumed the universe a sort of divine clockwork,
producing certain results from certain inputs. that is clearly not
the case, and hume was the first (to my knowledge) to question the
enlightenment's fundamental assumptions.
|10.13.05 @ 2:58PM|#
"If these terms don't help us where we can quantify and identify
our uncertainties, then they can be expected to be less than
helpful as the number and nature and identity of the variables
become large and difficult to manage in our heads."
These terms, and the process that underlies them, have been the
driving force in the expansion of scientific knowledge that has
occured over the past 400 years. Which, if I recall correctly, has
been rather notable.
Your hypothesis does not describe the observed phenomena.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 2:59PM|#
Don't bother to answer.
Too late. I said up front that the camera was lost and might or
might not be found. You seem pretty resistant to the very idea of
thought experiments. Its too bad. They are useful.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 3:00PM|#
If these terms don't help us where we can quantify and
identify our uncertainties
the problem is, mr w, that they can and do -- you're simply
refusing to accept it because, perhaps, you haven't carefully
considered the rigorous meanings of the words.
i accept a lot of what you said there -- much of it seems qite
obvious -- but to claim in effect that concepts like hypothesis and
theory are devoid of real meaning and therefore useless in
examining the real world is absurd.
|10.13.05 @ 3:00PM|#
thoreau,
Your comments are the best on H&R. No matter what the topic is,
your comments always make sense. You're rarely wrong, and if you
are, you admit it and make a correction. None of your comments come
off as arrogant or condescending. I would pay to see you debate a
I.D. proponent.
Akira MacKenzie,
What I meant by "science can't explain religion and religion can't
explain science" is that both dogmas exist on entirely different
planes of reasoning. That doesn't mean they can't coexist, it just
means I think they can never truly unite. There has to be a segue
between the two of them if any useful discussion is to take place.
Otherwise, both parties are just tooting their own horns. And, by
religion I mean traditional religions like Christianity, Judaism,
Islam, etc. I wonder what Scientologists think about I.D. Wasn't
Scientology based off of 1950's sci-fi?
|10.13.05 @ 3:07PM|#
I played along with your thought experiment for a number of posts, until it became clear that you, like all id proponents, were willing to shift any goalpost. At which point I ceased to consider your particular thought experiment worthwhile.
|10.13.05 @ 3:07PM|#
I'll admit that I've never subscribed to the notion that
predictability is a necessity for a scientific hypothesis. To me,
science is a search for the truth, not a search for fortune telling
powers.
Case in point - chaos theory. The whole point is that it can't
predict much, if anything. But I believe it qualifies as good
science.
If we were somehow able to prove ID (which, just to make clear, I
am not a proponent of), it would still be scientific (truth, at
least as we perceive it), regardless of whether we could predict
how the designer would act in the future. Just like we know there
are humans, but nothing does a very good job at predicting how any
given individual will actually react to a given stimulus.
Predictability is nice, and is in itself a form of evidence capable
of supporting a theory, but I (and I acknowledge that there are
some who reasonably disagree with my stance) don't think it is a
necessity for a scientific theory.
|10.13.05 @ 3:08PM|#
And t has a nice, new Sig 9mm in case he gets charged on the
lecturn. Talk is cheap, but bullets are cheaper.
Still waiting on my S&W..
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 3:08PM|#
These terms, and the process that underlies them
Sometimes useful terms come to be abused over time and lose their
usefulness. That is all that has happened here.
I can't figure out why you don't just take my thought experiment
and say: here are some conditions under which you would have stated
a hypothesis, here is an example of an additional fact or two that
would elevate you to theory status and here are some conditions
that would cause me to classify your statement as a guess. What is
driving you NOT to do that? How do you lose out by mapping your
terminology onto a fairly familiar (though hypothetical) fact
setting?
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 3:19PM|#
were willing to shift any goalpost
Thought experiments don't work like political issues, Joe.
Rather, in my first thought experiment, you said: "guess because no
observations"
So I crafted a second thought experiment that incorporated a
million observations. I do this not to give you a hard time, but to
see how you might feel about a situation where some observations
were made. No, shifting goalposts, just pure search for knowledge
goin' on. And you were still playing at that point. You said: Not
sure, but you might have something better than a guess at this
point. Fair answer. Helpful despite, no because of, its
uncertainty.
After that, you apparently had a second though and said that none
of the terms (eg, theory, hypothesis) could apply to my thought
experiment because the truth was not knowable.
So, I did the logical thing that thought experimenters do at this
point: I fixed up my thought experiment premises so that the truth
was not immediately knowable, but was ultimately knowable in the
fullness of time. While this sounds complicated, all I had to do
was add a camera that got lost. Happens all the time in the real
world (see index under Blair, I.) -- not too confusing to add to a
thought experiment for the purpose of brushing aside the objections
you were making.
So I overcome the objections and find only that I have tried your
patience. Now, c'mon. That is no way to teach or learn.
|10.13.05 @ 3:19PM|#
I'm interested but having trouble following just what Quasibill
is getting at. He admits that some versions of ID are not
falsifiable and are therefore not science. On the other hands he
mentions other forms of ID that make falsifiable claims and hopes
these will be tested...But they would have to be tested by
reference to natural phenomena and criteria, correct?
On another note I would recommend Evolution The Remarkable History
of a Scientific Theory by Larson. It shows that ID was a big
theory, in a somewhat testable form, for a long time. In fact it
was the established theory. Then it was found, piece by piece, to
be unsupported and false. Interesting read.
The interesting thing about evolution is not the gaps (all theories
have these), but what it does predict that has been supported.
Anatomical and genetic patterns. Certain structure to the fossil
record. Signs of adaptation (unintelligent design, like the Panda's
Thumb)...
We all know why IDer's don't like the theory: it upsets their
religious or Romantic notions about the special-ness of humans,
natural law, etc.. They are not motivated by a desire to know
things, but by a desire to defend things, i.e., apologetics.
Apologegetics when mixed with science has produced some goofy
results (see Lysenko).
|10.13.05 @ 3:20PM|#
Perhaps life was secretly designed by the Secret Intelligent Designer who designs the Secret Designs, Dave.
|10.13.05 @ 3:21PM|#
"In the same way that a Fundie would say that the genetic
engineer could, but so could her God."
Right, and a her hypothesis, relying on something unconstrained by
causality, is not scientific. That's my point.
At any rate, maybe my "constrained" doesn't get us anywhere that
"falsifiable" gets us.
"Predictability is nice, and is in itself a form of evidence
capable of supporting a theory, but I (and I acknowledge that there
are some who reasonably disagree with my stance) don't think it is
a necessity for a scientific theory."
Chaos theory is predictive of things that can be predictive. The
idea and pursuit of science assumes a causal universe at its
core.
|10.13.05 @ 3:21PM|#
DrT:
Which Sig? Did you manage to get the newer design? If you got the
P229, get Mecgar magazines. They make 15 rounders that are
magically the same size as the 13 round magazines you probably got
with it. If you went P226, Mecgar makes 17 rounders the same size
as standard 15s. http://www.cactustactical.com/magazines.html I
would look into night sights as well, if you didn't get them
standard.
MNG, Which Smith?
|10.13.05 @ 3:24PM|#
Behe is reasonable. I haven't seen him debate, but I've seen him
speak and do a Q&A, plus knew a guy that had him for biochem at
Lehigh that gave me a similar assessment as that I took away from
the talk.
He had his moments of con-man flash when he realized he had a fair
contingent of supporters, but actually settled back into a
reasonable mode once some more sharp, reasoned critiques were
tossed his way by others. He actually admitted he didn't know
things a few times.
|10.13.05 @ 3:30PM|#
"I'm interested but having trouble following just what Quasibill
is getting at. He admits that some versions of ID are not
falsifiable and are therefore not science. On the other hands he
mentions other forms of ID that make falsifiable claims and hopes
these will be tested...But they would have to be tested by
reference to natural phenomena and criteria, correct?"
Correct. And further I fully predict that when tested, they WILL be
falsified. Just to make that clear. But I think it is important not
to lump those who are in camp 2 (those making falsifiable claims)
in with camp 1 (those who claim that the truth is unknowable). Camp
2 proponents deserve to have their theories aired in the public
square and subjected to testing before excluding them from
scientific possibility. Camp 1 proponents are excluded from
scientific discussion by definition.
And again, there certainly is an economic argument for not
including theories that are currently fringe in introductory
science classes. As I noted, and Thoreau stated even better, a
proper understanding of the scientific method and review of solid
scientific literature would be more than sufficient to reveal the
nature of scientific knowledge. There should be no need to include
specific disclaimers.
|10.13.05 @ 3:30PM|#
"Part of the problem with science is that it doesn't address the
moral issues it brings up. Morality has traditionally been the
domain of religion."
Or philosophy. And philosophy class is where ID discussions belong
until its proponents can offer a testable hypothesis.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 3:30PM|#
Right, and a her hypothesis, relying on something
unconstrained by causality
I don't get it. Why is the genetic engineer constrained by
causality, but a god not? Wouldn't this depend upon the exact
nature of the particular god in question?
More to the point: what is an example of something that an
unconstrained causality god could do that an advanced scientist of
the future categorically could not? Time travel? I am not really
coming up with any examples here -- which leads me to suspect that
this "constrained by causality" restriction is no real restriction
at all.
|10.13.05 @ 3:31PM|#
Some of the falsifiable claims, such as the irreducabld complexity of the mammalian eye, have in fact been falsified.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 3:32PM|#
And philosophy class is where ID discussions . .
.
Close. --And philosophy class is where origin of life discussions .
. .-- much better.
|10.13.05 @ 3:33PM|#
Dr.T:
One more thought - get any of the following 3 choices in ammo for
self defense purposes:
Speer Gold Dot 124gr +P
Winchester Ranger SXT 124gr +P
Federal Expanding Full Metal Jacket
If you can't find any of those, go Cor Bon 124 +P
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Predictability is nice, and is in itself a form of evidence
capable of supporting a theory, but I (and I acknowledge that there
are some who reasonably disagree with my stance) don't think it is
a necessity for a scientific theory.
in a nutshell, mr quasibill, this is how science has come to be
such a misinterpreted, misapplied, misunderstood notion of
technicalism -- a church in its own right. many abandon the basic
precepts of what science is because they feel limited by its
rigorous constraints and yet believe that science is ultimately all
things. so they indulge in speculation and philosophy of every type
and mislabel it "science" to give it the same kind of imprimateur
of credibility that "papal" had centuries ago.
|10.13.05 @ 3:41PM|#
"what is an example of something that an unconstrained causality
god could do that an advanced scientist of the future categorically
could not? "
Violate the laws of thermodynamics. Create matter. Put molecules
into positions to cause animals, in ways that are not explained by
molecular physics, etc.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 3:42PM|#
Camp 1 proponents are excluded from scientific discussion by
definition.
That is ridiculous. It also doesn't cover people who think the
truth might or might not be knowable. Do those people get excluded,
too?
I think maybe if an issue is not knowable, then that means we take
it away from the scientists, not vice versa. If what you say is
true then science assumes without proof that many things (string
theory, origins of life) are knowable, but it ain't science's place
to be assuming things without proof. It is easy to see the
hypocrisy here.
Then of course, there are things like quantum mechanics and
Heisenberg's thingee that basically take this "knowability"
requirement and laugh in its face.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 3:46PM|#
Violate the laws of thermodynamics. Create matter. Put
molecules into positions to cause animals, in ways that are not
explained by molecular physics, etc.
Call me crazy, but I think that scientists of the future might be
able to do one or more of these things. Of course, when a future
scientists send thermal energy into some unobservable dimension,
you'll just say that the laws of thermodynamics weren't violated,
tey were just expanded to accommodate a fuller understanding of the
universe. Or some dodge like that.
|10.13.05 @ 3:54PM|#
"I think that scientists of the future might be able to do one
or more of these things."
Ok, but when they do, they will be able to explain it with
causation. They will assert a law that makes predictive,
falsifiable, constrained predictions, or they won't be scientists.
They won't simply say they did it by the grace of God.
|10.13.05 @ 3:55PM|#
"I think maybe if an issue is not knowable, then that means we
take it away from the scientists, not vice versa. "
Both. Science requires observation. If you say something can't be
observed, you have by definition taken yourself out of science.
Another way of saying it is that science does not concern itself
with the subject you are talking about.
Flip sides of the same coin. To steal some imagery.
"this is how science has come to be such a misinterpreted,
misapplied, misunderstood notion of technicalism -- a church in its
own right"
Which is ultimately the point I've been trying to make. Science
always provides qualified answers to questions on subjects that we
can't observe directly. Often, those who are criticizing ID
proponents for bringing "faith" into science are guilty of the same
mistake. They believe in evolution because it is what a certain set
of academic elite believe. That is faith. If you believe in
evolution because it is currently the theory best supported by
available evidence, that is science.
I'm personally a big fan of the punctuated equilibrium theory, with
"junk" DNA being involved in the process (although I admit I am a
few years behind on the theory, so this theory may have already
been disproved somewhere). But I recognize that it is possible that
we could discover some new piece of evidence tomorrow that turns
the field entirely on its head.
|10.13.05 @ 3:56PM|#
At any rate, your belief that these sceintists will appear is not scientific, exactly as ID isn't sceintific.
|10.13.05 @ 4:00PM|#
number 6,
I wasn't saying that science is able to lead us towards a choice of
ethic so much as there is scientific investigation into the
development of ethics in humans.
Ah, I must have misread you. That statement I'll agree with. I'd
add the caveat that just because a particular way of looking at
ethics may be evolutionarily based doesn't mean it's a good
one.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 4:14PM|#
Both. Science requires observation. If you say something
can't be observed, you have by definition taken yourself out of
science. Another way of saying it is that science does not concern
itself with the subject you are talking about.
No, my concerned here with things that are imperfectly observable,
and that may or may not be knowable. My coin flip, thief and camera
series of hypothetical was crafted in part to show that
distinction.
I don't think "observability" gets us very far as a concept. If
observable mean an eyewitness account then it would be a meaningful
requirement, but very constraining for science (eg, no more
scientific investigation of Big Bang). On the other hand, when
"observable" means observation of things that might potentially be
inferentially or causally related to issues of interest, then
everything is "observable" and our category quickly subsumes
everything.
|10.13.05 @ 4:15PM|#
but to claim in effect that concepts like hypothesis and
theory are devoid of real meaning and therefore useless in
examining the real world is absurd.
Which puts Intelligent Design in the same insipid boat as Post
Modernism.
|10.13.05 @ 4:21PM|#
That is ridiculous. It also doesn't cover people who think
the truth might or might not be knowable. Do those people get
excluded, too?
Not to pile on at the end of a long defeat, but Dave W, what dont
you understand about the word "scientific" when in proceeds the
word "discussion"? Scientific discussions center around what is
know-a-ble. So someone who thinks the truth is un-know-a-ble is
having, by its very definition, an un-sci-en-ti-fic discussion. Do
not confuse unscientific with unworthy, unvaluable, or
uninteresting It just means its not science.
|10.13.05 @ 4:24PM|#
mattc,
I would pay to see you debate a I.D. proponent.
You'd be better off getting some of the contributors at The
Panda's Thumb to debate them (they have already done so of
course).
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 4:25PM|#
hypothesis and theory are devoid of real meaning and
therefore useless in examining the real world is absurd.
Okay, G. My coin flip hypotheticals are up there for you, also. How
should the theory / hypothesis lexicon read upon my coin flipping,
partially observant, heads-believing man?
|10.13.05 @ 4:29PM|#
Link to the Wikipedia entry for Scientific Method
Dave, at this point I can only assume that you are willfully
ignorant, but here's a link to info on the scientific method all
the same.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 4:29PM|#
Often, those who are criticizing ID proponents for bringing
"faith" into science are guilty of the same mistake.
wouldn't argue with you there, mr quasibill.
Post Modernism
which, at least, doesn't claim to be science. :)
|10.13.05 @ 4:31PM|#
Jason-
Sig P226. Newer design. Got it used from the range where I'm a
member. Reasonable price.
I ordered 2 of the 17 round magazines from MecGar. It came with a
15 round magazine. The waiting period was up on Tuesday, but
tonight will be the first chance I've had to pick it up. I have a
lockbox secured to my bedframe, easy to unlock quickly.
I'm quite happy with the purchase.
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 4:32PM|#
How should the theory / hypothesis lexicon read upon my coin
flipping, partially observant, heads-believing man?
mr w, what you have is no data. whatever you deduce from your
speculations on what the coin might have been has to be speculation
and fantasy.
|10.13.05 @ 4:34PM|#
"Close. --And philosophy class is where origin of life
discussions . . .-- much better."
If you are saying there are gaps in evolutionary theory and then
present reasoned arguments based on scientific research that leads
you to a falsifiable hypothesis that closes the gaps - that is
science.
If you say there are gaps in evolutionary theory and in those gaps
you find the hand of an intelligent agent that can't be proven by
science but makes sense if you apply logic - that is
philosophy.
|10.13.05 @ 4:39PM|#
Just skimming through to see if anyone has made the Secret Intelligent Designers and their Secret Intelligent Designs comment yet.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 4:43PM|#
mr w, what you have is no data. whatever you deduce from
your speculations on what the coin might have been has to be
speculation and fantasy.
same first response as I got out of the last player. Fair enough.
We now move to my 2d hypothetical (see above) where we have a
million and one observations and a 75.00% success rate. Theory?
Hypothesis? Speculation? Fantasy? Less-than-conjecture?
|10.13.05 @ 4:45PM|#
I actually just finished a good book on this subject called
Summer of the Gods.
I bet it wasn't as good as the paperback I just finished called
Heather of the Nymphs.
|10.13.05 @ 4:49PM|#
My take on why the ID people will never be able to come up with
a testable limit on evolution:
I actually have some sympathy for people who go out and search for
fundamental limits on natural processes. Some of the most profound
advances in physics have contained impossibility theorems:
Conservation laws, the second law of thermodynamics, relativity
(nothing can go faster than light), the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, information theory, etc.
The problem is that every living thing in existence today WAS
formed by natural processes, since every living organism around
today has a parent. And every single sexually reproducing organism
is at least slightly different from its parents on a genetic level
(the asexually reproducing organisms may also be different due to
random mutation, but not every one will exhibit mutations).
So the task for ID people is to make an impossibility statement
that applies not to today's organisms, but rather to organisms that
existed at some time in the past. Irreducible complexity sounded
nice, but it is purely qualitative and hence non-rigorous, the
method of analysis ultimately depends on the limitations of
imagination as much as on any fundamental limit, and most (all?) of
the examples put forth by Behe have been debunked.
I know less about Dembski. I know that he's more quantitative
(yay!), but as somebody who's getting his feet wet in theoretical
biophysics I am very skeptical of anybody who puts forth a Grand
Unified Theory of Biology. Biology is so rich, diverse, and
detailed that it is a fool's errand to think that a single
quantitative theory will be definitive and rule out everything that
it needs to rule out. Theories in biophysics hinge on assumptions,
and are only as applicable as their assumptions. Also, information
theory is closed linked to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and
there is a long, ignoble history of creationists abusing the Second
Law. Any creationist analysis in that territory should raise plenty
of red flags.
I know that other posters could undoubtedly discuss the precise
manner in which Dembski's been debunked, and I'm sure the debunkers
are right. I'm following the time-honored tradition in physics of
making estimates BEFORE jumping into the literature. It helps us
identify issues to look for as we read, and to have some tools in
mind for making sense of what we read. Since the centerpiece of my
dissertation was basically one big exercise in estimating BEFORE
reading, and since I got some good results from it, I feel
comfortable doing this, and I don't give a damn what the
better-read might think.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 4:52PM|#
If you say there are gaps in evolutionary theory and in
those gaps you find the hand of an intelligent agent that can't be
proven by science but makes sense if you apply logic - that is
philosophy.
What if you say there are gaps in evolutionary theory and I find
that I have no idea what might or might not be in thoise gaps, no
idea whether it is divine or naturalistic, no idea if I will find
deliberate or non-deliberate forces in those gaps. I apply logic
and all the observations humankind can muster, but I still haven't
closed the gaps, at least as of October 2005.
What then? Philosophy? Science? Something else?
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 4:54PM|#
we have a million and one observations and a 75.00% success
rate.
you have there an observation set, mr w.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 5:02PM|#
The problem is that every living thing in existence today
WAS formed by natural processes, since every living organism around
today has a parent.
How do you know this? How did you convince yourself that no active
interventions (ie, unnatural processes) at the molecular level in
the DNA structure took place when the eggs met the sperm to make
today's generation?
On a more mundane note: when farmer's breed cattle isn't this a
non-natural part of the formation of a population of cattle? Was
the Holocaust natural or non-natural in this sense?
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 5:03PM|#
we have a million and one observations and a 75.00% success
rate.
you have there an observation set, mr w.
Joe said that is meant "weak hypothesis" (but not theory). Was he
correct?
|10.13.05 @ 5:05PM|#
BTW, this thread offers a useful sociology lesson:
I recall other evolution threads where gaius marius has devoted
more of his energy to arguing with, well, most of us. Why? I think
some of it has to do with the degree of religion-bashing in some of
those threads. But this thread has been conspicuous for its absence
of religion-bashing. With religion-bashing off the table, gaius has
argued quite powerfully against the notion that ID can somehow
qualify as science, as this notion is an affront to his
intellectual sensibilities.
The lesson? That indiscriminate religion-bashing can turn off some
very intelligent people who otherwise agree with you. Learn to
distinguish between intelligent theists and intelligent design
fans, and you might just find yourself with an unexpected ally.
|10.13.05 @ 5:08PM|#
Well, Dave W, biologists haven't quantitatively and directly observed every single molecular process during embryonic development, but detailed observations in a wide range of species have yet to uncover any phenomena suggestive of divine intervention during embryonic development, or even mitosis.
|10.13.05 @ 5:08PM|#
Well, Dave W, biologists haven't quantitatively and directly observed every single molecular process during embryonic development, but detailed observations in a wide range of species have yet to uncover any phenomena suggestive of divine intervention during embryonic development, or even mitosis.
|10.13.05 @ 5:09PM|#
Sorry about the 3 posts in a row. The second one was a response
to something that appeared while composing the first one. The third
was an error with hitting a button, and the fourth one here is an
apology.
I'll quit now before I embarass myself with any further consecutive
posts.
|10.13.05 @ 5:11PM|#
To Dave-In fact, the arguments for the Big Bang DO draw upon
observable things, like measuring the left over radiation and the
movement of galaxies.
Other's have mentioned things like string theory, but this has been
put forward because it has explanatory value, much like Freuds id
and superego, and has not been accepted as proven (and will not be
until empirical research can verify it).
Now to quasibill: yes, some people, in fact all people, as a sort
of pragmatism, accept things on 'faith' from experts in this or
that feild. Few of us know every reason why we should take medecine
prescribed for us by doctors, or reject the deal our lawyer told us
not to, etc.. We can't all be doctors and lawyers and to some
extent must rely on the consensus of experts, especially when we
can feel that their 'games' or fields are not rigged (the way they
were rigged when religion ran the show centuries ago, or when
ideology runs the show as in the case of Lysenko in the USSR). And
about 99% of PhD biologists and geologists all think evolution to
be sound and ID to be worthless. Yes, at some point, if we wanted
to take a few years off, they should have to prove this to us. But
that 99% of scientists in the currently very open environment are
somehow duping us on this is hard to buy.
Having said that, there is plenty of easy to interpret evidence
that suggests the lack of, not the presence of, an intelligent
designer (why are bats wings, dogs paws, and human hands all based
on the same structural ingredients, what intelligent designer would
have done that? Or the Panda's thumb? Or the Penguin? Etc. Why is
the fossil record the way it is? Why the genetic relatedness of
animals that in theory we would expect to be related if they
evolved?).
This is a common trick by Ider's: it is really science that is the
religion or dogma. Puh-Leeze. Scientists radically doubt just about
everything, and Darwinism has not only been challenged at every
stage, but had to prove itself against an established ID theory in
the course of centuries. IDer's are not similar in their
willingness to test their assumptions. They are apologists.
fyodor|10.13.05 @ 5:14PM|#
Seems like the religion threads are even longer than the sex
threads.
Maybe that's because we all agree on sex!
|10.13.05 @ 5:14PM|#
"What if you say there are gaps in evolutionary theory and I
find that I have no idea what might or might not be in thoise gaps,
no idea whether it is divine or naturalistic, no idea if I will
find deliberate or non-deliberate forces in those gaps. I apply
logic and all the observations humankind can muster, but I still
haven't closed the gaps, at least as of October 2005.
What then? Philosophy? Science? Something else?"
I'd say you think too much. Chill, have a beer and watch the MLB
playoffs. A-Rod choking is all the proof of divine intervention I
need. :-)
But seriously, I'd say leave the biology to the scientists and
discussions on the nature of it all to the philosophers and
theologians. Check back on their progress in 2006, 2007,
2008...
|10.13.05 @ 5:16PM|#
But this thread has been conspicuous for its absence of
religion-bashing.
Hey! Can't a guy take a break? ;)
gaius marius|10.13.05 @ 5:20PM|#
How do you know this?
induction by enumeration -- no one who was watching closely has
ever witnessed anything else.
i grant you that there may exist a mosquito in the amazon created
directly from god's will with no apparentation -- but if you want
to be taught in science class, you'd better establish an
observation to falsify that theory which has not yet been
falsified.
I don't think "observability" gets us very far as a concept. If
observable mean an eyewitness account then it would be a meaningful
requirement, but very constraining for science (eg, no more
scientific investigation of Big Bang).
people observe evidence and apply those theories and laws which we
have yet to falsify to the data to reach the conclusion that
something is also not false.
the big bang, as it happens, is an interesting example -- it was a
theory which was formed from extant observations (hubble's galactic
doppler shift) and the application of unfalsified laws of physics.
it yielded a prediction -- the existence of microwave background
radiation of 3 kelvin. this was subsequently observed -- in other
words, the theory was predictive and survived an attempt at
falsification.
there is no eyewitness account of the event, of course -- but it
was (until recently) an unfalsified theory explaining the creation
of the universe. do you see how observation needn't be direct when
data is consistent with all unfalsified theories?
On the other hand, when "observable" means observation of things
that might potentially be inferentially or causally related to
issues of interest, then everything is "observable" and our
category quickly subsumes everything.
wrong. not everything is deductable from observation because some
things are false. if hubble's shift had been blue instead of red --
or if the microwave radiation had not been there -- the big bang
(as we know it) would not be an unfalsified theory. it would join
falsified discards like the heliocentric universe.
i feel like i'm explaining this stuff to someone who has never
seriously considered these issues before today.
|10.13.05 @ 5:27PM|#
Gaius makes fine points, if I had seen his post before mine I
would not have mentioned the Big Bang and the observable facets of
it.
I would like to ask Mrs Dave and Quasibill this: if we come across
other natural and social scientific theories that have "gaps"
should we then conclude that the naturalistic scientific method
just can't explain things and invoke a supernatural explanation? I
mean, the Law of Gravity, the Law of Supply and Demand, the Theory
of Relativity, all have "gaps" don't they? None of them are not
still being tweaked and worked on, none are thought to have
provided all the answers on the subject and now we can go
home...Why pick on Darwin and his theory?
|10.13.05 @ 5:35PM|#
Epistimology aside, it's very clear that the ID folks are not
selling science but selling magical belief wrapped in the lab coats
of science. All this bulljive about how students should be exposed
to "alternate theories" is just a smokescreen to drive reasonable
non-scientists into philisophical debates on the nature of
science.
The theory that "God or aliens designed everything" tells us
nothing about the nature of living creatures, is completely useless
for making predictions, and explains absolutely nothing.
Science is a method for gaining knowledge about the world.
Intelligent Design is not science, because it provides us with no
knowledge whatsoever.
|10.13.05 @ 6:02PM|#
What if you say there are gaps in evolutionary theory and I
find that I have no idea what might or might not be in thoise gaps,
no idea whether it is divine or naturalistic, no idea if I will
find deliberate or non-deliberate forces in those gaps. I apply
logic and all the observations humankind can muster, but I still
haven't closed the gaps, at least as of October 2005.
The answer is science. Perhaps the scientists have to step back and
look at it from a different perspective, or perhaps they have to
wait for an advancement in another field, like biochem or
physics.
What you're saying is akin to someone in 1850 declaring that an
aircraft cannot ever possibly travel faster than the speed of
sound. Given what was known in 1850, yeah, that's true. Given what
we know today? ha.
That's the thing, science says "hey, we have a gap in our
knowledge, and we're not sure how to solve it. Perhaps we never
will, but it's still worth taking a look."
Whereas the ID crowd throw their arms up and say "Well, we can't
possibly understand it, so it must have been Flying Spaghetti
Monster, or The Greys, or God or some other supernatural force. So
why even bother?"
C/ID is a defeatist attitude, one that, at it's base shuts down
intellectual inquiry.
|10.13.05 @ 6:12PM|#
thoreau,
...intelligent theists...
Hmm, I suppose you'll start prattling on about "military
intelligence," next, eh? :)
|10.13.05 @ 6:16PM|#
Epistimology aside, it's very clear that the ID folks are
not selling science but selling magical belief wrapped in the lab
coats of science.
Which puts them on roughly the same scientific and style footing as
the Dillard's employees behind the cosmetics counter at your local
mall.
|10.13.05 @ 6:19PM|#
moonbiter,
Those who advocate I.D. are either knuckle-dragging morons or
something far, far worse.
|10.13.05 @ 6:20PM|#
Before Hak goes off on a great big religion bashing tangent, I'd just like to point out that he is, indeed, a dick.
|10.13.05 @ 6:24PM|#
mediageek,
By your own implied admission, you don't know what I am. :)
Who needs to bash religion? Shit, religionists do enough via their
own efforts to demonstrate how silly their ideas are.
|10.13.05 @ 6:27PM|#
Right. In the meantime, could you wait for another religion thread to pounce on? I'm sure one will be along in the next ten minutes or so.
|10.13.05 @ 6:30PM|#
mediageek,
No. I don't take marching orders from someone such as yourself
whose sole claim to fame is an internet connection. :)
You can now piss on yourself if you would like to. Is there a
reason you want to pick a fight with someone who will kick your ass
from Penn Station to Narita International? :)
|10.13.05 @ 6:38PM|#
Hak, I didn't give "marching orders." I simply made a request.
For someone who gets off on nitpicking the niggling little
grammatical inconsistencies in posts I'd think you'd understand the
difference between a question mark and a period.
Is there a reason you want to pick a fight with someone who
will kick your ass from Penn Station to Narita International?
:)
If not for the smilie, I'd accuse you of being an Ice Cream
Commando. Not the first, not the last, and certainly not the most
threatening.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 7:07PM|#
but if you want to be taught in science class, you'd better
establish an observation to falsify that theory which has not yet
been falsified.
why not just say:
there might be a crreature(s) created by God. Science doesn't know,
can't know and probably won't know in your lifetime whether this is
true or false, or even what the odds are.
That is a lot easier to understand (esp for a high schooler) than
that piece of text you recite. Why the arcane terminolgy, when my
words give you a clearer picture, which yet retains the beauty of
perfect accuracy?
fyodor|10.13.05 @ 7:19PM|#
Dave W.,
The answer to your question is that it does not make sense to say
that "science doesn't know" etc. Who is science? It might be
reasonable to say that we don't know or humans don't know.
What it has to do with science is nada because by its very nature
something that can't be known or falsified is not part of
scientific inquiry.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 7:22PM|#
wrong. not everything is deductable from observation because
some things are false.
I didn't say "everything is deductable through observation."
Rather, I said "observability" cannot serve as a meaningful
criteria to separate scientific questions from non-scientific ones.
Very different proposition.
i feel like i'm explaining this stuff to someone who has never
seriously considered these issues before today.
Of course you do, because you aren't listening to what I am saying.
The previous example is just one of a couple in your post.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 7:23PM|#
I'd go with "science-minded humans." That seems simple and evocative enough for a 10th grader.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 7:28PM|#
What it has to do with science is nada because by its very
nature something that can't be known or falsified is not part of
scientific inquiry.
That is correct. You are malking it clear to the children what
subjects science (or science-minded ppl) can't opine upon
legitimately. I reckon this is at least as important as knowing
what subjects science can opine upon. The mistake we are trying to
save the students from is the mistake that if science is not
qualified to opine upon a matter does not mean that we can assume
anything about the truth or falsity of the matter based upon this
disqualification. That should be common sense, but I think you see
what I am getting at here -- it ain't common.
|10.13.05 @ 7:36PM|#
there might be a crreature(s) created by God. Science
doesn't know, can't know and probably won't know in your lifetime
whether this is true or false, or even what the odds
are.
How do you know this? Prove it.
Again, it points to the completely non-scientific, antithetical
view you espouse with regard to science.
You don't even seem to grasp the very basic tenets of what
constitutes scientific understanding and how one arrives at a
conclusion!
Throughout this entire thread you concoct cockamamie hypothetical
situations, and then try to change the rules of the game midstream
by making up all sorts of nonesense like hidden cameras and
experimenters that catch a glimpse of a coin.
What you fail to understand is that even if your one experiment is
somehow flawed due to hidden cameras, or Tommy Lee's schlong, or
whatever, that similar experiments undertaken by other
experimenters will reveal this flaw. The term for this is Peer
Review
You, along with every other C/ID proponent has painted himself into
a a corner by trying to foist untestable philosophical meanderings
off on the public in an attempt to protect yourselves from some
falsely perceived threat to your faith.
Feel free to continue playing for the C/ID team, but just be aware
that you people are midstream in the biggest scientific smackdown
since Galileo's mainstreaming of Heliocentric theory.
In the end, the more you push for this, the more foolish you will
look.
|10.13.05 @ 7:38PM|#
iTunes new TV Show download service is bee's knees, BTW.
:)
Only if you're too goddamned stupid to find the same shows for free
in 1080i HD format via BitTorrent. Other than that, though,
sure.
there might be a crreature(s) created by God. Science doesn't
know, can't know and probably won't know in your lifetime whether
this is true or false, or even what the odds are.
Shouldn't we first establish whether a god exists before surmising
whether there are or aren't creatures that might or might not have
been created by it?
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 7:50PM|#
Shouldn't we first establish whether a god exists before
surmising whether there are or aren't creatures that might or might
not have been created by it?
Sure, I love it when my fellow teachers get all collegial up in the
lesson plan. Revised per your request:
There might be a higher or alien intelligence somwhere in the
universe. Science doesn't know, can't know and probably won't know
in your lifetime whether this is true or false, or even what the
odds are. Likewise, there might be a creature(s) here on Earth
created by a god or an alien. Science doesn't know, can't know and
probably won't know in your lifetime whether this is true or false,
or even what the odds are.
Thanks for the input, P.
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 7:57PM|#
C/ID proponent
Make no mistake, when I think of these big issues using only reson
and credible factual knowledge alone, I am agnostic. Not a
proponent of any of the possibilities. It is the correct scientific
attitude for a scientist to have when faced with these
"non-falsifiable" (did I get the terminology right) possibilities.
And like any good agnostic, I don't want anybody mistaking
"non-falsifiable" for "untrue," "unlikely," "impossible" or any of
the other similar mistaken equivalences that seem to crop up
whenever non-religious people discuss these non-falsifiable
possibilities.
|10.13.05 @ 7:58PM|#
There might be a higher or alien intelligence somwhere in
the universe. Science doesn't know, can't know and probably won't
know in your lifetime whether this is true or false, or even what
the odds are.
See, now you're following into your own trap:
1. How do you know what the odds are that science can't
know and won't know -- with any reasonable degree of confidence --
whether there is or isn't a "higher" (whatever that means) or alien
intelligence in the universe?
2. What information are you using to establish these odds?
3. How are you extrapolating the relatively likelihoods of "can't"
and "won't" from that information?
|10.13.05 @ 8:00PM|#
See, Dave, the point is that what you propose is an utter waste of time in a science class, because it all reduces down to: "Um, maybe something exists. But maybe not." So what? Move on, talk about what actual science actually tells us. What's the point of an ever-increasing spiral of ontological navel-gazing in the middle of a biology class?
Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 8:08PM|#
What's the point of an ever-increasing spiral of ontological
navel-gazing in the middle of a biology class?
Because it is the only part of biology class that we are motivated
to discuss 10 or 20 years after the biology class is over.
|10.13.05 @ 9:28PM|#
Notice how Dave here never admitted his goofy error about the
Big Bang and observability (pointed out by several folks in reply
to him, the Big Bang is verified by observable, replicable
evidence). He finds where he can wiggle, and wiggles on, hoping we
let the points he misses by a mile drop, playing semantics and
saying little.
There was a famous bestselling book recently named On Bullsh*t. Not
everyone plays the honest game of intellectual inquiry the same,
some, like most IDer's, want to construct clever apologies to
protect ideas dear to them, others just think it is fun to wiggle
where they can intellectually, even though they have little idea
what in the world they are talking about. I submit one look at the
empirical evidence to see which class Dave falls in ;).
|10.13.05 @ 9:49PM|#
This is one long thread. I've tried to follow what positions
folks are taking, but it's nearly impossible. It seems like a nice
chunk of these posts are due to people talking past each other.
More so than usual.
Maybe this would be a good time for post authors to take the time
and explain their position. Are you an ID proponent? Do you think
the theory of evolution has become a religion? Let's keep it clean,
now come out fighting.
As is related to the original post, I think Mencken's columns about
the Scopes trial were classic.
|10.13.05 @ 9:49PM|#
"There might be a higher or alien intelligence somwhere in the
universe. Science doesn't know, can't know and probably won't know
in your lifetime whether this is true or false, or even what the
odds are. Likewise, there might be a creature(s) here on Earth
created by a god or an alien. Science doesn't know, can't know and
probably won't know in your lifetime whether this is true or false,
or even what the odds are."
Just in case Dave is really trying to find truth and not just play
games. OK, yes, science doesn't know, can't know and probably won't
know in your lifetime whether there is or is not a non-natural
super-being in the universe. So let's keep this out of science
classes OK? Now, when it comes to creatures science doesn't know,
can't know and probably won't know in your lifetime that they may
have been made by a non-natural super-being who for some reason
gave us a lot of evidence to think they evolved from lower
organisms through a means of natural selection. The evidence that
makes us think they were evolved from lower organisms is natural
and empirically available, so that can go in a science class. But
the idea that maybe a non-natural super-being just placed this
evidence in His/Her/It's creation, being something you admit we
cannot speculate on, does not belong in science classes.
Isn't that case closed, or checkmate or something?
|10.13.05 @ 9:52PM|#
Gee Dave, I guess you are the goofy one because my quote
is:
"the Big Bang is verified by observable, replicable evidence"
And the laws of, er, grammar (which you may find gaps in) would say
that it is the EVIDENCE for the Big Bang that is replicable. And,
er, it is.
|10.13.05 @ 10:13PM|#
The Big Bang is replicable? And I'm the goofy
one?
Is English your first language?
|10.13.05 @ 11:11PM|#
The Big Bang only happened once (well, unless there were
expansion and contraction cycles, but I don't know the status of
those theories), but it can be inferred from multiple lines of
observations. In that sense, the Big Bang can be studied in a
reproducible manner: You can check somebody else's work.
Sciences with strong historical components like cosmology and
evolution do indeed pose philosophical issues not found in other
sciences. A science teacher would be doing his students a service
to delve into those issues in an honest and thorough manner.
However, an honest and thorough discussion of those issues would be
very different from the disclaimers promoted by creationists. Their
disclaimers promote the "I don't really need to consider this shit"
brand of skepticism. An honest discussion of the issues in
historical sciences would promote the "Don't make too many
assumptions" brand of skepticism.
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 2:09AM|#
Or perhaps you just have a learning disability?
No. It is clear now that Ken meant "repeatable" or "verifiable,"
which he subtly mischaracterized with the word "replicable." Now
that he explained his odd usage, I undertsand the statement he made
about the Big Bang. Retard.
|10.14.05 @ 3:48AM|#
""Who made thunder?" was considered evidence of God, until
we answered that question. Did this disprove God? No, believers
simply reoriented their beliefs. Does this disprove God? No, it
just shows that the existence of God is not something that can
proven scientifically.
Exactly.
There are two distinct questions here:
1) Did something create life as we know it?
2) Is there a God?
"Something" could have "created" life on earth, in the same sense
that homo sapiens now "creates" machines. Who knows? Maybe some day
people will know, or maybe not. But this "something" does not have
to be God.
There is no particular moral significance to the answer in any
event. "I yam what I yam" as Popeye the Sailor Man put it. Home
sapiens is what it is.
But as far as the question of whether or not there's a God, it can
never be either proven or disproven. Why do you think every religon
in history has, implicitly or explicitly, stated that it is based
on faith?
You cannot "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God, because
nobody has ever defined "God" -- and because, at every attempted
definition, the believers yowl "But that's not what I mean by
God!".
What is God? You can say "God created the universe and everything
in it." Fine, that tells me something this God supposedly did. But
it does not tell me what God is.
A is A. A cannot be both A and non-A, at the same time and in the
same respect. The fact that "God" evades any definition means that
God cannot be proven or disproven. If "God" has a definition, it is
"beyond logic".
This is religion's ultimate, self-made haven. All attempts at
assault are futile. You either buy the hypothesis -- and that is
all that God has ever amounted to, and ever will amount to -- or
you dismiss it.
You can consider yourself "open minded" and say "maybe someday,
somebody will come up with a definition of God and we prove or
disprove". Or you can be rational and say "there will never be a
definition, hence no proof will ever be possible".
Your choice. Whatever floats your boat, blows your skirt up, and
makes you feel sooooo gooood.
Biology? Mutating cosmic quantum thunder rays, all floating about
in a curved space-time dis-continuum? Fergit that shit. You're
wasting your time.
The real lost souls in this universe are the ones who think they
can somehow use reason to get beyond the issue of faith. It ain't
ever gonna happen....
I think H&R should have an online fighter's pit for when
exchanges get too heated. I imagine something like Rock-em Sock-em
Robots.
Slick idea, but it'll have to be a Rock-Em Sock-Em Battle Field.
Otherwise it'll take a century to rotate all the contenders through
the ring.
"I wager 10 quatloos on the liberal!"
I'll wager 10 on the true and simple believers of the Religious
Right, and 10 more on the vastly outnumbered true and simple
atheists. These two groups have the edge, you see, because
everybody else has gotten lost splitting
psuedo-scientific,philosophically quantized, biologically evolving
hairs, which are being blown about by cosmic phonons. As decreed by
God Almighty, perhaps. Or perhaps not.
Every day it takes these lost souls longer to explain what
they really mean, than it did the day before. It's gotten
to the point where they neither time nor energy left to
fight.
The believers, they just believe, and the unbelievers, they just
don't believe. How pathetically unsophisticated of them!
|10.14.05 @ 4:01AM|#
You know, this sucks. I live on the west coast, and it's almost
always late when I get time to read and post on here. By then
everybody else went to bed.....so all I get to do is watch
everybody else have the skunk fights.
waaa!
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 7:39AM|#
disclaimers promoted by creationists
there are no creationists here. However, Phil and I worked together
and came up with a libertarian disclaimer to satisfy everybody.
Here it is:
There might be a higher or alien intelligence somwhere in
the universe. Science doesn't know, can't know and probably won't
know in your lifetime whether this is true or false, or even what
the odds are. Likewise, there might be a creature(s) here on Earth
created by a god or an alien. Science doesn't know, can't know and
probably won't know in your lifetime whether this is true or false,
or even what the odds are.
actually, I think of this as more of an outline for a 45 minute
lesson. You will notice that this disclaimer is totally true and
doesn't discourage anybody from everything. It is rather astatement
of premises that both the scientists and fundies understand and
agree upon. That makes it a really good "diclaimer." You're
welcome, T.
|10.14.05 @ 8:01AM|#
mediageek,
You really do need to calm down.
As to marching orders, well, rather insistent demands can be
followed by question marks, so the choice of punctuation isn't the
defintive demarcation that you claim that it is.
|10.14.05 @ 8:04AM|#
Phil,
Only if you're too goddamned stupid to find the same shows for
free in 1080i HD format via BitTorrent.
Which is of course against the wishes of the owners' of that
content. Of course I guess honoring property rights is "stupid" to
some people.
|10.14.05 @ 8:10AM|#
Phil,
Oh, and I don't know about you, but I'd like to encourage a
successful system of "pay for content" music, video, etc. downloads
for rather obvious reasons.
|10.14.05 @ 8:12AM|#
Phil,
That I have to actually detail these arguments demonstrates who is
truly stupid here - meaning you.
|10.14.05 @ 8:16AM|#
"Now to quasibill: yes, some people, in fact all people, as a
sort of pragmatism, accept things on 'faith' from experts in this
or that feild."
This so flips what I said that I wonder if it is an intentional
attempt at obfuscation. I never said it was wrong to rely on
experts. I admit that I do - most of the science I believe I have
never actually observed. By definition then, I must be placing
faith in experts for that info.
My point was that if you believe evolution is truth because that is
what you are told is true, and that no questioning or doubting of
the theory is permissible, you are acting on faith, not science.
If, however, you believe evolution is truth because it is what is
currently best supported by available evidence, but acknowledge
that there is room for reasonable doubts about particulars, and
that new evidence could appear tomorrow that completely discredits
it as a theory, then you are acting in a scientific manner, even if
you have made no personal observations on the subject at all, and
are relying on the opinions of others to form your opinion.
That's one of the points I've been trying to make all along -
contending that IDers are wrong because they doubt evolution is
opening the door for IDers to poke holes in your logic. Where IDers
are wrong is in trying to use the equivalent of the logical no-no
of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Also, they go
wrong in "moving the goal posts" every time contradictory evidence
appears and yet still propounding a positive hypothesis.
But if you get bogged down arguing some of their hypotheses of
irreducible complexity of specific features, you have to
acknowledge you are having a scientific discussion with them.
Usually, you can refute them with evidence. Sometimes you can't,
but inevitably, one of the multitude of research paths out there
does produce usable evidence to refute it. But if you dismiss such
discussions as un-scientific, you fall into a trap where they can
discredit you and evolution.
Further, I shouldn't be grouped with Dave W. - as I've noted, I
don't believe in ID. I also acknowledge that by definition, science
can't deal with the unknowable. So, to steal a quote from Joe,
maybe you should stop arguing with the quasi in your head.
|10.14.05 @ 8:23AM|#
"Every day it takes these lost souls longer to explain what they
really mean, than it did the day before. It's gotten to the point
where they neither time nor energy left to fight."
I must have had some sort of psychic link to you at the time. I was
going to bed a little earlier here on the EC and had a similar
revelation when sorting through all my posts in my mind trying to
figure out if i had learned anything from the discussion.
Your post sums up my conclusion fairly well.
|10.14.05 @ 8:42AM|#
JL:
I don't immediately remember the exact model number of my incoming
S&W, but it's a .38/.357 7-shot, 6-barrel, pretty standard
looking from what I saw.
Of course, I'll have to modify my dirty Harry speech: "Was it 6
shots, or 7...?"
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 8:55AM|#
Further, I shouldn't be grouped with Dave W. - as I've
noted, I don't believe in ID. I also acknowledge that by
definition, science can't deal with the unknowable.
1. Nor do I "believe in" ID, at least when I occupy a scientific
and reson based position, as I have in every post in this
discussion. I said this above in the post that begins "C/ID
proponent." You might have missed it, this is along thread. Anyway,
welcome back to my group!
2. I do have mixed feelings about whether science should deal with
the unknowable. My gut feeling is that it should (so long as it is
remains forthright and candid about what it does not know). Some of
my earlier posts in this thread reflect this line of thinking.
However, so many on this thread have said categorically and firmly
that unknowable issues are outside of the domain of science that I
decided tentatively to go along with this limitation tentatively,
at least so we could agree on a good lesson plan that explains to
the children what science does not know. So, to some up, I
personally could go either way on this
should-science-opine-on-unknowable issues debate. You science types
get your ducks in a row on this and get back to me.
|10.14.05 @ 8:55AM|#
Only if you're too goddamned stupid to find the same
shows for free in 1080i HD format via
BitTorrent.
Which is of course against the wishes of the owners' of that
content. Of course I guess honoring property rights is "stupid" to
some people.
You do realize, dummy, that that same HD signal is broadcast
free-to-air by network affiliates where HD signals are available*,
right? And that you can grab it right out of the air for $0.00? So
the owners' wishes are, apparently, that people can watch the
program for free. That I should have to detail this argument to you
indicates who the really stupid one is. (It's you, if
you've lost your scorecard.)
So please, O Wise One, explain how me getting a BitTorrent of a
program offered free-to-air by broadcasters differs in any
meaningful way from me simply Tivoing the same program, or
borrowing a friend's VHS or home-recorded DVD of the same
program?
If you are prepared to pay $1.99 a pop for something that's offered
straight to your HD antenna or cable system by broadcasters for
free, it is in fact you who are not only stupid, but painfully
so.
I don't require a lecture from you on pay-to-download structures,
as I was using eMusic.com long before downloads were ever trendy
and when players topped out at 128MB, and have spent more on iTunes
than I'm sure is average.
*Considering that the iTunes TV download deal is exclusively with
ABC/Disney right now: As of January 2005, according to ABC, 132 of
225 ABC affiliate stations were broadcasting their HD signal, with
61 of those broadcasting in 5.1 sound. All for free. But you're
excited to pay $1.99 for something that's free. And I'm
the stupid one.
Click here
for a complete list of ABC markets where free-to-air HD programming
is available.
|10.14.05 @ 8:58AM|#
An interesting conversation degenerating into multiply posted insults and assertions of personal superiority--wow, who could have possibly imagined that this would happen when Hak came back?
|10.14.05 @ 9:02AM|#
What surprises me the most is that evolution threads always beat
100 posts, and frequently 200 posts. Usually the evolution threads
involve everybody else arguing with a couple of people who aren't
even creationists but are just kind of upset that we're being mean
to creationists, or else they aren't firm creationists but they're
sort of wavering and thinking about goin there.
On Iraq threads, however, where the division is much more even
(compared to evolution) and many of the opinions on both sides are
much more starkly opposing, we usually manage to keep it below 100,
and certainly below 200.
What gives? How is it that something where the disagreements are so
small, and where the opposition isn't even all that much opposed,
can generate so many posts?
|10.14.05 @ 9:03AM|#
Phil,
You do realize, dummy, that that same HD signal is broadcast
free-to-air by network affiliates where HD signals are available*,
right?
Its not "free to air." Its paid for via advertisers that run
commercials during the broadcast.
So the owners' wishes are, apparently, that people can watch
the program for free.
No, the owners' wishes are that you can watch the programming via
rabbit ears (or what have you) so long as you watch it
WITH commercials. And how the owners' choose to
distribute their content is their business; or are you dishonestly
suggesting that that the owners' like their content being
distrubuted via bittorrent?
|10.14.05 @ 9:07AM|#
Jennifer,
Yes, Phil insulting me was all my fault. After all, I didn't
actually direct any comments to him, but it remains my fault
nonetheless. Your reasoning is what I expect from English
majors.
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 9:07AM|#
You do realize, dummy, that that same HD signal is broadcast
free-to-air by network affiliates where HD signals are available*,
right? And that you can grab it right out of the air for $0.00? So
the owners' wishes are, apparently, that people can watch the
program for free.
It would be fun to watch Phil try this defense in a modern US
court. Hammer time!
|10.14.05 @ 9:07AM|#
How is it that something where the disagreements are so
small, and where the opposition isn't even all that much opposed,
can generate so many posts?
Because some people require at least three posts to say "You're an
idiot and I'm better than you."
|10.14.05 @ 9:10AM|#
Jennifer-
To be fair, not all of the insults in this thread came from
Hakluyt.
Honestly, though, I still don't get it: On Iraq, we have a bunch of
people on both sides who disagree on a great deal. On evolution,
most of the arguments seem to be "Well, I'm pretty sure evolution
is right, but you evolutionists shouldn't be so smugly confident
about something that you can't observe directly."
Yet we still go 200+ posts. I'm just as guilty as anybody else, of
course.
|10.14.05 @ 9:10AM|#
Dave W.,
It never ceases to amaze me the sort of intellectual hoops people
will put themselves through to justify their "free" downloading of
content they know that the distributor wants to be paid for.
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 9:11AM|#
How is it that something where the disagreements are so
small, and where the opposition isn't even all that much opposed,
can generate so many posts?
Because when somebody puts up a disclaimer language designed to
accommodate both sides, nobody pays attention and certainly nobody
endorses this kind of honest compromise (except me, the humble
disclaimer drafter). The power to end this debate about high school
science classes is in your hands, T. When a reasonable proposal
pops up on the table (as it has on this thread), you can't just
ignore it or we end up with too-long threads.
|10.14.05 @ 9:12AM|#
thoreau,
As in most instances, my insults were responses to insulting
commentary directed at me.
|10.14.05 @ 9:12AM|#
Its not "free to air." Its paid for via advertisers that run
commercials during the broadcast.
Do you know what "free-to-air" means?
Because this sentence makes it pretty clear that you don't. I
suggest you educate yourself concerning the meaning of the phrase
before you embarrass yourself further. Any programming broadcast
over an unencrypted terrestrial signal is free-to-air; the funding
model for production, be it advertiser-supported in the US or
license-supported in the UK, has no bearing on the meaning of the
phrase. Christ, if you're going to be a pedant, know what the terms
mean.
No, the owners' wishes are that you can watch the programming
via rabbit ears (or what have you) so long as you watch it WITH
commercials.
1) Nobody said anything about watching it without commercials.
Somebody said something about timeshifting via BitTorrent, Tivo,
VHS or DVD.
2) The owners can only control what is included in the broadcast
signal. They can not prevent me from muting the sound during
commercials, taking a dump during commercials, making a sandwich
during commercials, or skipping them altogether via timeshifting
and fast-forwarding. So that's a dead-end argument.
And how the owners' choose to distribute their content is their
business
Yes, and they distribute it free-to-air.
|10.14.05 @ 9:13AM|#
True enough, Thoreau, but as a scientist you are no doubt familiar with the definition and function of a "catalyst."
|10.14.05 @ 9:16AM|#
Phil,
Do the owners of the content want you downloading the content via
bittorrent or not?
When you download content via bittorrent, does it have commercials
in it or not?
They can not prevent me from muting the sound during
commercials, taking a dump during commercials, making a sandwich
during commercials, or skipping them altogether via timeshifting
and fast-forwarding.
Which are altogether different things from copying the content and
then sharing it with others via bittorrent.
|10.14.05 @ 9:17AM|#
It never ceases to amaze me the sort of intellectual hoops
people will put themselves through to justify their "free"
downloading of content they know that the distributor wants to be
paid for.
Are you under the misimpression that if I forget to set my DVR to
catch Lost, and look for a BitTorrent, that the program
producer doesn't get paid for my viewing of the program? Because I
can assure you that he does, and in fact already has been.
What ABC/Disney is actually doing here is rent-seeking -- trying to
get $1.99 a pop from people who forget to set their DVR/VHS/DVD and
can't borrow a copy from a friend who did record it. I'd do it too,
if I owned Disney, but from the viewers end, it's pretty dumb,
unless you have a pressing need to see the show RIGHT NOW, and on a
small screen.
|10.14.05 @ 9:22AM|#
Do the owners of the content want you downloading the
content via bittorrent or not?
Beats me. I didn't poll them. Do they want me sharing Lost
with my co-workers when they forget to record it so I slap it on a
tape from my DVR? I mean, Nielsens don't work on a +/- 1 viewer
basis, you know?
When you download content via bittorrent, does it have
commercials in it or not?
Some does, some doesn't; its academic, because I don't watch
commercials in either case.
Which are altogether different things from copying the content
and then sharing it with others via bittorrent.
Right. Doing that is more like "having a bunch of friends over to
watch the show" or "lending a friend your VHS when he forgets to
watch the show."
|10.14.05 @ 9:23AM|#
Phil,
...and look for a BitTorrent, that the program producer doesn't
get paid for my viewing of the program?
Yes, they get paid for that particular broadcast, but they are
losing the added value post-broadcast from DVD sales, etc. The
value of the content simply isn't only in the single broadcast of
the show.
...trying to get $1.99 a pop from people who forget to set
their DVR/VHS/DVD and can't borrow a copy from a friend who did
record it.
I don't own a T.V. or a DVR. Ergo, its a convenient way for me to
watch a T.V. show I'd otherwise rent from a video store months and
months later (and I am sure that I will find it especially helpful
when I am overseas). Your remarks seem to be rather densely
predicated on one particular fact scenarior.
And though you suggest it, there is nothing inherently wrong with
rent-seeking.
|10.14.05 @ 9:26AM|#
Phil,
Beats me. I didn't poll them.
Of course they don't want you doing that. Quit being purposefully
obtuse.
Some does, some doesn't; its academic, because I don't watch
commercials in either case.
That's fine of course. You are still watching the content through a
means not approved by the owners' of the content.
|10.14.05 @ 9:31AM|#
Phil,
Doing that is more like "having a bunch of friends over to
watch the show" or "lending a friend your VHS when he forgets to
watch the show."
Having a bunch of folks over isn't a problem for obvious reasons,
and suggesting that its similar to bittorrent stretches the bounds
of credulity.
In the case of the VHS tape, while its troublesome, there is simply
the practical issue that you likely copied the commercials as well
as the program and the practical matter that a VHS tape isn't that
great of a vehicle for mass copying that bittorrents is.
|10.14.05 @ 9:31AM|#
Yes, they get paid for that particular broadcast, but they
are losing the added value post-broadcast from DVD sales, etc. The
value of the content simply isn't only in the single broadcast of
the show.
Speaking of remarks densely predicated on one particular fact
scenarior [sic] . . . I'd bet that people who use BitTorrent are
more likely to purchase the DVDs and to watch the same
programs in syndication. Most people aren't blessed with
multiple-terabyte storage to keep entire seasons of DLed programs
around; they simply want to see a show they'd otherwise have
missed. They also get special features and extras by buying the DVD
that they wouldn't get from the DLed show. (Note: I do NOT approve
of ripping and sharing DVD content.)
|10.14.05 @ 9:33AM|#
Phil,
I'd bet that people who use BitTorrent are more likely to
purchase the DVDs and to watch the same programs in
syndication.
I see, so you won't make a statement about what most owners' of the
content want, but you will make a statement about what most
downloaders' do? Your rationalizations are very amusing! :)
|10.14.05 @ 9:36AM|#
Having a bunch of folks over isn't a problem for obvious
reasons, and suggesting that its similar to bittorrent stretches
the bounds of credulity.
It is if you're basing your argument -- as you are -- on the
skipping of commercial content. Unless you're lucky enough to be a
Nielsen diary or people-meter family, the folks who set the ad
rates assume you aren't having 20 people in your living room
regularly. If you're letting a bunch of people watch the show for
free, you're gaming the rating/share numbers and creating lower ad
rates, robbing the producers of revenue!
|10.14.05 @ 9:37AM|#
Phil,
...they simply want to see a show they'd otherwise have
missed.
And services like that found on iTunes can help them do that. Note
that your remarks started out with the notion that it was plain old
stupid to use iTunes' service when you could get shows for "free"
another way (whether they had seen the show or not). Now you've
changed the locus of the debate to people simply wanting to watch
something they missed. Should I expect more of those sort of
attempted trickery?
|10.14.05 @ 9:39AM|#
I see, so you won't make a statement about what most owners'
of the content want, but you will make a statement about what most
downloaders' do?
No, I said I'd make a bet to that effect, based on my prior
knowledge of the fact that music file-sharers are more likely to
also spend money on legal downloads. If you want to take the bet,
we can research it together. It'd be special.
Do you have a problem with BitTorrent files that include
commercials?
|10.14.05 @ 9:40AM|#
Phil,
It is if you're basing your argument -- as you are -- on the
skipping of commercial content.
The problem of course is that I wasn't basing my argument on
this.
|10.14.05 @ 9:42AM|#
Phil,
Oh, so I am supposed to take you literally when you write "taking a
bet?" Right. :)
|10.14.05 @ 9:42AM|#
Note that your remarks started out with the notion that it
was plain old stupid to use iTunes' service when you could get
shows for "free" another way (whether they had seen the show or
not). Now you've changed the locus of the debate to people simply
wanting to watch something they missed.
I haven't changed anything, O Slippery One. They're two different
propositions:
1) Yes, it is generally stupid to pay to watch something that's
offered as a free-to-air broadcast.
2) Most BitTorrent users are not interested in keeping several TB
worth of television material; they're using it as a timeshifting
device.
Try to keep them separate, shall we?
|10.14.05 @ 9:44AM|#
The problem of course is that I wasn't basing my argument on
[skipping of commercial content].
Then you certainly bring it up repeatedly and unnecessarily.
Oh, so I am supposed to take you literally when you write
"taking a bet?" Right. :)
Uh . . . yes? What do you want to bet? How's $100 sound?
|10.14.05 @ 9:47AM|#
Phil, I seem to recall that you live in the DC area. If you need a tape of Lost just come by my place to pick it up. Hakluyt and ABC don't need to know.
|10.14.05 @ 9:47AM|#
Phiol,
I haven't changed anything...,/i>
Sure you did. You tried to make content downloaders look more
sympathetic by shifting the locus of the debate.
Yes, it is generally stupid to pay to watch something that's
offered as a free-to-air broadcast.
You can't get past this ipse dixit apparently. Its stupid because
its stupid apparently.
Most BitTorrent users are not interested in keeping several TB
worth of television material; they're using it as a timeshifting
device.
The motives of the individuals don't really matter. What the
owners' of the content want is what matters.
|10.14.05 @ 9:48AM|#
WHy does nobody on H&R ever take me seriously when I give them a chance to take my money?
|10.14.05 @ 9:50AM|#
phil,
Then you certainly bring it up repeatedly and
unnecessarily.
No, you are making an unwarranted assumption about my comment. The
owners' of the content have decided to release the content in
certain environments and only those environments. That you choose
to exploit a breach in that scheme doesn't take away from this
fact.
Uh . . . yes?
Right. Sure. :)
|10.14.05 @ 9:52AM|#
Sure you did. You tried to make content downloaders look
more sympathetic by shifting the locus of the debate.
***sigh** No, I didn't, and if this is the tack you're going to
take, consider the conversation finished.
Aside from, apparently, thwarting the desire of ABC that
Desperate Housewives be watched only via the over-the-air
signal, cable TV, satellite TV, DVR, Tivo, VHS or DVD, what is it
that you think content downloaders are getting away with? They
aren't making money, nor are they robbing the program producers of
revenue.
|10.14.05 @ 9:53AM|#
I think one of the reasons that arguments over evolution are more intense than arguments over Iraq have to do with the fact that while reasonable people disagree over what to do in Iraq that with evolution you have 98% of educated folks agreeing and this 2% who do not. It seems so obvious to folks who study the issue that one truly cannot believe that educated folks can't see it. It's like having an otherwise educated friend who truly believes in unicorns...Of course, as I said before, the 2% are motivated by faith (either a religious belief or a Romantic notion of humanity that they feel is threatened by evolution) or by the need to play gadfly and bullsh*t on subjects, so it should not suprise me...When it comes to uneducated folks it's no big mystery, they believe in a lot of things (I want to insert here that the education need not be formal).
|10.14.05 @ 9:54AM|#
Phil,
Because the notion that a bet made on blog would be honored strikes
many as outside the bounds of the believeable. :)
|10.14.05 @ 9:55AM|#
Right. Sure. :)
You can either make a bet with me or not, but don't imply that I'm
not serious. Hell, I offered joe $250* the other day and he was
dumb enough to not go for it. Be better than joe, Gary.
*Or a $250 charity contribution in his name, in any case, which is
just as good.
|10.14.05 @ 9:57AM|#
Because the notion that a bet made on blog would be honored
strikes many as outside the bounds of the believeable.
:)
Both parties put the stakes into a trusted third party's PayPal
account who would then distribute to the winning party. What's not
to like?
|10.14.05 @ 9:59AM|#
Phil,
They aren't making money...
Whether they are making money isn't an issue. Hell, philanthropy
could be their motive, and it would still be wrong. Why a profit
motive is a decicing factor for the illegal distribution of content
is beyond me.
...nor are they robbing the program producers of
revenue.
Sure they are. They are taking money from them in the form of DVD
sales, rentals, etc., sales on iTunes, etc. and the like. You seem
to think that just because one revenue stream isn't thwarted too
much (broadcast TV), that other revenue streams don't matter. Of
course you are now going to tell me that bittorrent downloading
makes people more likely buy the DVDs, which you provide no
evidence for.
|10.14.05 @ 10:00AM|#
WHy does nobody on H&R ever take me seriously when I
give them a chance to take my money?
Because you do so under circumstances where they suspect THEY are
the ones who will actually have to shell out some cash? Or maybe
because you have this tendency to make such offers ONLY to people
who can't distinguish between intellectual debate and
name-calling?
|10.14.05 @ 10:03AM|#
I DO wonder, though, what if anything is the legal distinction
between me videotaping or Tivo-ing a show off of television, and
keeping it and watching it forever and ever without ever paying a
dime to the producer, versus downloading that same show off of a
computer an hour later and keeping it and watching it forever and
ever without ever paying a dime to the producer.
I'm also curious about the legal status of downloading old movies
or shows which have not been made available for sale on DVD. (Or
for that matter, downloading songs which are long out of print and
can only be purchased, if at all, from secondhand dealers who do
NOT pay royalties to the artist or producer anyway.)
|10.14.05 @ 10:09AM|#
Also, what is the status of downloading movies or shows which
are simply unavailable in the United States? I have this. . . uh. .
. . friend who has a bootleg copy of a Japanese-subtitled
version of Disney's Song of the South; it was never
released in the US because Disney has the good sense to be
embarrassed about having made a movie with the theme "Being a slave
in the Old South was WONDERFUL!"
But then this leads to a philosophical argument: once a piece of
Art has been released for public consumption and ethced into the
public's memory, who truly owns it at that point? Does the artist
have the legal/moral right to try and withdraw said piece of art,
and never let anybody see it again? If someone somehow managed to
purchase the rights to the works of Shakespeare, would he have the
right to try and remove Shakespeare from our culture?
|10.14.05 @ 10:10AM|#
Jennifer,
The legal distinction is that one is approved means of distribution
by the owners' and another isn't. As a legal matter, you do have a
limited right to do the former so long as it is for personal use,
whereas you don't have a right to do the latter.
I'm also curious about the legal status of downloading old
movies or shows which have not been made available for sale on
DVD.
If the owner of the content have not chosen to distribute the
content via DVD then tough luck I guess.
(Or for that matter, downloading songs which are long out of
print and can only be purchased, if at all, from secondhand dealers
who do NOT pay royalties to the artist or producer
anyway.)
If the secondhand dealer is the owner of the song then they are the
party which should be paid. After all, they paid for the rights to
the song in the first place.
|10.14.05 @ 10:13AM|#
Jennifer,
Does the artist have the legal/moral right to try and withdraw
said piece of art, and never let anybody see it again?
It depends on what copyright scheme you work under; in continental
Europe (due to certain Kantian conceptions) that notion might find
more basis in the law than in the Anglo-American system of
copyright protection (which is more utilitarian in outlook).
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 10:14AM|#
But then this leads to a philosophical argument: once a
piece of Art has been released for public consumption and ethced
into the public's memory, who truly owns it at that point? Does the
artist have the legal/moral right to try and withdraw said piece of
art, and never let anybody see it again? If someone somehow managed
to purchase the rights to the works of Shakespeare, would he have
the right to try and remove Shakespeare from our
culture?
There is a lot written on these issues. The must-read book is
The Future Of Ideas by Lawrence Lessig (famous Stanford
law prof). His other books are good and deal with similar issues
(and some may be freely downloadable), but Future of Idea
is the money tome.
|10.14.05 @ 10:16AM|#
once a piece of Art has been released for public consumption
and ethced into the public's memory, who truly owns it at that
point?
First of all, "ethced" is supposed to say "etched."
I'm thinking of the two well-known examples from modern pop
culture: George Lucas no longer wants Star Wars viewers to know
that Han Solo shot first, and Steven Spielberg doesn't want viewers
of E.T. to know that the government agents carried guns rather than
walkie-talkies. But by the time the men reached that conclusion,
there were already millions of tapes (and perhaps DVDs) showing the
original versions, and millions more people who remembered
them.
|10.14.05 @ 10:18AM|#
Jennifer,
For more on Kant see: Immanuel kant, Of the Injustice of
Counterfeiting Books. Compare it with the language found in
Art. I, sec.8, cl. 8 of the Constitution and utilitarian
justification found in Wheaton v. Peters 33 U.S. (8 Pet.)
591 (1834).
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 10:23AM|#
I DO wonder, though, what if anything is the legal
distinction between me videotaping or Tivo-ing a show off of
television, and keeping it and watching it forever and ever without
ever paying a dime to the producer, versus downloading that same
show off of a computer an hour later and keeping it and watching it
forever and ever without ever paying a dime to the
producer.
Easy. The US has no settled law on this point. Sony v. Universal
said that videotaping for purposes of time shifting was fair use.
Now you might argue that you are repeatedly time shifting so you
are bootstrapping your fair use prerogatives. On the other hand,
the copyright holder would be expected to argue that time shifting
means merely substituting a single watching of the videotape for a
specific showing of a program that you had to miss. It is anybody's
guess as to how a case might go. Most likely, they would have you
buying so much attorney time to defend / make your claim that if
they let you get out of the lawsuit you would forget your
principles and settle quick. If for some reason your suit was doing
well (or even just might do well on appeal), then they will buy you
out (like they did with Napster and MP3.com (neither of which made
it to the supreme court before being bought out by their opponents
in their respective lawsuits. This issue of unsettled law has been
out there and ripe for settlement since 1984. If you are now
wondering how such an exceedingly common legal issue could remain
open for so long, then check out today's H'n'R blog post about
defenders of thestatus quo (type II).
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 10:29AM|#
btw, Jennifer, Hak is being a bit overly arcane with all the
Kant. "Moral rights" is the name of the thing you are discussing
with Hak. Moral rights law has been developing in Europe for a long
time, but was also expanded a lot in the US during the 80s and 90s.
In other words, a lot of busy lawyers have been standing on Kant's
shoulders for a few decades now.
To what end?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
|10.14.05 @ 10:32AM|#
Dave W.,
Ahh, Napster lost at both the District and Circuit court levels.
Why would they been more successful at the Supreme Court?
|10.14.05 @ 10:36AM|#
Ways to push this thread past 400:
1) gaius marius and He of Many Names once spent 100+ posts debating
some obscure point concerning Nietzsche. Let's talk about Nietzsche
and see if those 2 can generate another 100 posts.
2) It usually takes about 80 posts to get D'Anghelone to reveal
what his point is on the topic of the Japanese
Relocation/Internment/insert-his-legalese-here.
3) Vibrators generated 100+ posts the other day.
So, I will start this off by saying that it's truly a shame that
Japanese-Americans were interned. I'll bet they didn't even allow
them to leave the camp to purchase vibrators! And it's all the
result of Western Civilization drinking Nietzsche's Kool Aid.
|10.14.05 @ 10:36AM|#
Hak is being a bit overly arcane
And I'm being a woman named "jennifer" and you're being a guy named
"dave." One is what one is.
|10.14.05 @ 10:36AM|#
Dave W.,
The problem of course is that the language of the Constitution
doesn't really support a "moral rights" vision of copyright law.
And honestly, I think that such a vision makes copyright law worse,
rather than better.
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 10:39AM|#
Ahh, Napster lost at both the District and Circuit court
levels. Why would they been more successful at the Supreme
Court?
Record company money said:
MAYBE
I imagine the record company multiplied the chances of losing an
appeal by the economic harm that such a loss would be expected to
cause. They probably compared that number to the price Napster
costed to buy and went ahead with the purchase.
|10.14.05 @ 10:41AM|#
Jennifer,
You'll always be the product of a degree in English (with all the
list of horribles that contains). :)
thoreau,
Well, when you spend much of your life reading Nietzsche you come
to know his thoughts well. :)
gaius marius and I have very different views of what the 3rd
century CE Roman Empire looked like if that helps. :)
|10.14.05 @ 10:46AM|#
Dave W.,
I believe it was more of an issue of exhaustion by Napster. After
all, getting a cert petition together (a) isn't cheap and (b) isn't
guaranteed to be successful. Also, if Napster lost at the SCOTUS
then they'd be in an even deeper financial, etc. hole than they
were before seeking Supreme Court review.
Plus, would Shawn Fanning have had the time to play his minor role
in The Italian Job if Napster were still in court in 2002
or 2003 (I don't know when the scene was shot)? :)
|10.14.05 @ 10:47AM|#
I really am wondering about that Star Wars thing. A friend of
mine (an actual friend, not code for "me") had an old videotape of
the original Han-shoots-first movie, and he cleaned it up and
burned multiple copies of it onto DVD, and given them out to
various friends. This isn't really "theft" since nothing has been
taken from Lucas, and you can't even make the traditional
anti-bootleg argument that we're saving money that would otherwise
have been GIVEN to Lucas, since the original movie can no longer be
purchased in such a way that Lucas would make money from it.
So basically, Lucas is trying to say "There are already millions of
copies of Han shooting first, and everybody knows about it already,
but no more such copies should be made and nobody who does not
already own a copy should be allowed to acquire one." And I'm
having a hard time viewing the support of THIS philosophy as a
legitimate function of The Law.
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 10:52AM|#
"moral rights" vision of copyright law
I do not think that the US federal or state moral rights
legislation was justified by the Copyright Clause (maybe the Wiki
says what the justification was).
However, even if we were going to try to so justify moral rights
law, it is easy to see how one would do it. I believe the relevant
words from the Clause here are: "to promote Science" (science being
understood broadly as human knowledge, not limited to what we
moderns think of as science).
Accordingly, the Earl of Oxford's descendants will probably at some
point argue that they can make Shakespeare more popular if they are
allowed better control of the franchise. If these factual
assertions are correct, then bestowing moral rights in Shakespeare
would arguable promote human knowledge.
To stretch a point, one might argue that the bowlderized versions
of Star Wars or ET are improvements that will increase their
popularity and thereby promote human knowledge. I imagine that
movie studio lawyers could put on one hell of a (dog n pony) show
regarding this!
To look at this same copyright clause language from a different
perspective, if Disney sued your friend for his Jap dub of Ol'
Uncle Remus (first movie I saw in a theatre! I cried hard!), then
your friend might attempt to fashion a fair use defense by
appealing to both the "promote human knowledge" language of the
copyright clause, as well as to the more generalized First
Amendment.*
* Of course the briefing and argument would probably also cover the
four enumerated fair use factors written into the copyrigt statute,
but these factors: (1) are not exclusive; and (2) would not be very
helpful to your friend who like watching slaves.
|10.14.05 @ 10:55AM|#
Jennifer,
Given the appeal a "moral rights" theory has for you, I'd think
that you would fall right in line with Lucas' argument regarding
the control of the content of his artistic creation.
|10.14.05 @ 10:57AM|#
Dave--
But in response to what you said (and to add to my last post):
wasn't the purpose of copyright law to ensure that creators would
be the ones making money off of their creations? In the case of the
Han-shoots-first thing, Lucas isn't trying to ensure that HE
(rather than a pirate) is the one making money; he's trying to
pretend a certain version never existed in the first place.
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 10:58AM|#
Hak,
I find it deeply troubling when a company buys up its opponent in
the middle of a big, pending lawsuit that has bigtime, legal
implications for all of us ordinary folks. In fact the words
"attempt to monopolize" spring to mind somehow. I realize that that
attitude is soooo not-2001, but it is an attitude that is due for a
comeback.
Is Grokster next? Will we ever get good law, or is it just gonna be
yeras and years more of the companies beating up on brave, but
non-wealthy individuals like Phil? Is this kind of pattern good for
the law?
|10.14.05 @ 11:00AM|#
Dave--
Oh, and another thing: your example assumes someone trying to get
control of Shakespeare so they can control how he is viewed; I'm
talking about someone trying to remove Shakespeare altogether, and
make it impossible for future generations to read him. Basically, I
am not arguing over who should make money off of something; I'm
arguing whether something which was introduced into popular culture
should remain there, or if the artist has the right to try and
basically "revise history" so that it never existed in the culture
in the first place.
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 11:02AM|#
In the case of the Han-shoots-first thing, Lucas isn't
trying to ensure that HE (rather than a pirate) is the one making
money; he's trying to pretend a certain version never existed in
the first place.
that is all well and good, but when you finally get Lucas to come
to a deposition, he'll just say that he did do it to make money.
Then he will have his lawyer produce affidavits that show that the
new versions test thru the roof compared to the old ones. How would
you go about refuting this? I don't really think you can.
|10.14.05 @ 11:03AM|#
Jennifer,
...wasn't the purpose of copyright law to ensure that creators
would be the ones making money off of their creations?
No. The purpose (in the U.S.) is to "promote the Progress of
Science and the usefule Arts." Rewarding authors may lead to this,
but it is not the purpose of copyright law.
|10.14.05 @ 11:10AM|#
The purpose (in the U.S.) is to "promote the Progress of
Science and the usefule Arts.
Trying to keep an already-released and well-known movie out of the
public eye doesn't fall into either category. Who can show that
people watching Han shoot is somehow damaging to science or
destroying artistic viability?
when you finally get Lucas to come to a deposition, he'll just
say that he did do it to make money. Then he will have his lawyer
produce affidavits that show that the new versions test thru the
roof compared to the old ones. How would you go about refuting
this? I don't really think you can.
That would be fine if I were a theater owner trying to charge money
to people viewing Han-shoots movies, perhaps, but again: that's not
the issue I'm trying to address here. The old version exists, many
people have it, many more people remember seeing it, and Lucas is
trying to erase it completely. Regardless of financial issues, does
he have the moral right to prevent future generations from seeing
something millions of members of THIS generation saw?
I feel no guilt for watching "Song of the South;" I'd've bought it
from Disney if I could, but I feel NO obligation to help Disney
maintain the polite fiction that it never produced racist
movies.
|10.14.05 @ 11:10AM|#
Dave W.,
Napster had to be willing to be "bought out," and if owing a ~25
million after the settlement is being bought out well, I don't want
to be bought out. As far as I know, Shawn Fanning left the process
broke.
Jennifer,
...or if the artist has the right to try and basically "revise
history" so that it never existed in the culture in the first
place.
Under our current system of copyright law, yes they have that right
(until the copyright lapses) if you want to put it in those
terms.
|10.14.05 @ 11:12AM|#
Jennifer,
Trying to keep an already-released and well-known movie out of
the public eye doesn't fall into either category.
Sure it does. The Congress has fairly wide discretion in
determining what best meets those goals.
|10.14.05 @ 11:17AM|#
Dave W.,
Regarding copyright law what one needs a political solution through
the Congress and/or a solution through the markets (assuming you
have a problem with the current system). Anything the courts do
will simply be a stop-gap measure.
I personally don't have much of a problem with the current system.
Its certainly not perfect (and utopias are what a lot of advocates
against the current system are interested in), but it meets most of
my needs well enough.
Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 11:23AM|#
I personally don't have much of a problem with the current
system.
the current system was pretty good prior to the DMCA (late 1990s).
That is bad law and I don't think we even know how bad yet. The
recent Supreme Court case on the copyright extensions (Eldred) was
exceptionally poor Constitutional reasoning. In other words,
historically we have had a good system, but as copyright holders
consolidate and begin to use the courts and legislature
strategically, like they do know, I think things are getting
substantially worse over time.
|10.14.05 @ 11:26AM|#
The purpose (in the U.S.) is to "promote the Progress of
Science and the usefule Arts.
Once upon a time, maybe that was true. But that changed the day
Congress decided to extend the time before something enters the
public domain, lest Disney lose the right to make money off of
Mickey Mouse. (There's no rational argument to make, that science
or art would be diminished if a four-generations-old cartoon
character, whose creator is long dead, entered the public domain.)
Now, the purpose of copyright law is simply to determine who makes
a buck off of something.
And again, in the Star Wars and ET cases I mentioned, money isn't
even the issue, since the artists are not complaining that other
people are making money off of them--they just want something to
vanish entirely.
|10.14.05 @ 11:30AM|#
They are taking money from them in the form of DVD sales,
rentals, etc., sales on iTunes, etc. and the like. You seem to
think that just because one revenue stream isn't thwarted too much
(broadcast TV), that other revenue streams don't matter.
1) First of all, those revenue streams are not concurrent with the
broadcast of the program, which is what we're talking about here.
The viewer is not presented with all of those options
simultaneously. The options are 1) watch the free-to-air broadcast,
or 2) timeshift it. Using BitTorrent the day, or even the week,
after a show airs does not deprive the broadcaster of any
already-present revenue streams. Except for . . .
2) The iTunes revenue stream, which didn't even exist until this
past Wednesday, so it's hardly an argument against BitTorrent use
in the past. Unless you know something about causality that I
don't.
3) You seem to be positing that even an HD BitTorrent is a perfect
substitute (in the economic sense) for a DVD sold by the
rightsholder. I thought I had made pretty clear the reasons why it
isn't.
Of course you are now going to tell me that bittorrent
downloading makes people more likely buy the DVDs, which you
provide no evidence for.
Hey, I gave you the opportunity to research it together, with money
going to the prevailing party. Are you saying you're in? If so,
let's pick a trusted third party.
Jennifer: JFTR, the Spielberg situation is
different; he released a DVD set that has both the original 1982
version of ET and the revamped 2002 version.
|10.14.05 @ 11:34AM|#
Phil--I didn't know that about Spielberg. (I try not to fill my
head with too much knowledge of things related to ET.) I agree
Speilberg has the absolute right to redo his movie however he sees
fit for the theatrical re-release, so long as he doesn't try to
hide the old version altogether.
Lucas is still scummy, though. I have the urge to burn and freely
distribute a few copies of the execrable "Star Wars Holiday
Special" purely out of spite.
|10.14.05 @ 11:38AM|#
Jennifer,
At this point you are arguing what best meets those goals. That's
an argument you can have in the political arena (and that is of
course where the argument should take place).
Dave W.,
The recent Supreme Court case on the copyright extensions
(Eldred) was exceptionally poor Constitutional
reasoning.
How so? Also, Lessing has admitted that he took a wrong tack when
he focused on Morison, etc., so if anything, it was
Lessing's fuck-up that sealed the fate of the challenge to the
Sonny Bono Act.
|10.14.05 @ 11:40AM|#
You really do need to calm down.
I have to say, I find this highly amusing coming from someone who
was, just a short time ago making not-so-veiled (but delightfully
amusing nonetheless) threats of physical violence.
As to marching orders, well, rather insistent demands can be
followed by question marks, so the choice of punctuation isn't the
defintive demarcation that you claim that it is.
Hak, were it anyone but you, I'd apologize for not being clear in
what I typed. But you deliberately mischaracterize practically
everything said to you. In lieu of an apology I'll simply cordially
ask that you kindly go commit an act of autofellatio, if for no
other reason than putting something in your mouth will shut you
up.
|10.14.05 @ 11:42AM|#
Phil, I am unsurprised that the ABC affiliate I used to work for is not yet HD compliant. (Hell, they don't even broadcast in stereo.)
drf|10.14.05 @ 11:44AM|#
what the fuck are all of you frothing about?
you're all running around like a bunch of naughty monkies or
naughty-created-in-the-imaginary-friend-of-your- choosing's image,
respectively.
and there's open source, for that.
the VHS controversy was also big when three's company was still
making new episodes.
|10.14.05 @ 11:53AM|#
Phil,
1) First of all, those revenue streams are not concurrent with
the broadcast of the program, which is what we're talking about
here.
Which means exactly jack squat. Whether they are concurrent or not
is the choice of the content owners'; if you don't like that
choice, tough, you can buy other content from someone else who is
willing to make a seperate set of choices. Again, content
providers, etc. have made a set of choices about how they are
willing to provide content; what you do is find weaknesses in their
efforts and exploit it. That doesn't justify your actions, it
simply demonstrates how nefarious they are.
Using BitTorrent the day, or even the week, after a show airs
does not deprive the broadcaster of any already-present revenue
streams.
Sure it does. It deprives them of the revenue streams that I
mentioned. Hell, why would you ever buy a DVD, etc. when at just
about any time you can just download the show for free? Someone
else is storing it for you in other words.
2) The iTunes revenue stream, which didn't even exist until
this past Wednesday, so it's hardly an argument against BitTorrent
use in the past.
So basically, unless they deliver the content in the way that you
like it you are simply going to ignore the content owners' wishes.
That's what your argument ultimately boils down to.
3) You seem to be positing that even an HD BitTorrent is a
perfect substitute (in the economic sense) for a DVD sold by the
rightsholder.
I've made no claim remotely like this.
Hey, I gave you the opportunity to research it together, with
money going to the prevailing party.
No you made a bullshit unsupported claim using some figurative
language and then backtracked claiming that your language was
indeed literal. That you were indeed making a bet with me; which is
utter tripe.
|10.14.05 @ 11:57AM|#
mediageek,
I have to say, I find this highly amusing coming from someone
who was, just a short time ago making not-so-veiled (but
delightfully amusing nonetheless) threats of physical
violence.
Who is having problems with figurative language here? You
apparently. I mean, I am not literally claiming that I will kick
your ass from Penn Station to Narita International. Just how stupid
are you?
But you deliberately mischaracterize practically everything
said to you.
Yes, this coming from someone who called me crazy (and then
backtracked on that claim), claimed that Jennifer was calling me
crazy, then when it was revealed that Jennifer was indeed not
calling me crazy, made up some lame ass excuse about your error.
Sorry, its hard to take someone so dishonest as you seriously.
|10.14.05 @ 12:00PM|#
phil,
And that someone else is of course willing to maintain that content
at their site for quite a long time, like say SuprNova.
|10.14.05 @ 12:02PM|#
Phil,
Why do you have a problem with content owners' deciding how they
want to distribute their material?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245