New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | October 13, 2005

Chris Lehmann reviews an account of the Scopes trial that bristles at the notion we're related to damn, dirty apes.

Comments

|10.13.05 @ 9:36AM|#

Damn the evolutionists!! Damn them ALL TO HEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLL!!!

|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 @ 10:04AM|#

Joe-I never heard that one. That truly is classic.

|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 @ 10:13AM|#

You know where you're going because of this?

STRAIGHT TO HELL!

|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 @ 10:28AM|#

Oh, thoreau - you believer in the innate goodness and reason of mankind...

|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|#

oops, I meant to say evolutionary psychology, not evolutionary biology.

|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 @ 11:24AM|#

Berkley.

There, I really do know how to spell. Honest.

|10.13.05 @ 11:26AM|#

"That she believed in ID?"
Or IUD.

Adam|10.13.05 @ 11:29AM|#

Or Berkeley, even.

|10.13.05 @ 11:34AM|#

chthus,

Eyes are complicated. Ergo, you're right!

|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 @ 11:46AM|#

chthus,

We continue to wait for further investigation re: I.D.

|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 @ 11:53AM|#

Has anyone figured out the subtext of my 9:48 post yet?

|10.13.05 @ 11:55AM|#

Yes, Global Warming. You're brilliant. Next!

|10.13.05 @ 11:56AM|#

WWJD

|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."

Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 11:58AM|#

Don't confuse evolution with a question of origins.

Tell it to Darwin.

|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".

Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 12:33PM|#

you do swear a lot. Joe's right.

|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 @ 1:49PM|#

I thought you weren't reading my posts anymore, joe.

|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 @ 2:13PM|#

thoreau,

That likely depends on what you think "nice" weather is. :)

|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?

|10.13.05 @ 2:27PM|#

Dave W, what is your point about evolution?

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 @ 3:25PM|#

"predictive of things that can be predicted," I meant.

|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.

|10.13.05 @ 4:29PM|#

mediageek,

Don't confuse Derrida with post-modernism.

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 @ 4:46PM|#

and I see someone beat me to it! Damn.

|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 @ 6:33PM|#

iTunes new TV Show download service is bee's knees, BTW. :)

|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 ;).

Dave W.|10.13.05 @ 9:40PM|#

The Big Bang is replicable? And I'm the goofy one?

|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 @ 10:16PM|#

Or perhaps you just have a learning disability?

|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 @ 8:28AM|#

Kahn,

You need to get into an "irregular" sleeping pattern. :)

|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 @ 8:59AM|#

BTW: PWNED, SuX0R!!!11!!

|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 @ 10:03AM|#

Jennifer,

And as we are all well aware, you never engage in name-calling. :)

|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).

MP|10.14.05 @ 10:20AM|#

300!

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).

|10.14.05 @ 10:24AM|#

Dave W.,

In a word he's a big fan of open spectrum, freeware, etc.

|10.14.05 @ 10:27AM|#

MP,

Three-hundred is common enough. Has four hundred ever been met? :)

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.

|10.14.05 @ 10:49AM|#

Ah, Star Wars! That might generate 100+ posts!

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?

|10.14.05 @ 12:05PM|#

Do I need to remind everyone that Nietzsche's birthday is tommorrow? I already have a pinata in the shape of Wagner's bust for the celebration.

Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 12:08PM|#

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.

Lessig was being gracious.

The issue wasn't that hard, even for a layperson to understand (if not decide). For those who aren't familiar with the case, the main issue was the meaning of the Constitutional limitation that copyrights can only be for "limited times."

The Supreme Court chose a mathematical definition of "limited times," deciding that anything less than infinity is "limited."

The counterargument was that the drafters couldn't have meant such a broad interpretation of "limited" because this broad reading of "limited times" effectively renders this language superfluous. Why would the founding fathers have bothered to write down limited times if they knew that Congress could just get around that by making the copyrigt term a billion centuries?

Answer: they wouldn't have done it that way and must mean something else when they said "limited times." Don't blame Lessig that SCOTUS couldn't figure that out.

|10.14.05 @ 12:09PM|#

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

Yes, you are literally claiming this. I know this the same way YOU knew I meant the word "serf" literally. If you claim for yourself the right to decide at your convenience who is and is not literal, and when, don't expect to withhold that right from others.

|10.14.05 @ 12:20PM|#

Dave W.,

He wasn't being gracious. He wrote a fat little article about how he screwed up.

If indeed the Congress does continue to extend the number of years that content can receive protection then you might have a case. Also, there are potential treaty obligations to be kept in mind to re: length of copyright that would definately protect foreign holders more than domestic ones if the Congress hadn't passed the Sonny Bono Act, and as treaties are part of the Constitution...

Jennifer,

I relayed to you the reasons why I knew you weren't being figurative. it wasn't some ipse dixit on my part.

Also, its also clear that I was being figurative due to my use of a :) to mark the phrase. I tend to be rather diligent in doing such.

|10.14.05 @ 12:23PM|#

Hak, your reasons boiled down to "I know because I know because I know." You of all people shouldn't be trying to promote faith-based wisdom.

By the way, are you even capable of recognizing and understanding sarcasm when it's not clearly marked by an emoticon?

|10.14.05 @ 12:29PM|#

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?

I already pointed out earlier that it was evident you were being sarcastic. But hey, if you can play the "let's take stuff out of context and wildly mischaracterize it" game, then so can I.

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.

I see no reason to go on some fool's errand quoting a thread from days ago.

You're a goddamned nutwad.

Cheers,
MG

Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 12:32PM|#

Also, there are potential treaty obligations to be kept in mind to re: length of copyright that would definately protect foreign holders more than domestic ones if the Congress hadn't passed the Sonny Bono Act, and as treaties are part of the Constitution...

If the extension can be argued as a treaty power, then great, but your rational is not an acceoptable reason to treat the "Limited Times" as superfluous.

We should also be highly suspicious of having foreign nations write our intellectual property law for us (not that I am naive enuf to think that that is how it really went down). And we should also be suspicious of treaty provisions that seem to violate an explicit provision of the Constitution, treaty power or no treaty power.

I understand that Lessig has second guessed his rhetorical approach at the Supreme Court. He holds himself to a high standard. that is great, but I hold SCOTUS to a lower standard and they didn't meet it here. You have been to law school. Even if these arguments about "superfluous language" sound strange to some of the lay readers, you must understand that this should be a very familiar and persuasive argument to a judge (unless her last name is Miers, in which case all "bets" are off).

|10.14.05 @ 12:38PM|#

Mediageek--

In Hak's defense, I never said he was crazy. I simply pointed out that he was lacking in social skills and apparently incapable of recognizing figurative language (unless it was clearly designated by a smiley-face), and then suggested that he may have Asperger's Syndrome.

|10.14.05 @ 12:47PM|#

Jennifer,

Hak, your reasons boiled down to "I know because I know because I know."

That is a flat out lie and you know it. I gave you a reasoned and detailed explanation of why I made the decision that I made. One of the reasons was that sort of misusage of the term is common amongst the ignorant such as yourself. Its one of the reasons why I take the default position that I do on the matter. Most people (and this includes you) have a very poor understanding of the terms serf, slave, etc., and they use those terms in very inexact ways that are at the same time not figurative. Indeed, it would be difficult for you to even use the term figuratively given your lack of knowledge about historical background that informs the term since you didn't know what the term meant in the first place.

mediageek,

I already pointed out earlier that it was evident you were being sarcastic.

Which really doesn't explain your flip-flop.

I see no reason to go on some fool's errand quoting a thread from days ago.

Yes, the fool in this situation being you of course.

You're a goddamned nutwad.

You don't know what I am (which is obvious from your own flip-flopping on the matter). But as I intimated above, why you are so obsessed with picking a fight with me I can't say. That you pick a fight then run away from it is even more myterious. I will admit that for someone who lacks a spine - such as yourself - it is easier to simply call me names than to address my statements.

Dave W.,

The issue is that I do not see the Congress' actions making that phrase superfluous. Now, some future extension behavior likely would. So it becomes an issue of how you frame the facts.

|10.14.05 @ 12:50PM|#

Jennifer, when you're ready to have a serious conversation about Green Lantern you have my email address.

|10.14.05 @ 12:56PM|#

Jennifer-

Those are pretty obvious. Hell, I'll admit to being a formerly* socially-maladjusted, recovering nerd with an occasional inability to grasp figurative language, but at least I'm capable of recognizing it, and open to the possibility that I misinterpreted someone's comments. Hak just runs in the opposite direction, either willfully or blithely misrepresenting what has been said.

As such, I see no reason to debate him because he's just as wrapped up in a self-gratifying cocoon as the faithful he so despises. In which case it's simply more fun to point and call names.

Apologies for taking your stuff out of context on the other thread.


*Some would argue currently, I'm sure.

Dave W.|10.14.05 @ 12:56PM|#

The issue is that I do not see the Congress' actions making that phrase superfluous.

1. okay, what does "limited times" mean to you then?

2. Anyway, the "limited times" thing is probably a done deal for the time being. However, your buddy Posner has proposed changes to copyright law to both allow unlimited terms, but also to guard against some of the bad results that the "limited times" language was originally drafted to protect against. (see Posner's 2003 copyright book). I don't recommend his book, I find his economics speculative and abstract to be of much practical use. His plan (frequent re-registrations of copyright) is a good one.

|10.14.05 @ 12:58PM|#

mediageek,

Read it and weep asshole:

I have to say, I pretty much agree with Jennifer in that you're batshit insane.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/10/new_at_reason_801.shtml

|10.14.05 @ 1:02PM|#

mediageek,

...misrepresenting what has been said.

Yes, I misrepresented you; which why I just quoted you writing what you claim that you didn't write. Heh. Sweet. :)

Dave W.,

Well, I never wrote that I agree with anything Posner ever wrote (I've read reviews of the book and found it lacking based on that).

|10.14.05 @ 1:03PM|#

Dave W.,

Er, "anything" should be "everything."

|10.14.05 @ 1:04PM|#

Which really doesn't explain your flip-flop.

Yes it does.

Yes, the fool in this situation being you of course.

No I'm not.

You don't know what I am (which is obvious from your own flip-flopping on the matter).

Do too, and I didn't flip flop.

why you are so obsessed with picking a fight with me I can't say.

I'm not obsessed.

That you pick a fight then run away from it is even more myterious.
You misspelled "mysterious."

I will admit that for someone who lacks a spine - such as yourself -
I do too have a spine. Even seen it on x-rays taken at the doctor's office.

it is easier to simply call me names than to address my statements.

I didn't call you names. I addressed all of your statements with concise and clear logic, whose rationality is obvious to all and sundry.

|10.14.05 @ 1:04PM|#

Be nice, Mediageek. He can't help being an asshole anymore than I can help being short. (Hell, even less so--I, at least, can wear high heels.) That's why I'm not even going to bother refuting his last comment to me. Besides, everyone else on that "serf" thread agreed with my interpretation rather than his. So of COURSE he'll feel cornered, and start flailing. Lack of social skills, like I said.

|10.14.05 @ 1:05PM|#

Yes, I misrepresented you; which why I just quoted you writing what you claim that you didn't write. Heh. Sweet. :)

No you didn't.

|10.14.05 @ 1:09PM|#

Wow, 350+ posts. Hard to believe that this thread was jacked by a tangent started by an offhand comment on music downloads.

And then, of course, we got to everybody's favorite topic: Everybody hates Hakluyt.

Weird.

drf|10.14.05 @ 1:15PM|#

c'mon. Hak doesn't make the top ten hater list. he is a little fierce at times, but he's not as bad as lots of others. see the comments from those global warming threads, for example.

and don't forget Jean Bart's long, detailed, interesting contribution on medieval history from a few years ago... that was really cool.

we're all acting like a bunch of monkeys with gaps in our evolution.

|10.14.05 @ 1:18PM|#

Thoreau, I suppose it boils down to whether one wants to be hated or ignored. Hak seems to have made his choice.

|10.14.05 @ 1:20PM|#

Hak doesn't make the top ten hater list.

Name ten people (other than jean Bart, Gary Gunnels, or Jason Bourne) more consistently obnoxious here than is Hak.

Can't do it, can you? Ha! I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Hit and Run back stories before you embarrass yourself further, or even find yourself turned into a cliche.

|10.14.05 @ 1:22PM|#

Jason Bourne?

As in the fictional spy portrayed by Matt Damon?

*gigglesnort*

|10.14.05 @ 1:23PM|#

You know what this thread really needs? Tim Cavanaugh! He can come here and make some comment or other, and then Hak can dazzle everyone with his amazing wit via a devastating comeback like "Tim, you're just a fucking English major" or "Tim, you're just a fucking scumbag," and then our problems will be solved!

Is Tim an East Coaster or a West Coaster? No matter; even if he lives in California he should be up by now.

|10.14.05 @ 1:23PM|#

drf-

Link to the Medieval History thing? I'm curious.

I avoid the global warming threads for a reason.

|10.14.05 @ 1:26PM|#

Mediageek--

Yup.

Bourne. Jason Bourne.

|10.14.05 @ 1:29PM|#

mediageek,

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

No I'm not.

Yes you are.

You don't know what I am (which is obvious from your own flip-flopping on the matter).

Do too, and I didn't flip flop.

No you don't and yes you have. I am apparently anything you want me to be depending on your everchanging mood.

I'm not obsessed.

Sure you are. That's why you started a fight with me.

I didn't call you names.

Sure you did; this was the very first comment in our "conversation":

Before Hak goes off on a great big religion bashing tangent, I'd just like to point out that he is, indeed, a dick.

That is calling me a name.

I addressed all of your statements with concise and clear logic, whose rationality is obvious to all and sundry.

You've as yet to address any of my arguments.

No you didn't.

Oh, so you didn't claim that Jennifer called me crazy and then backtrack on the matter? Right. The evidence is there for anyone willing to go to that link.

Jennifer,

Besides, everyone else on that "serf" thread agreed with my interpretation rather than his.

Most of the folks on that thread didn't comment on that statement, so you have no way of knowing if they all agreed with you. You are amazing dense, since I've pointed this out before and you continue to make this claim anyway. Well, that and we have a fallacious argument from popularity to deal with from you.

thoreau,

Well, I can't help it if Phil and mediageek are assholes.

|10.14.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Jennifer,

You find me obnoxious because I'm willing to call you on your bullshit.

...then Hak can dazzle everyone with his amazing wit via a devastating comeback like...

There is far more to my statements than what you claim; of course, if you actually acknowledged that you'd probably have an emotional breakdown.

thoreau,

I'm fairly knowledgeable re: European medeival history. Less so of what was going on in Asia and other places around the same time.

|10.14.05 @ 1:35PM|#

mediageek,

As in the fictional character in the novels written by Robert Ludlum. Apparently reading isn't fundamental to you. :)

|10.14.05 @ 1:37PM|#

Howver, Mediageek, I've been having mild doubts about my "Asperger's or some other high-functioning autistic" theory. Asperger's victims do in fact suffer from low social skills and a frequent inability to recognize figurative language [unless they're clearly marked like so :-) ] but none of them are known to be mind-readers. So in a case where I make a figurative comment, and everybody ELSE thinks it's a figurative comment except for the one mind-reading--no, wait. That's not mind-reading; that's more of the same stubborn refusal to admit that one has made a mistake.

Never mind.

|10.14.05 @ 1:38PM|#

Well, I can't help it if Phil and mediageek are assholes.

Start with the man in the mirror. Ask him to change his ways.

drf|10.14.05 @ 1:39PM|#

Jennifer:
[grinning]
mercy. oh my.

I'm just glad ten was the largest number I could think of offhand. I would have really been a bigger embarassment.

And I'm an english major, too, actually :)

Hak's description of my fellow majors in college is spot-on. Actually his description works beautifully for the history majors there, too. and the soc. aw. prairie shit. everybody.
[pours drink]

Thoreau:

it was a discussion from H&R: the early years. Somebody made a comment about how the period of, say, 500-1300, was "dark". it was really informative and interesting. Hang on - nope. gone. dammit.

amicalment,
drf

|10.14.05 @ 1:46PM|#

No you don't and yes you have. I am apparently anything you want me to be depending on your everchanging mood.
Yes I do, and no I didn't. And even if the mood suited me, you still wouldn't be a Keebler Elf.

That is calling me a name.
No it isn't. I was applying a label, which anyone can plainly see is not the same thing, dummy.

You've as yet to address any of my arguments.
Did too. You're obviously incapable of thinking with a rational mind, probably because you lost it at some point.

Oh, so you didn't claim that Jennifer called me crazy and then backtrack on the matter? Right. The evidence is there for anyone willing to go to that link.
No, I never did. What evidence? Prove it.

You are amazing dense...
Not Jennifer, by I think you probably meant to say "amazingly." I would think that a sexy-assed superspy such as yourself would know the dif.

|10.14.05 @ 1:47PM|#

You know, drf, it's odd for a supposed lawyer to insist that there's something inherently wrong with being an English major, considering the large number of English majors who then go on to law school. Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn he's lying about his job as well. He's not above being inconsistent in his life stories; did you know, for example, that he no longer claims to be French?

|10.14.05 @ 1:48PM|#

Cognitive dissonance in action, kids. Watch and enjoy, as the same person, in the same post, says both:

Hell, why would you ever buy a DVD, etc. when at just about any time you can just download the show for free?

and then:

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.

Of course you have, dummy. If you're asking, why would you ever buy a DVD, etc. when at just about any time you can just download the show for free?, you must believe the BitTorrent file is a perfect substitute for the DVD.

Which, of course, it is not, which is why, for example, when I missed episodes of the first season of Lost, I downloaded the torrents, then watched and deleted them; then purchased the S1 box set when it came out.

Otherwise, the question answers itself: Because the DVD is likely to have features that someone's torrent file of the broadcast show does not. Because if that someone has edited commercials out, the edits are likely to be abrupt and miss incoming and outgoing picture and music cues. Because the broadcast, and thus the torrent file, probably have either the network or local station bug in the corner while the DVD does not. Because unless you're storing the file yourself somewhere, it's likely to take hours to download even over a hi-speed connection, whereas a DVD is available any time. Countless reasons.

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.

Listen, dummy: I'll be the judge of when I mean something literally and when I don't. Do you want to bet, or don't you? If so, then shit or get off the pot. If not, don't be a pussy and then blame me for it.

|10.14.05 @ 1:52PM|#

Jennifer, perhaps Hak doesn't have Asperger's.
However, allow me to offer an alternative theory:
What if Hak is so crazy that he's psychic?
And hearing all the thoughts in the heads of people around him has driven him from being crazy to being CRAH-ZAY!

As in the fictional character in the novels written by Robert Ludlum. Apparently reading isn't fundamental to you. :)
Hak, you are indeed correct. I am completely illiterate. However, I find that the keyboard makes a soothing "clicking" sound when I randomly smash my fingers on the keys. That what I type makes any sense at all is simply a great big coincidence. Just please don't tell anyone of my secret shame.

|10.14.05 @ 1:52PM|#

Jennifer,

...everybody ELSE...

As I've already written, you don't know if everyone else thought this. Just how stupid do you want to look?

drf,

Well, the "popular" understanding of the middle ages was they were a period of retrenchment, etc., when in fact in many ways they were a dramatic period of growth re: knowledge, agricultural development, trade, etc. For example, there was likely more technological development in the short span of the middle ages than all of the classical period combined. From the standpoint of agriculture, people of the middle ages were far more advanced and productive than at any time during the classical period (this was in part because iron plows allowed for the development of far more land than during the classical age). Now, in the arts certainly people of the middle age in Europe weren't as "advanced" as the masters of classical Greece and Rome (note I am not actually referring to any particular artistic period) and certainly there were differences in literacy (though there was less of a chasm there than is generally admitted), but the "dark ages" weren't really dark when looked at with an eye that doesn't prejudice the period in favor of the Renaissance.

|10.14.05 @ 1:53PM|#

I'll be the judge of when I mean something literally and when I don't

No, no, no, Phil. HAK is the judge of when people are or are not literal. Didn't you get the memo?

|10.14.05 @ 1:55PM|#

See, Phil? Like for instance, Hak and Hak alone knows whether "everybody else" means "everybody else who chose to comment on the matter" or, literally, "EVERYBODY else, the width abd breadth of humanity."

|10.14.05 @ 1:56PM|#

Whoops. "Abd" was supposed to read "and." I suggest I learn how to spell before I embarrass myself further.

drf|10.14.05 @ 2:06PM|#

Hak:

cool stuff. OT: have you read Deighton's "Blood Tears, and Folly: An Objective Look at WWII"?

Jennifer:

i actually didn't know/see the post about being a lawyer.

Hak: are you a lawyer? didn't know that. sorry.

is anybody else milking this to make 400? :)

BACK ON TOPIC:

Media:
You're just proving that we've evolved from the monkeys that eventually type the works of shakespeare! UP YOURS ID types. We found the gaps. ha!

Where's Warren? time for a drink.

|10.14.05 @ 2:06PM|#

mediageek,

I didn't write anything about your level of literacy. One can be quite literate and still not read literature.

No it isn't. I was applying a label, which anyone can plainly see is not the same thing, dummy.

How very Clintonesque of you.

Did too.

Then give me an example.

What evidence?

Now you've slipped into solipsism.

Jennifer,

I never claimed anything about being a lawyer. I have stated that I am a law student.

Phil,

Actually, you are incorrectly inferring that I am making such a claim. Whether they are exactly equivalent is beside the point and is not something I would think of as a criteria because its not something I am concerned with. If you can show that such criteria is on the minds of most downloaders, I'd be more than happy to entertain such evidence. In the mean time, you have no case against me.

Because the DVD is likely to have features that someone's torrent file of the broadcast show does not.

This assumes that most folks are interested in these features. All of the arguments you have made so far (every one of them) have been based on a series of unproven assumptions about the behavior of downloaders and they have in turn ignored the real issue here - what are the wishes of the content owners'? I wonder why you have avoided the latter? Could it be because you know you'll lose? Yes, that is likely it.

I'll be the judge of when I mean something literally and when I don't.

And I'll be the judge as well. Sorry, but falling down into the hole of "you can't comment on what I don't like you to comment on" doesn't impress me much.

|10.14.05 @ 2:10PM|#

Not a lawyer, just a future lawyer, Hak? My apologies. Nonetheless, chances are a great many of your fellow students were themselves English majors.

If you yourself took a few English classes, however, you might learn how to express and even recognize jokes and sarcasm without having to resort to kindergarten :-) symbols, though.

|10.14.05 @ 2:10PM|#

Jennifer,

HAK is the judge of when people are or are not literal.

Yes, I am. If you don't like people making independent judgments that is more of a mark against you than anything.

As to the "everyone else" claim you've had plenty of oppurtunity to correct me on the matter. I've made the very same argument on a number of threads and this is the very first time you've come back this particular defense. I wonder why?

drf,

Hmm, milking it? Maybe. :)

|10.14.05 @ 2:15PM|#

Jennifer,

I took a few graduate school courses in English. I experienced first hand just historically ignorant folks in an English department can be. I mean yes, it was nice learning middle English and reading all of the known works of Chaucer and writing an interesting research paper on the "Man of Lawe" tale, but still... :)

drf|10.14.05 @ 2:16PM|#

Hak:
pourquoi pas... :)

Jennifer:

a buddy of mine, who works in marketing writing, just passed his bar exam. and is an english major. he would have loved the Stevo and StevenCrane geek discussion yesterday, too.

What era/flavor of english major were you?

and the econo-nerds i'm around describe lawyers as people who: "can't do math and are scared of blood". Add "and like to beat people up" you get a cop. :)

|10.14.05 @ 2:17PM|#

Jennifer,

I know enough about the law that some people assume that I am an attorney.

BTW, I do have a medical condition that I have discussed here before when we've been on the topic of psychiatry. Its unfortunate that you are unable to remember this.

|10.14.05 @ 2:19PM|#

Yes, he does have a condition. We've been attempting a rectal craniectomy, but the contortions required to remove his head from his ass are proving rather difficult for the surgical team.

|10.14.05 @ 2:29PM|#

Jennifer,

Anyway, I'll be nice enough and bury the hatchet and accept that you were simply being figurative if in turn you read a few books on medeival European society. It continually distresses me to no end that people are so ignorant of the past and buy into so many almost wholly untrue characterizations of the past. We understand the past so much better today, yet, such ignorance remains a constantly in play.

A good layman's book to start with is Norman Cantor's The Civilization of the Middle Ages. Also see his tour de force, Inventing the Middle Ages.

|10.14.05 @ 2:33PM|#

If you don't like people making independent judgments that is more of a mark against you than anything.

Independent judgments are fine, Hak; it's independent-of-reality judgments that grate on people's nerves.

Drf-
Bachelor's and Master's degrees with a writing emphasis, but for my Master's I also had a secondary emphasis in British medieval and Renaissance literature. Mainly because I wanted to take classes with the stunningly brilliant ex-Jesuit who taught them.

|10.14.05 @ 2:34PM|#

Jennifer,

Well, I hate to see you characterize yourself that way, but so be it. :)

drf|10.14.05 @ 2:37PM|#

cool, Jennifer.

|10.14.05 @ 2:38PM|#

drf,

Quit milking the thread. :)

drf|10.14.05 @ 2:40PM|#

but. but.... ten more.... :)

LOL!!!!!!!!!

|10.14.05 @ 2:41PM|#

drf,

You are by far my favorite poster here because you are like a duck. :)

|10.14.05 @ 2:43PM|#

Almost to the magic number.

Again, this thread shows all the classic Hakisms that made me suspect he had Asperger's in the first place.

Persons with AS show marked deficiencies in social skills
Uh-huh.

prefer sameness and often have obsessive routines
If you don't know what this has to do with anything I suggest you read up before you embarrass yourself further.

It's important to remember that the person with AS perceives the world very differently
Which is how he is often the only one to take a given statement literally, and gets persnickety when called upon it.

Therefore, many behaviors that seem odd or unusual are due to those neurological differences and not the result of intentional rudeness
Which is why we should make nice with him--there but for the grace of fucked-up DNA go we.

language development seems, on the surface, normal, individuals with AS often have deficits in pragmatics and prosody
But the scrupulous use of emoticons might help.

drf|10.14.05 @ 2:46PM|#

well it's true i do waddle more after gaining some weight. and my voice doesn't echo, per urban myth. but I COMPLETELY deny that people stuff a tasty bread-based concotion in my pooper. yup. totally deny that. no way. nope.

actually - what does that mean?
duck "ente" "and".. what is it in french?

(i'm procrastinating now)

|10.14.05 @ 2:47PM|#

Jennifer,

I don't have this condition, but if you are obssesed with making this diagonsis I really can't do anything to stop you from being that way. Oddly enough, I offered (rather graciously I might add) to bury the hatchet (wow, how could I use such terminology!), instead you chose not to. Fine.

|10.14.05 @ 2:49PM|#

drf,

Well, I don't mean that you are literally like a duck. :) Amongst Southerners the phrase refers to the literal ability of a duck cast away water when it is poured on it, etc. In reference to a person it means that the person can handle stressors, etc. without getting fazed.

drf|10.14.05 @ 2:53PM|#

:)

cool. except i do get really pissed here sometimes.

water off the back of the proverbial duck.

wait a sec. we could all get into a great spat about how literal i should take that :)

i'm sorry. i'm procrastinating on some time series work (building and estimating ARIMA models), and since it's friday, it's grounds to be sillier than normal.

|10.14.05 @ 2:53PM|#

Hak, let me explain why your offer to "bury the hatchet" wasn't accepted, in terms that even an emotionally stunted individual might have a chance of understanding. Here's what you said:

I'll be nice enough and bury the hatchet and accept that you were simply being figurative if in turn you read a few books on medeival European society. It continually distresses me to no end that people are so ignorant of the past and buy into so many almost wholly untrue characterizations of the past

In other words, you'll bury the hatchet and accept that I wasn't being literal if I read some books to educate myself on what a "serf" really is, thus implying that I did, indeed, mean the word literally.

Maybe you really, truly thought you were being friendly in this case, which if so is even more pathetic that if you were once again trying to be a jerk.

|10.14.05 @ 2:54PM|#

Jennifer,

If you don't know what this has to do with anything I suggest you read up before you embarrass yourself further.

You and thoreau are the only ones who continue make such a remark. I think I made it all of a couple of times. You mocked me for it and I stopped using it. If it was indeed an issue of sameness I would have continued to use the phrase up until this time.

Which is how he is often the only one to take a given statement literally...

Prove it. Demonstrate it. Give me hundreds of examples (with links to those examples) of where this is the case instead of one anecdotal claim about such behavior.

|10.14.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Jennifer,

No, I was offering you a gracious way to back out of your silly claim. That was all that I was offering. Instead you'd rather be "right" and wallow about in your ignorance instead.

|10.14.05 @ 3:01PM|#

Jennifer,

I mean really, why should we take the word of someone who seriously thinks that they can make a diagnosis of some via a blog chat? And, BTW, its that sort of expertise you are claiming. You claim an almost absolute knowledge of me as a person without ever having met me, knowing my history, etc. And you call me arrogant? Heh. Maybe you should look in the mirror, you red-headed asshole.

|10.14.05 @ 3:02PM|#

I was offering you a gracious way to back out of your silly claim.

In other words, you STILL insist that I meant it literally. And you insisted that Phil meant his earlier comment literally. And so forth. I actually wish for your sake that is WAS just a case of your trying to be pompous again.

I won't argue with you anymore on this or other topics. And yes, feel free to crow about how I'm backing down, or lost the argument, or whatever. I'm retreating before you gnaw my kneecaps off, okay?

|10.14.05 @ 3:03PM|#

drf,

Oh, we're at the promised land. Jennifer's puffed up pride got us here.

|10.14.05 @ 3:05PM|#

And you insisted that Phil meant his earlier comment literally.

No, I insisted that he meant it figuratively dipshit; he insisted that he was being literal re: the "bet." That is me laughing at you. You are so wedded to a crackpot diagnosis that you are trying to remold the facts to fit it. HA HA HA! :)

|10.14.05 @ 3:06PM|#

I could swear that I saw a thread that went above 400 before. I think it was Insta-lanched or something. Also, the separate convention coverage comment sections had some really long threads.

Anyway, wasn't it disgraceful the way that we interned those Japanese-Americans, treating them even worse than serfs and not letting them buy vibrators? That's just the sort of thing that happens in a society that's drunk too much of Nietzsche's kool aid.

drf|10.14.05 @ 3:07PM|#

yeaaaaa!

we did it! congratulations everybody! just imagine how long it would take to have monkeys with typewriters to achieve this!

we nuzzled the teat towards 400. congrats all.

our babblings here today should demonstrate that any intelligent design towards 400 is patently false.

does this contribute to global warming? how about Saddam, eh? Who here is canadian. legalize pot and kopkillerz bullets? tax cuts for the rich. botox. kerry would be worse

Rick B, Thoreau, and Fyodor: the unholy trinity of libertarian brilliance. Kudos to them!

(does this about cover it?)

|10.14.05 @ 3:07PM|#

Jennifer,

Well, given that your second data point doesn't even exist I can see why you chose to run away. :)

|10.14.05 @ 3:09PM|#

I'm going to toss out some joe-bait:

Snob zoning!
Kelo!

|10.14.05 @ 3:09PM|#

thoreau,

I could swear that I saw a thread that went above 400 before.

Well, I would say that we've definately never hit five-hundred.

|10.14.05 @ 3:10PM|#

Oh, we're at the promised land. Jennifer's puffed up pride got us here.

That, and your mom.

|10.14.05 @ 3:11PM|#

Catch all of youse later, I'm off to New Mexico.

drf|10.14.05 @ 3:12PM|#

that reminds me of the bloom county where grandpa and milo were out hunting liberals:

"give the liberal call boy"
[calling] "welfare! solar power! no nukes"
[rustling in bushes. liberal emerges]:
"no nukes no nukes"
[grampa jumping out of blind, shooting]"gotcha"
[liberal] "gun control! gun control!"
[milo] "they're more fun than buffalo"
[grandpa] "i think i got him"
[liberal] "oooow. socialized medicine. socialized medicine"

(or something like that)

|10.14.05 @ 3:12PM|#

mediageek,

Enjoy your trip.

|10.14.05 @ 3:14PM|#

drf,

My favorite is the strip where Opus gets on the Greenpeace boat in an effort to look for his mother (he thinks that it is a cruise ship).

drf|10.14.05 @ 3:24PM|#

excellent!

and there was a bloom county on the scopes monkey trial, too. see how it ties together?

drf|10.14.05 @ 3:51PM|#

and farewell long posting site. farewell.

|10.14.05 @ 4:09PM|#

Well, this thread is about to die. But I'll still toss out some more bait:

Lincoln was a great President and the South deserved to lose!

I support zoning laws that restrict density.

Canada sucks.

BC Bud doesn't.

[insert Monty Python quote here]

|10.14.05 @ 8:38PM|#

There is only ONE reason why evolution is a controversial topic: Government schools!

If there were no government schools the only people arguing over the latest fragment of a femur , or molar tooth found would be a handful of elite scientists. The rest of us would be doing what we do every day....Not giving the origins of humankind a minutes thought.

There is absolutely no government school can satisfy all parties regarding evolution/intelligent design.

1) If the government school teaches any part or combination of evolution/intelligent design/ creationism it WILL be shoving the educational philosophy favored by some down the throat of resistant children and undermine their religious or non-religious worldview. It WILL be establishing the religious or non-religious worldview of the more politically powerful and trampling the worldview of the less politically powerful.

Hm,,,,,Establish??....Isn't there something in the U.S. Constitution and every state constitution about establishment???

Could it be that government schools are unconstitutional?

2) If the government school forbids discussion of all, part, or any combination of evolution/intelligent design/creationism, isn't the government school violating the citizens right to freely speak about, freely publish, and freely express his religious or non-religious views?

Free speech,press, and expression???/,,,,,Hey aren't they in the U.S. and state constitutions too? Are government schools violating these principles of the First Amendment?

3) Finally,,,,,if a student is compelled by law to attend school where all, parts, or combinations of evolution/intelligent design/ creationism is taught. If he is forbidden to leave the classroom and freely assembly with other in or out of the school of his choosing, isn't the government schools guilty of violating the First Amendment Right to freely assemble?

Also,,,isn't there a 13th Amendment that forbids the government from imprisoning citizens who have committed no crime? Well....It seems to me that these kids are imprisoned. If they don't attend armed police ( real bullets in those guns on the hip) will round them up and send them to government school or juvenile prison. If the youthful citizen refuses to cooperate to a sufficient degree, armed police will haul him out of the government school. We have had examples of this recently with police arresting a kindergarten girl.

Hm,,,,Don't we have a 13th Amendment to protect citizens from imprisonment without having been convicted of a crime?

Evolution is merely one of hundreds of curriculum and policy decisions made by education bureaucrats that can not be politically culturally, or religiously neutral in content and in consequences.

The solution is to privatize universal K-12 education and let parents decide these matters, not education bureaucrats.

M. Simon|10.15.05 @ 3:33PM|#

There is another reason that Darwinism is controversial. The earth is flat. The Darwinists have no explanation for that.

What is holding the earth up? An elephant standing on top of four turtles. What is holding the turtles up? Gotcha. It's turtles all the way down.