"Intelligent Designers" Tossed Out in PA, But...

Ronald Bailey | November 9, 2005

Intelligent voters in Dover, PA threw out the school board that has been pushing the scientifically illegitimate conjecture of "intelligent design" as a rival to evolutionary biology.

In less happy "intelligent design" news, the Kansas State Board of Education voted 6 to 4 to set "science" standards that suggest that there are substantial doubts about evolutionary biology. For instance, the new standards allege a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code." As if the moral equivalent of saying "poof, make the genetic code" is an "adequate" explanation.

The good news in Kansas is that the state's voters will have a chance to follow the inspiring example of the citizens of Dover next year.

I "teach the controversy" here and here.

Comments

|11.9.05 @ 9:15AM|#

Damn Whack-a-Mole game. Knock it down HERE, it pops up over THERE. . . . our country's going downhill. But at least it's funny to watch.

|11.9.05 @ 9:17AM|#

I wonder if the new Dover school board will simply vote to rescind the policy before the judge rules. If they do, then the plaintiffs might drop their case and the whole thing will end not with a bang but a whimper.

As it should.

|11.9.05 @ 9:26AM|#

That is an especially sweet story about Dover, because the creationists are always yapping about how a large majority of the public supports them, and their opposition is elitists.

And they can't even win in central Pennsylvania. Ha ha.

thoreau, I don't want them to drop it. I want a ruling.

|11.9.05 @ 9:27AM|#

It's not Whack-a-mole, it's Thump-a-Bible.
Kansans will ever be more stereotypically inclined than Pennsylvanians to thump Bibles.

|11.9.05 @ 9:28AM|#

BTW, I hope that the predictions in the Kansas article are right, and the idiots get voted out before a lawsuit goes forward. I understand the merits of a lawsuit, but I'd rather see them unceremoniously booted out of office, rather than let them stay in and lose the lawsuit so they can start whining about "liberal activist judges overturning the will of the people." If the people dump the idiots, then the idiots lose the martyrdom card.

|11.9.05 @ 9:29AM|#

I want a ruling to, because it may deter future silliness in this area.
The county adjacent to the University I work at (in VA) elected a pro-ID school board member yesterday. It really is a whack-a-mole! I wish I had known such a candidate was running so I could have been more active against her. The last thing we need is the undermining of what little science and critical thought we have in society in favor of more magical thinking...

|11.9.05 @ 9:32AM|#

I grew up in Kansas, but attended private schools on the Missouri side. Now I understand why my parents wouldn't even consider public schools. (Not that I was flumoxed before.) Still, I don't recall Kansas as being that backward, bible-thumping, and ignorant.

|11.9.05 @ 9:32AM|#

What does nt help is the total cluelessness of the "MSM." I have not yet seen a single news story that indicated that the reporter knew the slightest bit about Darwinian evolution beyond the comic-book one-liners and recycled Spencer Tracy.

|11.9.05 @ 9:34AM|#

Y'all are way too cynical. These creationists are only doing what they think is correct. They want their kids to be happy, as ignorance is indeed bliss.

Learn'n facts is just too hard. Solving problems by utilizing a commonly accepted set of practices is for them eggheads. Let God do all the think'n.

|11.9.05 @ 9:36AM|#

I'm also hoping for a ruling. I understand Thoreau's point about not wanting to give people fuel to complain about "librul activist judges" but honestly--the type of people who would make such complaints about an evolution curriculum are probably beyond hope of reasonable persuasion anyway. Let's us admit, here, what many modern public schools refuse to: some people are so fucking stupid as to be beyond hope. Seriously.

|11.9.05 @ 9:36AM|#

The good news in Kansas is that the state's voters will have a chance to follow the inspiring example of the citizens of Dover next year.
Call me a pessimist, but they won't. Not when the citizens of Kansas has JEEZ-us in their hearts and a fire in their bellies to fight the atheist, communist, Satanic, sec-you-lar humanists who want to teach evil-lution to their innocent, clean, wholesome, white, Christian, children.

Hallelujah and ignorance here we come.

|11.9.05 @ 9:40AM|#

I have not yet seen a single news story that indicated that the reporter knew the slightest bit about Darwinian evolution beyond the comic-book one-liners and recycled Spencer Tracy.

That's because your average reporter, like most Americans, has only had enough science education to meet the minimal requirements to get out of school.

|11.9.05 @ 9:41AM|#

I agree w/joe and Jennifer -- I want a ruling, too, if for no other reason than to start setting precedents in case this ever works up to Federal court levels.

|11.9.05 @ 9:46AM|#

I guess I'm fine with a ruling too. I just don't want to depend on rulings to handle this. I want the idiots thrown out by the voters as well.

|11.9.05 @ 9:47AM|#

I keep telling people we need to support the ID movement. We need a cheap, undereducated labor force, and giving a certain segment a bad education is key to their failure at social mobility and thus the creation of non-immigrant cheap labor.

|11.9.05 @ 9:47AM|#

I'm sending a thank-you note to the Kansas board. I have two sons in high school with an interest in science and they are looking forward to tough competition in getting into top schools. By the time they're ready to apply, I don't think they'll have to worry about any of the bright kids from Shawnee Mission High.

|11.9.05 @ 9:47AM|#

I created the universe in only six days. That almost killed Me.

But ever since then, it's all "God, gimme this.." "God, gimme that.." "Are you there, God?!" I have to constantly do things to impress you people.

And the ONE TIME I ask for something, it's just a sticker in a textbook. A lousy sticker. And you can't even do that for Me.

Thanks. Really. Thanks a lot.

|11.9.05 @ 9:48AM|#

Problem is, Thoreau, there are places where the majority of the voters are absolutely convinced of the wrongness of "evil-lution." And for all that I say hooray for democracy, I have serious qualms with the idea that scientific fact should be decided by minority rule.

|11.9.05 @ 9:49AM|#

D'oh! I meant to say "I don't want scientific fact determined by MAJORITY rule."

|11.9.05 @ 9:50AM|#

I want a ruling too, but I'm used to dissapointment.

|11.9.05 @ 9:51AM|#

Jennifer-

IIRC, the creationists were voted out in Kansas a few years ago, then voted back in. The issue seems to be close there, so I don't want to give up on the democratic process. This should be addressed on as many fronts as possible. That's all.

|11.9.05 @ 9:54AM|#

thoreau,

If the new Dover board continues the lawsuit, we get a threefer - they lose at the polls, they lose on the facts, and they lose on the law.

That's some high test schadenfreude right there.

|11.9.05 @ 9:55AM|#

Did anyone catch the Onion piece a few weeks ago? It was done up to look like an issue of Parade magazine and had a picture of a mother embracing her child and a headline of "They tried to teach my baby science!" Funny stuff.

|11.9.05 @ 9:56AM|#

I have not yet seen a single news story that indicated that the reporter knew the slightest bit about Darwinian evolution beyond the comic-book one-liners and recycled Spencer Tracy.

I was peripherally involved in this case.

I have not seen a single news story that points out that they weren't going to "teach" ID, they were merely going to read a 90-second statement essentially saying "some people believe this ID stuff, you can check out the book in the library" before going on to teach Darwinian evolution. Now, that's certainly not grist for the mill, but headlines blaring "Dover to Teach ID" are.

Also, I met the school board who put the policy in place. They are not Machiavellian Bible thumpers, although some of them may have been rendered defensive by the uproar.

And in the public meeting I attended, most of the ire of the Dover residents was over (1) the cost of defending the policy, or (2) that's not how my religion views it, or (3) I/my child is embarrassed by this whole matter and the perception that I/my child hasn't learned basic science hurts my/his/her college application chances.

Dover's a nice little playground for the usual Bible-thumpers and religion-haters, but I haven't seen much reality reflected in coverage of the case.

|11.9.05 @ 9:56AM|#

That's because your average reporter, like most Americans, has only had enough science education to meet the minimal requirements to get out of school.

What do you expect? Many of us went to public schools.

|11.9.05 @ 9:57AM|#

By the time they're ready to apply, I don't think they'll have to worry about any of the bright kids from Shawnee Mission High.

I wonder what's going to happen when the kids who go to public, ID-teaching, schools when they find they can't get into anything besides bible school or clown college? Why do I smell the makings of a religious discrimination lawsuit in the works?

|11.9.05 @ 9:57AM|#

I'm actually friends with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for real. He sent me this message (which I interpreted should be read by All):

"Dear lord. haha, i love saying that, while, of course, being the lord.

So I'm rolling over in my proverbial grave right now. As most of you all know, I created everything. I'd hoped that DNA would hold it's own and the idiots would be filtered out. BIG mistake. Of course I can fix it by waving a noodle, but this is like a car accident I just HAVE to keep watching.

Everyone needs to tune into the new article about the Kansas state board redefining the definition of science to "'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena".

Holy hell I've made some stupid ass people in my eternal time, but seriously, unless you people do something about this religious right BS in Kansas, you'll never get a clue about anything that's really going on.

Sure, I'm a great ball of spaghetti, and I did make everything, but ID really needs to go. It's about as ludicrous as I am, and I'm hella ludicrous."

- The Flying Spaghetti Monster

|11.9.05 @ 10:05AM|#

I have not seen a single news story that points out that they weren't going to "teach" ID, they were merely going to read a 90-second statement essentially saying "some people believe this ID stuff, you can check out the book in the library" before going on to teach Darwinian evolution.

As I've said before, even this simple "disclaimer" is fundamentally intellectually dishonest, because it implies a level of debate among legitimate scientists that simply isn't there. We don't start classes on human reproduction with the disclaimer "Some people think babies come from the stork." We don't start health classes with the disclaimer "Some people disbelieve virus theory and say that disease is God's way of telling you you're sinful."

|11.9.05 @ 10:05AM|#

Not that I am an ID supporter... I especially don't want it rearing its head in a science class, but it is interesting to me to see such opposition to autonomous decision making by local school boards on a libertarian site. Usually we rail against the Feds/NCLB, but when local school boards make a decision about what to teach local children, this place blows up... thoughts, comments?

|11.9.05 @ 10:05AM|#

I wonder what's going to happen when the kids who go to public, ID-teaching, schools when they find they can't get into anything besides bible school or clown college?

They can always major in communications.

|11.9.05 @ 10:06AM|#

I wonder if "intelligent designers" realize how much complexity is right under their noses? Take water, for example: If it were invented today, even thoreau would take forever to predict its many manifestations:
colorless, yet blue
white in clouds, or gray
snowflakes, no two alike
ice
steam
rainbows
on and on

I mean the foregoing is no proof of God, is it?

|11.9.05 @ 10:06AM|#

Cedarburg, a lot of the coverage I've seen of the Dover trial, including posts like this and this, seem to be at odds with your characterization of the ID-pushing school board members as being "not Machiavellian Bible thumpers."

|11.9.05 @ 10:09AM|#

Usually we rail against the Feds/NCLB, but when local school boards make a decision about what to teach local children, this place blows up... thoughts, comments?

It is immoral for a local school board to take people's money and use it to teach the local children lies. Full stop.

|11.9.05 @ 10:09AM|#

Jennifer:

To a large extent, you're right. I was just commenting on the news coverage.

|11.9.05 @ 10:09AM|#

They're NOT Machiavellian, Phil! "Machiavellian" implies a high level of subtlety and intelligence.

|11.9.05 @ 10:12AM|#

FSM,

Are you the Dunwich Horror? Or was that another sort of Spaghetti Monster?

Cedarburg,

While they're not teaching a course titled "How God Made the World," they are proposing to teach, as science, a doctrine that is religious. Namely, that there are criticisms of evolutionary biology. There are such criticisms, of course, but they are religious. You can't teach religious doctrines in school.

Now, you could object, and say "Those criticisms aren't religious. They're scientific." To which I would say, "Nuh-uh!" No, seriously, to which I would say, "That is the fact that is being determined at trial. If the criticisms are found to lack a scientific basis, and rely on religious teaching, they should be ruled inappopriate as material for a science class, under the establishment clause."

|11.9.05 @ 10:13AM|#

"They can always major in communications."

Zing! Pow!

|11.9.05 @ 10:14AM|#

Phil:

I could be wrong.

|11.9.05 @ 10:15AM|#

but it is interesting to me to see such opposition to autonomous decision making by local school boards on a libertarian site.

I'm far from a "pure" libertarian, but I don't buy the notion that kids are the absolute property of their parents, and I don't think schoolboards should have the right to tell kids out-and-out lies, like "Legitimate scientists debate whether or not evolution is real."

But if you're going to take the hardcore extremist Libertarian notion that the school board should have complete autonomy, teaching kids that Earth is flat if the majority voters say so. . . . well, fine, so long as these schools are held financially responsible. By which I mean, the first time you get some intelligent-but-ignorant graduate of one of these schools, and he can't get into a decent university because his flat-earth-ID diploma is worthless, then let the school board shell out serious bucks to him for damages.

|11.9.05 @ 10:15AM|#

Hey!

Some of you will be unsurprised to discover that I was a communications major.

grylliade|11.9.05 @ 10:16AM|#

Not that I am an ID supporter... I especially don't want it rearing its head in a science class, but it is interesting to me to see such opposition to autonomous decision making by local school boards on a libertarian site. Usually we rail against the Feds/NCLB, but when local school boards make a decision about what to teach local children, this place blows up... thoughts, comments?

Should we have to put the "I am not advocating government action, but I disagree with this" disclaimer on every damn thing that we say about others' opinions? Seriously, this whole "why are libertarians concerned about this?" litmus test is really, really annoying. Libertarians don't have to be wishy-washy and say, "Hey, whatever floats your boat man" on every damn issue.

|11.9.05 @ 10:17AM|#

Usually we rail against the Feds/NCLB, but when local school boards make a decision about what to teach local children, this place blows up... thoughts, comments?

K. Toishi,

From my perspective, it doesn't matter whether the stupidity of gov't is local, state, or national, it's still stupid. In the case of evolution v. ID, it's part of the "culture war" we all seem to hear about constantly.

|11.9.05 @ 10:17AM|#

"Machiavellian" implies a high level of subtlety and intelligence.

A more charitable way to put it would be to say that a true evil schemer would have more thoroughly researched municipal law and election law before making certain decisions.

|11.9.05 @ 10:18AM|#

K-
Could you imagine the uproar if it were a federal mandate?

At any rate, there are differing degrees of libertarianism. While local control is favorable to federal control, some still find teaching out the realm of government - at any level.

|11.9.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Libertarians don't have to be wishy-washy and say, "Hey, whatever floats your boat man" on every damn issue.

grylliade's right. K. Toishi, you're equating Libertarians with Libertines, which is not necessarily the same thing.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 10:20AM|#

from the red state rabble blog cited by phil:

Unfortunately, the edifice of moral certainty once expressed by Jackson now seems to be crumbling. Paradoxically, it's not a ragtag bunch of atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, Neo-Darwinists and other social outcasts who are leading this reappraisal of moral and ethical absolutism once so popular on the right.

The leading proponents of situational ethics now seem to be those on the right who once were thought to have such a clear -- biblically based -- vision of what is right and what is wrong.

some of you took me to task recently for calling out these self-identified "christian" churches as mere personality cults of entirely material and political ambition falling far short of anything that could be called 'religion'. i submit, however, that this well-observed obvious relativism of convenience is entirely in keeping with that analysis.

MP|11.9.05 @ 10:20AM|#

Libertarians don't have to be wishy-washy and say, "Hey, whatever floats your boat man" on every damn issue.

There's nothing wrong with saying "well, it may be legal and Constitution, but it is retarded."

|11.9.05 @ 10:21AM|#

K. Toishi,
I think the issue is how hard is it for us to get our message across.
If the majority insists that up is down and black is white, we want to be aware of it and plan our stategery accordingly.

|11.9.05 @ 10:22AM|#

A more charitable way to put it would be to say that a true evil schemer would have more thoroughly researched municipal law and election law before making certain decisions.

True, Cedarburg, but I have no interest in being charitable. I'd rather say "These numb fucks aren't smart enough to be Machiavellian."

|11.9.05 @ 10:22AM|#

Here's to the "social outcasts"!

|11.9.05 @ 10:23AM|#

Not that I am an ID supporter... I especially don't want it rearing its head in a science class, but it is interesting to me to see such opposition to autonomous decision making by local school boards on a libertarian site.

For me it isn't. While most libertarians, for right or for wrong, cling to the pipe dream of 100% privatized schools, I recognize that public schools are likely going to be with us for a very long time. As long as the government pays for our education system, it's has to follow the rules. Rule No. 1 of the handbook says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

I will be three days brain-dead before I accept the state teaching religion, whether overt or disguised as "Intellegent Design," taught as science. If you don't like that, put your kid in a private school that caters to your delusions. If Kansas doesn't like it, they can leave the union and put that nasty, pinko-commie, First Amendment behind. Either way, it is quite "libertarian" to oppose the state cramming religion down people's throats and to keep church and state seperate.

|11.9.05 @ 10:27AM|#

K. Toishi,

If teach ID, or even the hint of it, isn't worth rebutting in REASON online, I don't know what is.

Dave W.|11.9.05 @ 10:27AM|#

For instance, the new standards allege a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code." As if the moral equivalent of saying "poof, make the genetic code" is an "adequate" explanation.

THe 2d sentence doesn't follow from the first here.

Ed|11.9.05 @ 10:28AM|#

It is my understanding that an intelligent designer is also responsible for flattening trailer parks every spring in Kansas, so there is some justice in the world.

|11.9.05 @ 10:28AM|#

*teaching

|11.9.05 @ 10:29AM|#

Just putting your kids into private schools isn't always that easy. The financial aspect of paying for schooling twice (through taxes and then again for tuition)aside, many places have to get permission from government, whether the school board or another legislative body, to even exist. So when a private school can find a suitable, friendly, and approved location, it may be an insurmountable distance for those wishing to attend.

The same goes for homeschooling; there are many hoops to jump through, and if you refuse to jump, they'll take you to jail for not sending your kid to indoctination camp...school.

|11.9.05 @ 10:29AM|#

Ed,
You gave new meaning to "what goes 'round comes around."

|11.9.05 @ 10:34AM|#

Can you sue the government for violating the anti-trust laws or for maintaining a monopoly?
....Lysander Spooner says "good luck"...

|11.9.05 @ 10:34AM|#

thoreau,

If they do, then the plaintiffs might drop their case and the whole thing will end not with a bang but a whimper.

More to the point, the District Court judge will treat the point as moot and dismiss the case on his own. It no longer meets the "case and controversy" standard of the Article III. See DeFunis v. Odegard for the primary example of moot case.

|11.9.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Can you sue the government for violating the anti-trust laws or for maintaining a monopoly?
....Lysander Spooner says "good luck"...

|11.9.05 @ 10:37AM|#

ID makes everything so much easier to figure out. Why depend on science when all we have to do is believe that everything magically appeared? I wonder if there is an ID degree plan offered by a legitimate university, I'll bet I could ace that no problemo. Then I could get a really cool job. I'm sure that a lot of companies would love to hire a person with a Master's Degree in ID. Think of the opportunities. Awesome!

|11.9.05 @ 10:40AM|#

I can sympathize with all the points (how's that for wishy-washy).

As an employee at a university and resident of a school district that both place a heavy emphasis on multiculturalism, I guess I see this as somewhat of a flip side to that. I personally think the students are being taught "mistruths" and will be at an extreme disadvantage when they hit the "real world." But, if/when I have kids, I'll either move to a new town or enroll my kids in private school to be sure they get a Western/Great Books approach to their education.

I think the university/local school board is flat out wrong in advocating, what I view as, moral relativism but that's the local community's choice. I think multiculturalism is inane, just as I think ID is in public schools, but oh well.

But, we could solve all of this with just getting government out of education, huh?

And, I am pretty much "whatever floats your boat" on most issues... as long as I can pick a community that represents my values or doesn't offend them too much, I'm not too concerned what goes on in red/blue state America...

|11.9.05 @ 10:40AM|#

Cedarburg,

Having followed the trial case very closely I can say that the school board was far less bening than you describe them as. The cross by the plaintiffs brought this out especially well. Many of the school board members who voted for ID were found to be very inconsistent in their stories re: why they wanted to adopt I.D. for example; arguing in court that it had nothing to do with creationism, while in other settings (such as sworn depositions and before television cameras) arguing that it did.

|11.9.05 @ 10:41AM|#

Not that I am an ID supporter... I especially don't want it rearing its head in a science class, but it is interesting to me to see such opposition to autonomous decision making by local school boards on a libertarian site. Usually we rail against the Feds/NCLB, but when local school boards make a decision about what to teach local children, this place blows up... thoughts, comments?

I'm with Grylliade on this. Why can't libertarians ever have a fucking opinion on a controversial issue without some devil's advocate pointing out that they THOUGHT we were federalists?

But, really, I think that the federalist instincts inherent in libertarian ideology really pertain mostly to FEDERAL GOVERNMENT telling state or local government what to do. This, on the other hand, is a case of the citizens taking their local government to court to enforce the separation of church and state (or, fairy-tale and science). There is a difference. Also, there is a difference between the opinion on a particular case, and the opinion on who should be telling who what to do. I think intelligent design is a big hoax, a pile of horseshit that is based on nothing but conjecture and guessing---I also think that a separation of church and state is necessary - even at a local level. Federalism should not be construed mean that all power is put in the hands of local government - and as long as the government maintains a virtual monopoly on education, I think it's important keep science and fairy-tales separate. Once education is completely privatized, then we'll talk.

|11.9.05 @ 10:44AM|#

of course it isn't the ideal solution of the abolition of all public education, but this is all the more reason to institute some sort of school choice program. let parents send their kids to whatever academic instution they want. if they want to have their children educated by some dark-ages throwback, let them. but don't force anyone else.

|11.9.05 @ 10:46AM|#

BTW, the cross by the plaintiffs in the Dover case was devestating and a pleasure to read. It should be used as a teaching tool.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 10:51AM|#

"I'm with Grylliade on this. Why can't libertarians ever have a fucking opinion on a controversial issue without some devil's advocate pointing out that they THOUGHT we were federalists?"

Because his point is pretty damn valid. If you really believe in local control, you damn well have to support crap like ID being taught in certain localities.

And those who say that this won't hurt us when we get school choice - good luck. Religion trumps the market.

Viking Moose|11.9.05 @ 10:52AM|#

The Solution:

Call it:

NATURAL Design and
INTELLIGENT Selection.

voila. organic and jeebus all rolled into one. so people with delusions about some herb/root and imaginary friends can get along and drive off on their bikes or HUMMERs.

|11.9.05 @ 10:53AM|#

I think one big disconnect here is differing interpretations of the First Amendment... For some folks it means the absolute exclusion of religion from the public realm. For others, it means the exclusion of a state-sponsored religion (e.g. Church of England). Support for both can be found in constitutional history.

I'm not a fan of religion being taught in schools because I would rather not leave that to some public school teacher. Come to think of it, I'd rather not leave much to public school teachers. But, I don't see an absolute constitutional prohibition on teaching the beliefs/aspects of different religions or monotheism. Yet, I would prefer school choice so people can spend their money on the type of education they desire for their kids - ID, multiculturalism, whatever.

Well, I am out for two weeks to Montana... have fun folks...

|11.9.05 @ 10:54AM|#

...but this is all the more reason to institute some sort of school choice program.

While I don't buy the teacher's union argument that "school choice" would lead to the downfall of public schools, I do have two qualms about it:

1. How is this philospohically different than any other government welfare scheme that the liberals put out?

2. It would seem to me that government funding scholarships to religious schools is, yet again, a violation of the Establishment Clause. If someone could show me that "school choice" wasn't welfare, I wouldn't have a problem with it... as long as the vouchers went to put kids through secular private schools. Otherwise, I don't want a dime of my taxpayer money going to the churches via an education program.

|11.9.05 @ 10:55AM|#

Dave W.:

I take it that ID implies that if there is no adequate natural explanation for the genetic code, then they think that there must be an adequate supernatural explanation, hence,poof.

|11.9.05 @ 10:56AM|#

Being a libertarian doesn't mean one has to have a federalist fetish. Indeed, the problem with federalism is that far too many people treat it as an end unto itself.

|11.9.05 @ 10:58AM|#

K. Toshi -

The problem with ignoring what goes on at the local school board level is that there is every reason to believe that the Creationist movement is using these local school boards to push through their anti-evolution agenda at the national level. If we don't stop them at the local level it will be that much harder to stop them later, after they have established precedent.

|11.9.05 @ 10:59AM|#

Only got through the first 10 comments before I had to say it.

Jennifer, Nice Guy, Akira (and others, I'm sure): the dialect and accents of people from other parts of the country has less than nothing to do with their lower intelligence, inferior culture, or religious belief. I know, I know, I'm being a killjoy, but it's my duty to say it.

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled Red Stater bashing.

|11.9.05 @ 10:59AM|#

I actually used the proof in that cartoon in a proof of the irrationality of 2^1/2 before. It was quite a stressful quarter and the teacher found it somewhat funny, though not enought to give more credit- as was proper, unfortuantely.

|11.9.05 @ 11:00AM|#

Because his point is pretty damn valid. If you really believe in local control, you damn well have to support crap like ID being taught in certain localities.

Yeah, how far should we progress down THIS slippery slope, M1EK? How about...

"If you really believe in local control, you damn well have to support crap like enslaving women."

or maybe...

"If you really believe in local control, you damn well have to support crap like randomly shooting every 10th citizen to death each week."

No, M1EK, there is a difference between "absolute federalism" and "libertarian federalism". Just because I support more local control doesn't mean I must support absolute local control over everything.

And those who say that this won't hurt us when we get school choice - good luck. Religion trumps the market.

Um, yeah. Trumps the market. Uh huh. Jeez, yeah, you know, just last night, I was flipping channels on the teevee, and you would not believe how many of them were religious!

Salvationist religion may be popular, but so is "reason" and "common sense" and "observable science". How is having a choice in how I educate my kid going to come back and "bite me"?

|11.9.05 @ 11:02AM|#

That was subtle, Linguist...I like it.

|11.9.05 @ 11:04AM|#

K. Toishi,

The Supreme Court has never taken the former position (no matter what Dr. Dobson or others might say on the matter).

While the Court has prohibited "active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity," Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612 (quoting Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 668 (1970)), it has also stated that "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and that the government may not show a callous indifference toward religious groups." Zorach v. Clauson, 343 US 306, 313 (1952).

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 11:06AM|#

it is interesting to me to see such opposition to autonomous decision making by local school boards on a libertarian site. Usually we rail against the Feds/NCLB, but when local school boards make a decision about what to teach local children, this place blows up

where two conflicting idealisms collide -- the absolute belief in scientism as the arbiter of truth vs the absolute belief in individual autonomy as the arbiter of happiness.

when the individual rejects science, where does a good labcoat-wearing atheist anarchist turn for reconciliation?

|11.9.05 @ 11:06AM|#

"callous indifference toward religious groups." Zorach v. Clauson, 343 US 306, 313 (1952).

|11.9.05 @ 11:07AM|#

"1. How is this philospohically different than any other government welfare scheme that the liberals put out?"

It is welfare. The implied choice of vouchers isn't between free-market ed and gov't ed--it's between government-financed ed (e.g., welfare) and gov't-run ed (i.e., socialized schooling). It's a step, not the ultimate solution.

|11.9.05 @ 11:08AM|#

"For instance, the new standards allege a 'lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code.'"

Those useless fucking crapsacks. As it turns out there's quite a bit of work being done on the evolution of the genetic code, with biochemical evidence supporting certain models of its formation and "freezing" into a close to universal code. If they had the intellectual honesty to consult an evolutionist or even anyone who knows how to use a scientific literature database, they could have figured this out quite easily. But it's more convenient to pretend it doesn't exist.

The ID/creationist "leaders" do this shit over and over. They don't have a single solitary clue about the breadth of research being performed in evolution (both pre-biotic and biotic) and the strength of empirical evidence that continues to be amassed, so they just claim it doesn't exist.

|11.9.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Jennifer, Nice Guy, Akira (and others, I'm sure): the dialect and accents of people from other parts of the country has less than nothing to do with their lower intelligence, inferior culture, or religious belief. I know, I know, I'm being a killjoy, but it's my duty to say it.

Point taken. I suppose that made me the equivalent of the odd posters here who keep saying "You liberals need to stop whining about 'Chimpler' or 'Bushitler' all the time" while we liberals keep pointing out "Uh, guys, the only one who's ever said 'Chimpler' here is you."

No more librul-bashing from me.

|11.9.05 @ 11:09AM|#

...when the individual rejects science, where does a good labcoat-wearing atheist anarchist turn for reconciliation?

We store enough canned food and ammo in the shelter and wait it out until the primative screw-heads kill themselves off.

|11.9.05 @ 11:11AM|#

gaius marius,

So, how are you using the term "scientism?" In the Michael Shermer sense? In the Hannah Arendt sense? Or what? You just can't lay out a loaded word like that without some way of defining it.

|11.9.05 @ 11:11AM|#

"Well, I am out for two weeks to Montana... have fun folks..."
K. Toishi,
I'm afraid you need to cancel. We haven't finished with you yet.

|11.9.05 @ 11:13AM|#

What would school choice do for the person whose local school institutes ID into the curriculum but does not have the financial wherewithall to send their kid to the next closest school which doesn't? Even with a voucher, which I doubt would even cover tuition, how does the parent get their kid to a school that is far away when they have to be at work at 5:30/6 am? or pick them up when they have to work until 6/7 pm? Wouldn't transportation services increase the costs of tuition, putting that school even further out of reach? I'm just not sure how school choice would do anything to solve this.

Additionally, there seem to be some wide generalizations about public schools. I'm the first to admit that there are some seriously messed up issues with public schools. However, I don't believe that a teacher is any more capable of teaching because they are in a private school rather than a public school. Also, it's not like private schools only turn out bright go-getters who earn their keep through a competitive meritocracy. I understand the preferences for private schools and objections to public funding, etc. etc., but the blanket idea that private schools are better than public schools in all aspects is a position of which I have never been convinced.

|11.9.05 @ 11:17AM|#

gaius marius,

BTW, most wearers of labcoasts aren't anarchists or libertarians, so you are creating a false fact situation.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 11:18AM|#

We store enough canned food and ammo in the shelter and wait it out until the primative screw-heads kill themselves off.

that's certianly one solution, mr mackenzie. :)

|11.9.05 @ 11:19AM|#

Evan,

M1EK is arguing with the libertarian in his head.

|11.9.05 @ 11:20AM|#

Someone else's two cents, presenting by far the strongest case for ID, or at least a valid reason to mention it in schools. Not that I believe ID, but this was really good:

As an engineer, I find it interesting that a theory such as evolution, touted as a fundamental building block of science, has no practical value in industrial biology or chemical engineering. If it did, then processes and procedures would be in place to exercise this fundamental principle toward the production of substances and chemicals of value to industry. However, as tens of thousands of scientists around the world have concluded, relying on random mutation to produce a molecular structure of any value is a foolish proposition. When contrasted to theories which can be used to produce tangible results, evolution is left by the wayside and considered a non-player. The study of evolution as a mechanism to produce significant change is very different than other areas of science and engineering where more practical theories (e.g. theories of chemical bonding) are used to drive scientific discovery that produces useful results.

I see much more value in teaching our children theories that can be used to improve our world. The concepts presented as part of the theory of Intelligent Design (e.g. mechanisms for the construction of molecular components, irreducible complexity, information theory, etc.) seem to have a lot more practical and scientific value than a statement that random mutation miraculously provided all of the complexity we see in the world today.

|11.9.05 @ 11:23AM|#

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I think I'll defend M1EK here.

It is true that if you support federalism in general you don't have to support ID taught in localities. That said, most people here aren't making that argument. Most people here are arguing that federal oversight of education is an overreach. That seems to specifically suggest that in the particular case of loacal boards making these kind of choices, we are arguing that a federal correction to that problem is inappropriate. Now, we can argue as to whether that means that we are 'supporting crap like ID'.

A market solution would have schools like this as a feature of the educational landscape. To me, the problem is that you can't have the current public education model with no opt out available and still permit there to be localities choosing whatever they want to do. Once you have decided that there is no way to opt out of the system, you have also decided that the diversity of educational experiences is going to be washed out to vanilla.

|11.9.05 @ 11:24AM|#

Eric S.,

...has no practical value in industrial biology or chemical engineering.

Right. See here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

http://www.genetic-programming.com/published/usnwr072798.html

|11.9.05 @ 11:25AM|#

We store enough canned food and ammo in the shelter and wait it out until the primative screw-heads kill themselves off.

They never seem to, Akira. Although if they ever start the version of the apocalypse they seem to fantasize about, we might have a shot.

|11.9.05 @ 11:26AM|#

As an engineer, I find it interesting that a theory such as evolution, touted as a fundamental building block of science, has no practical value in industrial biology

And yet, electricity was once only a laboratory curiosity, too. Your point is worthy of notice, but not necessarily a rule.

|11.9.05 @ 11:26AM|#

Not that I believe ID, but this was really good:

Translation: I'm really a Bible-beater and I'm lying (in the name of my Lord, of course) to help give my religious nonsense credence.

Spare me. This bull where you claim "I'm not for ID, but..." then ramble off a load of fundie crap is getting really old. Just admit what you are, and be done with it.

|11.9.05 @ 11:28AM|#

I have enough canned food and supplies to outlive any apocalypse, so long as it dies down and things get back to normal within a couple of months.

|11.9.05 @ 11:28AM|#

I've never had any trouble understanding how a libertoid could want the federal courts to overturn a local school board's decisions.

First, a local government isn't an individual. It's a government.

Second, libertoids love to see the Constitution restrain the government. Doesn't matter which government we're talking about.

"For instance, the new standards allege a 'lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code.'"

I call this the "Who made thunder?" argument. You don't believe in God? OK, who made thunder? Then, once science answered that, it became, who made the sky blue? Now, science has advanced to thet point that they're asking, who made blood coagulation? The "virtue" of this line of questioning is that the creationists will never run out of questions to ask, because scientists are quite upfront about the existence of unanswered questions, and the answering of questions - even those that the creationists point to as unanswerable by natural forces - just create more questions.

|11.9.05 @ 11:29AM|#

Eric S,
Thanks for cueing me to plug the Santa Fe Institute.
They are at the forefront of discovering some usefulness in complexity.
Science has wasted many years looking at the very big and the very small while there has always been a lot more to discover about complexity, of which evolution is an example.

|11.9.05 @ 11:30AM|#

Jason Ligon,

The problem is the that the 1st Amendment - through the power of the 14th - has allows the Federal Government to trump the power of the states.

|11.9.05 @ 11:30AM|#

Jason Ligon,

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. But don't people have the ability to "opt out" of public education already through homeschooling and private schools? I know they can't opt out in the sense that their tax dollars can be withdrawn from supporting the schools, but that can be said for any expenditure of tax dollars where one doesn't benefit as directly as another.

|11.9.05 @ 11:31AM|#

akira:

"of course it isn't the ideal solution of the abolition of all public education"

1. i agree with you what public education is welfare and needs to go. and how is it different than other gov't welfare scheme? it would at least give private institutions the same sort of ability to compete as those clusterfucks known as "public schools". right now, public institutions get the no-bid contract money for education. if anything, let's give private schools the chance to compete for that money. yes, i understand that they would be propped up by the same "welfare" as public schools, but at least they wouldn't have the hurdle of not getting any of that public money.

as for point 2, i'm not sure I agree. yes, i understand the whole sep. of church and state, but really, this money would be given to parents for the purpose of educating their children. if they choose Bible Beater High School, i don't think that's the state sponsoring religion, merely the parents.

but yes, ulitmately this is just a variation of welfare, but i think it would allow private instutions to have the same footing as public schools have now. short of complete abolition of public education, i think something like this would work much better.

|11.9.05 @ 11:31AM|#

"Once you have decided that there is no way to opt out of the system, you have also decided that the diversity of educational experiences is going to be washed out to vanilla."

Absolutely. And the irony is that the hard left, committed to the abstract ideal of diversity, is the biggest proponent of such top-down, diversity crushing agendas.

This wouldn't even be a political issue at the federal level absent the Dept. of Ed. And it wouldn't be an issue at the state level if there were a free market - those idiots who want their children to be ignorant of science would be free to waster their own hard earned money in that pursuit, while the rest of us would be free to educate our children according to our own wishes. No need to have contentious fights with our neighbors over the issue.

Unfortunately, too many people buy into the scare tactic of "greedy corporates" taking over school squeezing out the poor (while usually at the same time crying for more parental involvement to solve the problems in the schools) to ever have a serious conversation on the merits. Even when presented with a comparison to food, people generally just shut down their critical analysis centers when anyone discusses ending the state intervention in the education market.

|11.9.05 @ 11:31AM|#

Jason Ligon,

Well, "allow" isn't the right word; since the federal government has a positive duty to right constitutional wrongs brought to its attention.

|11.9.05 @ 11:32AM|#

The concepts presented as part of the theory of Intelligent Design (e.g. mechanisms for the construction of molecular components, irreducible complexity, information theory, etc.) seem to have a lot more practical and scientific value than a statement that random mutation miraculously provided all of the complexity we see in the world today.

Why? The end result of ID is a higher power magically creating the same complexity. If you're not endowed with godlike powers, what use is ID?

|11.9.05 @ 11:32AM|#

You know, if you're anti-government but live in a country filled with multiple layers of it, what's wrng with playing the levels against each other in a sort of anti-government Lightning Ju-Jitsu? Use the feds against bad locals and the locals against bad feds.

Reminder: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good! There probably shouldn't be this much government. . . but there is. So let's be pragmatic.

|11.9.05 @ 11:33AM|#

What a load of strawman laden nonsense!

As an engineer, I find it interesting that a theory such as evolution, touted as a fundamental building block of science, has no practical value in industrial biology or chemical engineering.

It also has no practical value in geology or astrophysics. Therefore it must be useless!

If it did, then processes and procedures would be in place to exercise this fundamental principle toward the production of substances and chemicals of value to industry. However, as tens of thousands of scientists around the world have concluded, relying on random mutation to produce a molecular structure of any value is a foolish proposition.

Oh, where to start?

1. Evolution doesn't rely on "random mutation," so tossing out that hackneyed phrase is red flag #1 that you're dealing with a creationist whackjob.

2. When trying to make something on purpose, it's not a good idea to rely on random results? No kidding!

3. If this is what the guy thinks "intellligent design" is, I look forward to him and his tens of thousands of scientists creating a completely unique new life form.

When contrasted to theories which can be used to produce tangible results, evolution is left by the wayside and considered a non-player.

Right. Nobody has ever learned anything useful as a result of evolutionary theory, which is why we aren't working on highly-targeted disease treatments and why we know nothing of how antibiotics work.

The concepts presented as part of the theory of Intelligent Design (e.g. mechanisms for the construction of molecular components, irreducible complexity, information theory, etc.) seem to have a lot more practical and scientific value than a statement that random mutation miraculously provided all of the complexity we see in the world today.

Intelligent design doesn't teach any of those things; it simply says, "Well, we don't know, but it sure wasn't evolution!" See previous comment re: "random mutation."

Absolute crap.

|11.9.05 @ 11:34AM|#

joe, Jennifer, etc.

Your insults are poisoning the debate.

|11.9.05 @ 11:36AM|#

h-dawg:

It is welfare. The implied choice of vouchers isn't between free-market ed and gov't ed--it's between government-financed ed (e.g., welfare) and gov't-run ed (i.e., socialized schooling). It's a step, not the ultimate solution.

thank you. you articulated what i couldn't.

and yes, i agree it's a step and not the ultimate solution.

|11.9.05 @ 11:37AM|#

I don't watch martial-arts movies, so I don't know . . . . Is it ju-jitsu where you use your opponent's force against him, or karate, or what?

|11.9.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Akido, Jennifer.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 11:39AM|#

"scientism" in the sense of a faith of scientific method as a means to all ends. the idea that all knowledge is understandable through the use of scientific method, and that which cannot be subjected to science is not knowledge (or, at least, worth knowing).

it's often merely implied in people's comments, of course -- but far too frequently for comfort, imo. too many of us have quit thinking critically w/r/t science and its limitations, which are quite confining.

creating a false fact situation

in truth a symbolic representation of the plight for purpose of illustration.

|11.9.05 @ 11:40AM|#

Eric S,

The guy you're quoting is full of shit.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

|11.9.05 @ 11:41AM|#

Jennifer,
I feel no urges to be pragmatic, but I love your ju-jitso thoughts.
Use some ju-jitso on Hakluyt.

|11.9.05 @ 11:42AM|#

Damn, too late.

|11.9.05 @ 11:44AM|#

"The guy you're quoting is full of shit."
I don't think this qualifies as akido.

|11.9.05 @ 11:45AM|#

As for the discussion of "natural complexity" and its usefulness re: other knowledge, I have to disagree with the initial point.

Knowing that in nature, there seems to be an inherent drive to self-organization, and ever greater complexity and hence functionality, is exactly what drew me to libertarianism in the first place. Hayek and others describe the same function in social and economic dynamics. Nature works this way. Denying it, whether you are a bible thumping creationist, rabble rousing Marxist, or fear-mongering Hobbesian, is just silly in the face of the available evidence.

Also, (and jumping way out of my league here, so I expect Thoreau to slap me back down) it seems to address a little problem I always had with entropy. Namely, where's the equal and opposite force (I realize expansion of the universe could be one)? Or to take it out of Newtonian terms Nothing else in nature seems to exist without some counteracting feedback mechanism. The idea that there is some other, as yet unnamed force pushing towards self-organization that we recognize as life makes sense to me (and no, I am not saying that this force is divine in any way - I am saying that it is physical constant like entropy).

|11.9.05 @ 11:48AM|#

gaius marius,

No, in truth its bullshit. Most scientists are neither anarchists or libertarians. Which is why your comment borders on hyperbole.

I perfer Michael Shermer's definition; that is a "scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

too many of us have quit thinking critically w/r/t science and its limitations, which are quite confining.

Yes, so we can run about in sackcloth and howl at the moon instead? Honestly, the "limitations" of science involve areas of inquiry that are patently absurd on their face, and the reason that these areas don't want to be subjected to scientific inquiry is largely out of fear of being shown up as a fraud.

|11.9.05 @ 11:54AM|#

"The idea that there is some other, as yet unnamed force pushing towards self-organization that we recognize as life makes sense to me (and no, I am not saying that this force is divine in any way - I am saying that it is physical constant like entropy)."

quasibill,
I don't think it's that "complex."
Nature throws so much shit on the wall, some of it is bound to stick.
Simple as that.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 11:59AM|#

No, in truth its bullshit.

lol, gg -- no literary character ever invented illustrated aspects of the actual, if vastly more complex, human condition? you are commiting the sin of excessive literalism.

Yes, so we can run about in sackcloth and howl at the moon instead?

obviously not. but it's wrong to assume that, because ID is obviously ridiculous, the other arguing party is therefore absolutely correct. scientific method (in its most rigorous sense) is clearly too constrained even to address the majority of natural phenomena. we've been reduced to statistical inference on most frontiers.

and this is not something to fear and reject. it's quite natural, it seems to me, that complex systems cannot be understood using a simple observe/hypothesize/test model. it doesn't imply that there is a hellenic father figure roaming the sky. it simply posits that there is a limit -- which we have already encountered in many cases -- to what can be understood about the world within the constraints of strict scientific method.

"scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

this is in fact a statement of faith, however. "natural explanations for all phenomena" presumes far more than we will ever know or can know. it's essentially the black swan problem -- you can assume that all phenomena are natural and have a comprehensible physical mechanism, but it is in the end only an assumption. of the infinite number of events in the universe, only one need be something other than natural for the edifice of the assumption to collapse.

is that statement, then, a leap any scientist should make? or should we not admit the limitations of our knowledge -- not as a vehicle to presuming a fantasy system to explain the rest, a la ID, but merely as a truthful acknowledgement that most of the universe will always remain beyond our scientific comprehension?

|11.9.05 @ 12:01PM|#

All the comments to "put your kids in private schools or homeschool" don't account for the government monopoly on education in lots of places.

When a charter school or private school needs permission from the BoE or other government entity to open, how does that make the market for education open? Or when the hoops for homeschooling are to complex to jump through, how do you have a choice in education?

The choice is "our way or the highway".

Seems like it would be the equivalent of Burger King having to get McDonald's permission to open a restraunt.

|11.9.05 @ 12:02PM|#

"it's often merely implied in people's comments, of course -- but far too frequently for comfort, imo. too many of us have quit thinking critically w/r/t science and its limitations, which are quite confining."

The argument I was making a while back. Thoreau seems to have been much better at making the point than I was, however, so I've decided to avoid muddying the waters further.

|11.9.05 @ 12:02PM|#

Woo-hoo! Here's what I mean by akido (thanks, Akira): there's that new thread just posted above where a state government is opening a state department to distribute medical MJ, in accordance with state law but in violation of federal. Using local government against the feds! While here with these ID-proponents, the Feds are being used against the bad locals.

Anti-government akido! Yeah, we know the libertarian principle of government avoidance at all costs, but if it's there and it generates political force then you may as well take that force which was being used against you and turn it against itself.

You know, if I weren't so busy I'd go out and found an actual Movement (note the capital M) based on that idea.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 12:05PM|#

"The ID/creationist "leaders" do this shit over and over. They don't have a single solitary clue about the breadth of research being performed in evolution (both pre-biotic and biotic) and the strength of empirical evidence that continues to be amassed, so they just claim it doesn't exist."

The same exact thing is true about people who assert that global warming isn't happening, or isn't due to man, or won't be that bad anyways.

But admitting that climate change is real and has to be addressed runs squarely against libertarian dogma, so we have to pretend otherwise.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 12:07PM|#

"Salvationist religion may be popular, but so is "reason" and "common sense" and "observable science". How is having a choice in how I educate my kid going to come back and "bite me"?"

When you live in a small town and there isn't enough secular population to supply a school.

When the macroeconomic effects of having 40% of the whole country's schoolchildren being taught anti-science tripe blows back in your face as your company lays you off.

Etc.

|11.9.05 @ 12:07PM|#

gaius marius,

Yes, whenever you are wrong, your opponent is being excessively literal. Is your name Bill Clinton in real life? :)

but it's wrong to assume that, because ID is obviously ridiculous, the other arguing party is therefore absolutely correct.

"Absolutely correct?" Care to throw out any more strawmen? Spare me the bullshit.

scientific method (in its most rigorous sense) is clearly too constrained even to address the majority of natural phenomena.

And you know this how? I dunno, the only person who is trading in absolutism seems to be you. Oh, and thanks for falling into God of the Gaps mode. You've just outted yourself and its nice to finally see that.

it's quite natural, it seems to me, that complex systems cannot be understood using a simple observe/hypothesize/test model.

If that is how you characterize the nature of science then you don't know much about science.

raymond|11.9.05 @ 12:09PM|#

Today's truth is tomorrow's folklore.

It seems to me that those who are convinced of the immutability of their truth - whatever that "truth" may be: Evolution, Relativity, the Big Bang - are suffering from hubris.

Our perception of reality is evolving. Our understanding of causes and effects changes over time. Our categories are not the same from one generation to the next.

The theory of evolution seems to work. At the moment. And so, for the moment, we might as well put our faith into it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be teaching kids to doubt it.

If they don't doubt and question what their science teachers are telling them, then they are just as much victims of superstition as... Creationists.

It seems to me that science classes at the high-school level should stress method and critical thinking. Much like History courses. Sure, kids have got to learn the vocabulary and be conversant with how scientists think things happen. But they have to learn these things only so that they can ask the right questions.

School is for giving kids the tools to think with. It's for exercising their reason. It's for questioning authority. It's for preparing them for the quest. It's not for doling out "truth".

I think every high school should offer a Theory of Knowledge course. But if a school can't offer such a course, then a little bit of ID in Biology class might not be a total waste of time.

Finally. People on both sides of the ID-Evolution argument seem to think they know it all. Each group reacts with disdain towards their opponents. Well, folks, the brightest human beings among us have only _begun_ to understand anything at all. And I'm willing to bet you that most of what we think we understand is wrong.

|11.9.05 @ 12:10PM|#

As an engineer, I find it interesting that a theory such as evolution, touted as a fundamental building block of science, has no practical value in industrial biology or chemical engineering.

Evolutionary concepts are used to understand many phenomena of practical significance. Off the top of my head:

1) Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
2) Pesticide resistance in insects
3) Cancer research, believe it or not. I went to a meeting of cancer researchers recently (I'm a biophysicist). While talking about various genes that are expressed in tumors, more than one biologist remarked "We don't yet know what function this gene performs in healthy tissue, but it's found in so many species, with an evolutionary history going back such-and-such number of years. So we hypothesize that it is useful in some way and are currently conducting experiments to determine what sort of function or survival advantage it confers."

Without the concepts of common descent, random variation, and natural selection, the diversity of life, as well as the universal features found even in very different species, would be difficult to understand. Toss in the way that it informs many practical inquiries, and it is clearly a useful theory.

|11.9.05 @ 12:11PM|#

raymond,

Those are interesting remarks and all, but the point of the I.D. movement isn't to just put "Question Authority" into the heads of school kids.

|11.9.05 @ 12:12PM|#

Again, jumping into a depth where I have only superficial knowledge, so I expect Thoreau to weigh in on any inaccuracy here:

There is a concept in theoretical physics regarding information, and from what I've read, the concept posits that perfect knowledge is impossible for a single person, based upon relativity and all. the idea is that if we can't travel faster than light, there is an inherent limit upon the amount of information we can receive from a given event, as the information contained in the light traveling away from us is forever lost to us.

And this doesn't even begin to address the concerns that are commonly referred to as Heisenberg. Nor does it address the issue of non-linear systems or chaos theory, where we can predict certain patterns in recurring events, but our ability to predict specific events is highly constrained.

All of which is why it is very important to acknowledge the limits of the scientific method - else we call into question those things that the scientific method has validated.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 12:12PM|#

"And it wouldn't be an issue at the state level if there were a free market - those idiots who want their children to be ignorant of science would be free to waster their own hard earned money in that pursuit, while the rest of us would be free to educate our children according to our own wishes. No need to have contentious fights with our neighbors over the issue."

This works if you're in a densely populated area with a lot of other secular families.

But what if you're the one atheist in your town in east Texas?

The market will magically provide transportation quick enough for the kid to go 100 miles to the nearest secular enclave for school, I suppose.

We learn new things every day. For instance, wrt peak oil I learn that economics can trump geology; and NOW I learn it can also trump geography! Amazing!

|11.9.05 @ 12:12PM|#

"But admitting that climate change is real and has to be addressed runs squarely against libertarian dogma, so we have to pretend otherwise."

And acknowledging that a significant number of libertarians accept the existence of human-mediated global warming runs squarely against your dogma, so you have to pretend otherwise and lump everyone together. I guess it's a widespread phenomenon.

|11.9.05 @ 12:13PM|#

Today's truth is tomorrow's folklore.

In his essay "The Relativity of Wrong" Isaac Asimov pointed out that science is constantly refining itself and learning more and more than it previously did.

Once upon a time people thought the world was flat. They were wrong. Then, later, people decided the world was a perfect sphere. This, too, is wrong. But to pretend that the spherical-earth people were just as wrong as the flat-earth people is, in Asimov's estimation, more wrong than either of them.

Newton's laws didn't become folklore after Einstein's laws showed them to be partially wrong.

|11.9.05 @ 12:14PM|#

I hope my comment about the ability to opt out of public education wasn't taken to mean that I believe the education market to be fully open. I have no problem with making it easier to establish private schools and homeschooling.

My only point was that if you prefer religious education for your child, it is certainly available in the form of homeschooling and private schools. A full 1/4 of school aged children in my area "opt out" of the public schools for private education. The vast majority of these schools are religious and certainly teach religious subjects - even if they do have to meet state standards in some subjects.

Not a completely free education market, but not exactly a complete inability to educate your child as you like.

|11.9.05 @ 12:16PM|#

J,

Remember, libertarians are robots who are programmed with the same instructions. That's why joe called us "libertoids." Remember, joe never, ever insults, flames, etc. anyone.

|11.9.05 @ 12:17PM|#

J,

Remember, libertarians are robots who are programmed with the same instructions. That's why joe called us "libertoids." Remember, joe never, ever insults, flames, etc. anyone.

|11.9.05 @ 12:21PM|#

Jennifer, great comment. To which I would add:

"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be
persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right."

-Robert Park, of the American Physical Society

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 12:21PM|#

whenever you are wrong

lmao! perhaps you could better explain to me what is "wrong" about illustrating a point with a symbol, gg. and then make that point in regards to every work of fiction. are you quite sure you're not simply picking a fight here where none exists simply for the sake of sating your well-evidenced egotistic need for confrontation? :) really gg -- i like and even admire you on occasion, but here you're sacrificing rational credibility to indulge a desire for combat. i know you don't like to acquiesce to your errors of interpretation, but reread my initial example.

when the individual rejects science, where does a good labcoat-wearing atheist anarchist turn for reconciliation?

do you really think that describes a person i think exists -- one with a social security number and all that?

You've just outted yourself and its nice to finally see that.

lol -- ok, gg. i didn't know that i was a myopic creationist. thank you for showing me the error of my ways. :) and could you kindly explain to me how m-theory is scientific? or how the abdication of falsifiability can yield anything that could be called science?

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 12:23PM|#

'"scientism" in the sense of a faith of scientific method as a means to all ends. the idea that all knowledge is understandable through the use of scientific method, and that which cannot be subjected to science is not knowledge (or, at least, worth knowing).'

What cannot be subjected to science is not knowledge, but rather, belief. This does not mean belief is worthless, but knowledge should always trump belief whenever interacting with the physical universe.

There's really no difference between you and creationists if you're willing to define 'belief' as a subcategory of 'knowledge'.

|11.9.05 @ 12:24PM|#

All of what Phil said at 11:30. It's unbelievable how often otherwise seemingly intelligent people talk about "random mutation miraculously provided all of the complexity we see in the world today," as if that's all there is to evolution.

And evolutionary theory isn't very helpful to me when I'm deciding what shoes to buy, so it must be a useless theory, right? That logic in Eric S's post is absolutely baffling. In addition to the uses various folks here have already pointed out, I'll just add that in a wide range a biomedical areas (perhaps most significantly drug development), evolutionary genetics is becoming more and more important. ID (which, incidentally, provides absolutely no basis for understanding the "mechanisms for the construction of molecular components," despite what Eric S suggests) has contributed jack shit.

|11.9.05 @ 12:25PM|#

"The same exact thing is true about people who assert that global warming isn't happening, or isn't due to man, or won't be that bad anyways."

But but but...exactly what changes will we see in ocean currents? Which areas will become dryer, and which wetter? Exactly how high will the ocean levels rise at 2.6 degrees temperature increase? And, for that matter, who made thunder?

Science has been unable to answer these questions. I'm not saying Intelligent Temperature Fluctuation is the only possible answer. I just want people to know that Manmade Global Warming is a only theory, and that there are other theories out there.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 12:25PM|#

"And acknowledging that a significant number of libertarians accept the existence of human-mediated global warming runs squarely against your dogma, so you have to pretend otherwise and lump everyone together. I guess it's a widespread phenomenon."

Well, whenever this subject comes up, most of y'all shut the hell up, so excuse me for assuming.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 12:26PM|#

There's really no difference between you and creationists if you're willing to define 'belief' as a subcategory of 'knowledge'.

spoken like someone who's never read a word of philosophy, mr m1ek. :)

|11.9.05 @ 12:28PM|#

"Well, whenever this subject comes up, most of y'all shut the hell up, so excuse me for assuming."

Yeah, and a significant minority speak up in support, so I guess we should also excuse you for willfully ignoring.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 12:29PM|#

"Yeah, and a significant minority speak up in support,"

No. Not that I've seen. Not only no, but hell no. On some of those threads it's me all by my lonesome.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 12:32PM|#

If they don't doubt and question what their science teachers are telling them, then they are just as much victims of superstition as... Creationists.

i would go yet further, mr raymond -- those who do not question the current paradigm that all knowledge can be empirically derived from observation alone are also victims of a hubristic superstition. because it *may* be true (and it certainly may -- i tend to operate on the assumption myself) does not allow the appropriately humble human being to assume that it must be true by virtue of the fact that it puts the entire universe at our command.

|11.9.05 @ 12:33PM|#

J, you are correct, there most certainly are libertarians who refuse to do the backflips necessary to deny global warming. Any statement that such denial is universal among libertarians is unfair.

It is, however, a fair statement to make about the Reason staff, based on the pieces that appear on the website. The range of opinion seems to run all the way from "It isn't real" to "Who knows?" - that is, from Creationism to Textbook Sticker ID.

|11.9.05 @ 12:34PM|#

|11.9.05 @ 12:37PM|#

No. Not that I've seen. Not only no, but hell no. On some of those threads it's me all by my lonesome.

Perhaps the problem is that you're sufficiently pugnacious as to embarrass people out of publicly agreeing with you.

|11.9.05 @ 12:40PM|#

Jennifer-

Thanks for bringing up Asimov's work "The Relativity of Wrong." First we thought the earth was flat. That was wrong, but the notion that the earth can be treated as flat in some instances (e.g. surveying over distances much smaller than the radius of curvature) remained. Then we thought that the earth was a sphere. It was later found that the earth is somewhat non-spherical, but the notion of a surface that wraps around on itself, and that has nearly-circular cross-sections, remained.

Likewise, Newton's laws aren't wrong. They're quite in a wide range of experimental domains. If you look in a book on Relativity and ask how objects move and interact gravitationally when the average speeds are much less than light, the book will tell you to go consult Newton's Principia.


quasibill-

Yeah, physics contains fundamental limits on information that can be obtained in different circumstances. Interestingly, creationists have tried to exploit these ideas to argue that random genetic mutations acted on by natural selection cannot account for the speed at which evolutionists think change has occured. They have yet to put forth a version of these arguments that doesn't rely on limited imagination, however. Usually they put artificial constraints on pathways that the evolutionary process might have taken.



gaius-

I'm not sure what your point is about "complex systems." To me, "complex" means "too tough to handle by my preferred toolkit". A good scientist either expands his toolkit or narrows the scope of his question, until he finds a way to make sense of whatever he's studying. Certainly ultra-reductionism (in its strawman form) is wrong, but that doesn't stop physicists from forming and testing hypotheses on systems ranging from quarks to nuclei to atoms to molecules to cells to fluids to colloids to animals to oceans to planets to solar systems to galaxies and beyond. The trick is to identify the right question and the right tools and then you can make sense of the problem.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 12:42PM|#

All of which is why it is very important to acknowledge the limits of the scientific method - else we call into question those things that the scientific method has validated.

utterly, mr quasibill -- well said.

|11.9.05 @ 12:43PM|#

joe,

I imagine you're right about the Reason staff's uniformly negative/it's-unclear position on GW - at least the ones who have written about it (mostly Ron Bailey, although I'm sure others have written articles and/or posted threads on it). I was talking specifically about M1EK's "libertarian dogma" comment. He doesn't seem to have much time for such trivialities as acknowledging that not all libertarians fit into the caricature he's so fond of.

|11.9.05 @ 12:43PM|#

gaius marius,

perhaps you could better explain to me what is "wrong" about illustrating a point with a symbol, gg.

Right. Yes, it was a symbol. Not a particularly good either mind you. Here you ou are simply sacrificing credibility.

do you really think that describes a person i think exists...,/i>

Yes, yes I do. Because you are often on about rants where you are creating absolute classes of people like this. Indeed, that is your forte.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 12:43PM|#

"Perhaps the problem is that you're sufficiently pugnacious as to embarrass people out of publicly agreeing with you."

Perhaps you should bite my ass.

Oops. There I go again. Now you won't agree with me.

Somehow, amazingly enough, even in global warming threads which reach dozens of comments before I get involved, I don't see this small but non-trivial minority of libertarians refusing to do the cognitive dissonance dance. They must be preemptively deciding to avoid embarassment by appearing to have me agree WITH THEM! It's like ju-jitsu and akiido and donkey-punching rolled into one.

|11.9.05 @ 12:46PM|#

And thus, another hostile peckerhead relegates his sorry ass to the virtual killfile. *plonk*

Adios, schmuck..

|11.9.05 @ 12:47PM|#

gaius marius,

It would be helpful to know what exists outside of science (and other methods of reason) which is so great to know.

|11.9.05 @ 12:48PM|#

M1EK,

You are poisoning the debate with all of your insults.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 12:48PM|#

"And thus, another hostile peckerhead relegates his sorry ass to the virtual killfile. *plonk*

Adios, schmuck.."

My irony machine blew a gasket. To whom can I send a bill?

|11.9.05 @ 12:50PM|#

Thoreau--

When I said "Newton was wrong," I should actually have said "There were certain things Newton's laws didn't quite explain, but Einstein's did." Einstein refined or added to Newton.

|11.9.05 @ 12:50PM|#

M1EK-

I stay away from the global warming threads for the same reason that I don't go to creationist message boards.

|11.9.05 @ 12:52PM|#

M1EK,

You are poisoning the debate with all of your insults.

Comment by: Hakluyt at November 9, 2005 12:48 PM

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, this is pot.

|11.9.05 @ 12:53PM|#

I think, for some of these hyper-aggressive numbnuts who have their own blogs, I'll start visiting and leaving wave after wave of insulting, hostile comments, rather than try to, you know, have a conversation with them. I'm sure that will really improve the discourse and get them to agree with me about things.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 12:54PM|#

Phil,

Your virtual killfile is broked. Would you like a reference for a new one?

If/when you have the guts to have a blog and link it here, let me know.

|11.9.05 @ 12:56PM|#

All your insults are belong to us.

|11.9.05 @ 12:58PM|#

I think we would all get along better if the pusher robots and shover robots were around to keep us in line (and, of course, to protect us from the terrible secrets of space).

|11.9.05 @ 12:59PM|#

Department of WTF?,

Heh.

|11.9.05 @ 1:00PM|#

A) I already have one, although I am not actively blogging, which is why it isn't linked.
B) You, I can assure you, would be banned from it. I have this rule against allowing people into my home that intend to defecate on my floor.

"Guts." Yeah, you're a real hero.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 1:03PM|#

"hyper-aggressive numbnuts"

"another hostile peckerhead relegates his sorry ass"

"Adios, schmuck.."

"I have this rule against allowing people into my home that intend to defecate on my floor."

So you sleep outside?

MP|11.9.05 @ 1:03PM|#

M1EK,

There is a world of difference between looking at scientific evidence and saying "my scientific analysis of the same facts doesn't support the same conclusion" vs. "my faith in a greater power makes your scientific analysis hogwash". There is no valid comparison between ID detractors and GW skeptics.

grylliade|11.9.05 @ 1:04PM|#

Because his point is pretty damn valid. If you really believe in local control, you damn well have to support crap like ID being taught in certain localities.

You might have to accept it. You don't have to support it. In other words, I understand that under greater local control, things like this will happen. It's the sort of thing that, while bad, is better than the bad consequences of too much centralization. That doesn't mean that I have to do nothing about it. It's still silly to teach intelligent design and/or creation science in public schools, and I will always say it is, even if I understand that it will happen occasionally. Nice false dichotomy, by the way.

As an engineer, I find it interesting that a theory such as evolution, touted as a fundamental building block of science, has no practical value in industrial biology or chemical engineering.

Yeah, see, that's your "engineer" prejudices showing. Evolution isn't about having practical value; it's about better understanding the world. As many others have pointed out, evolution as a theory does, in point of fact, have real-world value, but that's beside the point. Science isn't about making life easier, though it often does that; it's about understanding the way the world works. And that's all it's about. So even if evolution actually had negative consequences in practical terms, it'd still be good science, because, as far as we can tell, it's the truth. Comforting lies can be good, and I have no problem with other people living their lives by them. But that life isn't for me; I want the truth, however hard and cold (or warm and comforting) that truth may be. So, if you want, pretend that intelligent design is a good model for how the world was created. Just don't make me do so also.

Honestly, the "limitations" of science involve areas of inquiry that are patently absurd on their face, and the reason that these areas don't want to be subjected to scientific inquiry is largely out of fear of being shown up as a fraud.

I must call bullshit on this. Science is paramount in its field, which is explaining how the world works. That doesn't mean that it's the right tool for every job. You don't use a hammer to turn a screw; you use a screwdriver. Nor do you want to use a screwdriver as a hammer. In both cases you might get good results, but you won't get as good a job as if you'd used the right tool.

Similarly, using science to explain things like "the meaning of life" or somesuch is bad science. Religion and philosophy are the proper tools to use in this context. You're free to use science to explain this, but it's not going to get you as far as the proper tools. Just because science can't prove the existence of God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist; that's an open question, but it's one that science can't settle one way or the other. Not that philosophy or religion can really settle the question, but they'll give you better answers than science will.

If you want to dismiss these as "patently absurd," fine. Your call. But I must agree with gaius here; scientism, in his definition, is a bad thing. You're going up to people using a screwdriver on their screws and telling them how much better your hammer works, and then telling them that if their screwdriver is working better on their screws, then they should be using nails instead. Whatever. I'll use a hammer in the appropriate place, and a screwdriver in the appropriate place.

The same exact thing is true about people who assert that global warming isn't happening, or isn't due to man, or won't be that bad anyways.

You're lumping together an awful lot there, M1EK. And you're assuming that those of us who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming are in the exact same boat as the ID people. Well, they're similar, I'll admit, but they're not the same. ID is simply not science; there's no way to disprove the theories advanced by intelligent design. Global warming dissenters at least promote theories that are falsifiable in principle. It may turn out we're wrong, but we're at least trying to argue within the bounds of scientific discourse. I still think that a lot of evidence based on Earth's history is kind of brushed aside because apocalypse is more fun (and more profitable) than reassurance, but at least you can argue my assertions on scientific grounds.

But admitting that climate change is real and has to be addressed runs squarely against libertarian dogma, so we have to pretend otherwise.

Well, climate change is real, and has to be addressed. We just disagree about the degree of climate change, the relative weights of its causes, and how to address it. I think that waiting and seeing what actually happens over the next twenty years, rather than promoting crushingly expensive solutions that won't have much real effect based on highly suspect models, is the right way to go. I might end up being wrong, but so might you. I at least admit it, rather than appealing to the authority of "scientific consensus." Scientists can be as wrong as anyone else; there's just better ways to prove it to them.

|11.9.05 @ 1:04PM|#

I don't see what all this hubbub is about evolution not being useful. I went to public high school and I've found many applications for my education in evolution. For example, I know know that monkeys hatch from eggs.

Pshaw, and you're sitting there making fun of public edumacation.

|11.9.05 @ 1:05PM|#

Are you under the misimpression that H&R is my blog?

|11.9.05 @ 1:14PM|#

thoreau,

"Interestingly, creationists have tried to exploit these ideas to argue that random genetic mutations acted on by natural selection cannot account for the speed at which evolutionists think change has occured." So have many scientifically-legitimate evolutionary biologists. The difference is, they have put forth falsifiable hypotheses, like punctuated equilibria, to explain this possible problem, whereas the phony scientists have put forth nonfalsifiable theories, and attacked the notion of a falisifiable theory as the means to learn objective truths.

|11.9.05 @ 1:22PM|#

smacky,

That was awesome. And the link from that page to "spamusement" is also worth a look.

|11.9.05 @ 1:22PM|#

Mp,

Well, yes, you are right, it is an incorrect analogy.

Apparently the gremlins are at work again.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 1:23PM|#

"There is a world of difference between looking at scientific evidence and saying "my scientific analysis of the same facts doesn't support the same conclusion" vs. "my faith in a greater power makes your scientific analysis hogwash". There is no valid comparison between ID detractors and GW skeptics."

Actually, the comparison is nearly perfectly valid. The only hole is the motivation - religious on the one hand and ideological/financial on the other. The TACTICS are practically indistinguishable - claiming disagreement among scientists when none really exists; claiming the science isn't as advanced as it really is; claiming that gaps in knowledge render the theory of no use (which can, of course, ALWAYS be used against any scientific theory); etc.

|11.9.05 @ 1:25PM|#

I have enough canned food and supplies to outlive any apocalypse, so long as it dies down and things get back to normal within a couple of months.

Jennifer,

You may claim that you have enough supplies to last you, but I recommend you get this item before you sit back and relax to await the coming of the apocalypse.

|11.9.05 @ 1:38PM|#

joe,

Punctuated equilibrium isn't really about the overall speed of evolution, but about the apparent high variation in rates of evolution from the fossil record. But it's certainly true that there are hypotheses put forward to explain how evolution could occur more quickly than would be expected with small mutations in proteins. There's a lot of work done on the evolution of genetic regulation, and how a small change at the top of some regulatory cascade can have very large effects on the organism - freak-show stuff like putting feet on fly heads instead of antennae, and more real-world applicable stuff like extra pairs of legs or wings, changes in general body plan, etc.

|11.9.05 @ 1:38PM|#

I hope that last thing I posted didn't offend your Jewish alter-ego, Jennifer.

|11.9.05 @ 1:39PM|#

M1EK,

Dude, you are reading a motivational component into the statement that doesn't exist there. Sorry, demonizing people and arguing that simply because they disagree with you must mean that they are "greedy," etc. falls well within the realm of the fallacious. Or are you suggesting that no one can honestly disagree on the subject at hand?

Do you agree with Ruddiman's hypothesis? If not, is because you are "greedy," etc.?

|11.9.05 @ 1:41PM|#

Smacky--

I can even top that. At an auction, I found dirt-cheap one of those Brookstone "emergency" flashlights that never needs batteries--you can generate it electric power by shaking it. And let me assure you--there is absolutely no way to shake-charge those batteries without looking exactly like you're giving a handjob to an enormous blue penis. Porno Smurf or something.

Survival in the post-apocalyptic world will apparently be kinky.

|11.9.05 @ 1:41PM|#

Oops, I see thoreau beat me to it, and it looks like the H&R server is running at pack-mule speed again.

Also, I might be a bit biased, but evolution (especially molecular evolution) is really fucking cool. Just thought everyone should know.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 1:41PM|#

To me, "complex" means "too tough to handle by my preferred toolkit".

to me, mr thoreau, complex systems are those which by virtue of their irreducible complexity cannot be meaningfully analyzed by abstraction and reduction to component systems -- and further mathematically cannot yield predictable outcomes because they are chaotic. this is, of course, the vast, vast majority of possible mathematical conjectures and indeed physical systems. while they may offer a probability distribution of possible outcomes, they are in no way analyzable in a rigorous scientific fashion because the initial conditions which dominate the function cannot be measured (nor can they be, per heisenberg) to a degree of accuracy that makes predictions on any timescale meaningful. such systems are not only beyond our toolkit, mr thoreau -- they will stay beyond all toolkits.

scientific method is all but useless in evaluating such systems beyond articulating a set of possible outcomes, with perhaps a probability attached to each. and with many larger unmodelable systems -- say, global climate -- even the confidence interval of those predictions is very small indeed.

|11.9.05 @ 1:42PM|#

Survival in the post-apocalyptic world will apparently be kinky.


Ha! You should check out the Fleshlight website.

(not while at work, of course)

|11.9.05 @ 1:48PM|#

gaius marius,

Climate models, etc. get refined all the time. You are basically arguing that the current technology limits future technology, abilities, etc. - which is rather silly.

|11.9.05 @ 1:51PM|#

I'm gonna stick up for ol' gaius here and say that it's completely, utterly noncontroversial to assert that there are things worth knowing that are nonetheless unanswerable by the scientific method, and to assert so without collapsing into woo-woo god talk. Pretty much all moral, aesthetic and ethical questions, for example, as Steven Pinker is especially fond of pointing out.

Medical science can tell us that an anencephalic infant will never, ever be a fully-functional adult and will probably not live to adolescence. It cannot tell us whether it would be right or wrong to painlessly euthanize such an infant. Genetics can tell us someday whether a certain group of genes, when expressed, make a child more likely to be homosexual; it cannot tell us whether we should use technology to force those genes to remain unexpressed. Acoustics and mathematics can explain music and harmony to us, but they cannot tell us whether The Beatles were better than The Rolling Stones*.

That anybody would seriously question that this is the case is somewhat astounding. And I say that as an utter scientism-ist and skeptic.


*I lied. It can, and they were.

|11.9.05 @ 1:53PM|#

I should add on the flipside, though, that it's dogmatic arrogance to assert that, because we know that there are limitations to the scientific method, we also just happen to know that X set of meaningful things (that happen to coincide with my hobbyhorses) are outside its purview.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 1:55PM|#

"I think that waiting and seeing what actually happens over the next twenty years, rather than promoting crushingly expensive solutions that won't have much real effect based on highly suspect models, is the right way to go."

The problem is that if you accept the science, it will be too late to do anything in 20 years (it is already too late to do anything cheaply; in the future it may be too late to do anything even expensively).

Many of the people who ask for "more study" really aren't interested in study. It's a delay tactic.

|11.9.05 @ 1:59PM|#

Phil,

That's not what gaius marius is arguing though. He made that perfectly clear when he discussed Shermer's use of the term phenomena.

|11.9.05 @ 2:00PM|#

Phil,

He also makes that clear when he is discussing complex systems.

|11.9.05 @ 2:00PM|#

gaius-

This is probably a semantic point, but even chaotic systems can be analyzed. There are powerful theorems concerning the phase space geometry of such systems. Ensembles can be analyzed by statistical methods. And I don't consider statistics to be an abandonment of the scientific method. Is there any non-statistical manner for usefully treating even the simple ideal gas?

To me, the systems that we call complex simply exhibit phenomena that older tools are ill-suited for. Fractal dimensions, Lyapunov exponents, phase space geometry, statistical properties, and many other concepts have been developed to gain insight into the functioning of these systems.

|11.9.05 @ 2:08PM|#

You know, the fracas over ID doesn't really worry me much. Face it, this has been a country of mostly rubes and crackpots pretty much from day one.

Our success as a country has had less to do with the intelligence of the average American (as liberals and Europeans delightedly point out, we're an astonishingly insular and ignorant lot), than it has with the fact that we've historically placed fewer barriers in the paths of the talented and ambitious than most other countries have.

I'd be a lot more worried about changes to our legal and economic system making this country a less attractive destination for the truly talented than I am about the usual idiots performing per specification.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 2:09PM|#

You are basically arguing that the current technology limits future technology, abilities, etc. - which is rather silly.

no, i'm not gg -- i'm arguing that it is a mathematical certainty that the earth is not modelable in a meaningful way. it is a nonlinear system of nonlinear systems and forcing functions with complex couplings, many (probably most) of the systems of which we are ignorant of. these systems are more than the sum of their parts -- that is, even if they could be isolated for analysis, they behave differently in conjuction with other systems than they do in isolation, making abstracted analysis useless. moreover, the output of the systems is highly predicated on initial conditions which we cannot measure to any meaningful degree of accuracy; indeed, ultimately, as heisenberg showed, we cannot know the initial conditions without altering the outcome.

the models we have for global climate have vastly more in common with a tennis ball than with the actual earth, and that is a fact. pretending that our models yield meaningful results is scientism of the worst kind, imo -- a belief that a hubristic hyperreductionist application of the computing power we possess has to give us predictions that will compare in some way to a future reality because, by golly, we're doing the best science here! that simply isn't enough and cannot be.

i appreciate mr phil's defense -- he's certainly right about philosophical questions -- but the deception of scientism is deeper than that. the physical universe itself is not predictable and indeed not modelable in a very fundamental way. no amount of technical progress is going to change that.

that isn't to say that we shouldn't continue to apply science and investigation generally wherever we can. it's merely to say that, as rationalists, we ahve to acknowledge that we cannot know all that we would like through observation.

|11.9.05 @ 2:11PM|#

Phil,

Also, from a rule utilitarian perspective it is important to use science, etc. as a means to come to conclusions about the best way forward. Indeed, it demands that we consider the consequences, etc. of decisions - be they of a ethical nature or not - before going forward. Of course, some of the arguments around this point resemble koans, but nevertheless, arguing to that science isn't involved in moral decisions is wrongheaded from my perspective.

Viking Moose|11.9.05 @ 2:13PM|#

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 80, No. 3, March 1999 439-455
w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf
/bray_storch_1999.pdf
(link under name, too)

"The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue."

But the question is what to do to help/solve/ whatever. And to get the socio- side to shut the hell up. Is it just the hybrid car? Is it for more nuclear power (a la France - to use more electricity)? Is it for solar or wind (kinda cool, IMO - just think if you could cut your electricity bill due to a solar cell - for the "greedy" ones, there's potential cuts in costs).

I like the idea of solar and wind. I like the idea of nuclear. Hell, I like cold fusion. But the urge to "do something" battling against the "it doesn't exist. it's not so bad. it'd be good" drives me fucking crazy.

it drives me crazy to see R^2 > DW on some studies that "show" GW. It drives me crazy to see PPP studies that have a unit root (the Timbro/Cato one is a perfect example).

And finding some experts on either side who contradict good science in the name of either side's agenda is worse.

The Danish Meterological Institute's report on weather/climate in 1997, stating that the cooler-than-normal winter was "proof" of human-induced climate change, and predicted boldly a warm summer. The next three were cooler than normal - this type of shooting itself in the foot gives those who might be ID style more ammo.

The SPOe's platform that turns the battle into a civilized europe vs. amerika (sic) does the same thing. Ditto Denmark's SF party. Or B90/die Gr�nen in Germany. These groups seek to further their agendas using the "Day After Tomorrow" as ammo.

"citizens for a sound economy" is another, just on the other side. They spout some sort of bullshit about how caribou "like" (pathetic fallacy?) pipelines because they're warm, ergo pipelines are good. - but i don't like them anyways for misrepresenting what the Laffer Curve is and for not understanding that Bushie uses Keynesian economics.

is something happening? yes. what should we do? DUNNO. avoiding the Day After Tomorrow and CSE idiots might be a good starting point. Pursuing hybrid, solar, wind, and nuclear power seems good, too. With more nuclear power, we might get the opportunity to work closer with the french, too :)

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 2:20PM|#

Is there any non-statistical manner for usefully treating even the simple ideal gas?

no, but this should be a warning to the observant, mr thoreau. we have been forced to idealize and abstract reality greatly to understand even its simplest manifestations imperfectly. now we attack systems of a truly unimaginable scale of complexity -- and we pretend to be able to predict meaningfully?

Fractal dimensions, Lyapunov exponents, phase space geometry, statistical properties, and many other concepts have been developed to gain insight into the functioning of these systems.

agreed -- and wonderful, that. but these are still approximately as distant from any reality as the ideal gas law, as i'm sure we both can agree.

insight on idealized systems? i welcome it. pretend to derive meaningful predictions regarding an incomprehensibly more sophisticated network of nonlinear realities? don't make me laugh. :)

|11.9.05 @ 2:21PM|#

gaius marius,

i'm arguing that it is a mathematical certainty that the earth is not modelable in a meaningful way.

What is meaningful in this context? You are plugging into a sort of pointless and fruitless subjectivism that will lead to nowhere real fast.

pretending that our models yield meaningful results...

Again, what do you mean by "meaningful?"

a belief that a hubristic hyperreductionist application of the computing power we possess has to give us predictions that will compare in some way to a future reality because, by golly, we're doing the best science here!

That's why climate scientists always present their figures in a range. Sorry, you are creating a rather fanciful strawman here.

the physical universe itself is not predictable and indeed not modelable in a very fundamental way.

"Fundamental" in what way? You are working with a heck of a lot of unexamined assumptions I am afraid.

it's merely to say that, as rationalists, we ahve to acknowledge that we cannot know all that we would like through observation.

If that is your primary objection, then I have to say, "So what?" Indeed, it doesn't even conflict with what Shermer has to say on the subject.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 2:23PM|#

arguing to that science isn't involved in moral decisions is wrongheaded from my perspective.

not uninvolved, gg, i think we all agree -- the observable reality of outcomes is important. but acknowledging the limits of science in understanding the physical world we observe is equally important.

|11.9.05 @ 2:23PM|#

gaius marius,

BTW, when you start using words like "meaningful" and the like it suggests that you are making value judgments. I have to ask, what are those value judgments based on?

|11.9.05 @ 2:26PM|#

gaius marius,

Apparently the "limits" of science are that it doesn't measure things in a "meaningful" way to you. Well, in my mind, science does do lots of meaningful stuff. This, as I noted above, points us to a bunch of fruitless subjectivism.

MP|11.9.05 @ 2:26PM|#

the physical universe itself is not predictable and indeed not modelable in a very fundamental way

gaius,

You have to admit, this is an assumption. Usage of "not" implies an absolute.

|11.9.05 @ 2:28PM|#

gaius-

The fact that the ideal gas laws work so well tells us something important: Often the details simply don't matter, and the patterns that emerge depend only loosely on the underlying structure. That is, in itself, a tremendous insight into the universe. It doesn't signal to us that science is unable to really get at physical reality. Rather, it signals that physical reality can be understood even with fairly simple tools, that the basic phenomena are not hopelessly complex but rather amazingly simple and regular in many cases.

|11.9.05 @ 2:29PM|#

So, gaius, would it be fair to say that you're arguing that there are, in the physical world, too many unknown unknowns, and that we have no real systematic way of making them into known unknowns, let alone known knowns? (Being serious, here, not just going for the obvious Rumsfeld joke.)

|11.9.05 @ 2:32PM|#

MP,

Well, its more precisely a presupposition. Some presuppositions are appropriate (the sun will rise in the morning) whereas others are not.

|11.9.05 @ 2:33PM|#

drf:

"The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted."

This doesn't tell us very much, as you indicated. What does abatement measures imply? To me, a reasonable sense of efficacy has to be included, as well as the sense that whatever you are doing is worth whatever opportunity cost you are paying for it. Clearly, Kyoto fails this test. Any program that inhibits growth has be viewed skeptically as well. Convince me that whatever program you are suggesting is A) Necessary to avoid some negative and B) Going to have an impact on the negative in question.

|11.9.05 @ 2:35PM|#

In a nutshell, I think it is amazing that I can form and test hypotheses concerning the behavior of a physical system without knowing the coordinates of every single atom. That the same optical laws governing diffraction of light on opal gemstones govern diffraction of x-rays in crystals and the formation of band gaps in semiconductors. That all of these phenomena emerge in wildly different systems due to a few key underlying similarities.

Details matter, of course, but only to an extent. Frequently the key features of a system are all you need to know to understand some of the most important phenomena. To pretend otherwise is to insist on the straw-man version of reductionism, and an invitation for humanities majors to go after you with post-modern gobbledygook. (In college I occasionally ran into some people who would start tossing gobbledygook at me about the limits of science, and I was like "Dude, do you have any freaking clue what we scientists actually do?")

Oh, I know what this scientist would like to do if my calculation ever finishes running. I'd like to analyze some data!

raymond|11.9.05 @ 2:36PM|#

Newton's laws didn't become folklore after Einstein's laws showed them to be partially wrong.

Not yet. But the yuga's still young.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 2:38PM|#

What is meaningful [model] in this context?

meaning a model which can with any degree of confidence emulate reality instead of its opposite and give accurate future predictions. of course, "confidence" and "accurate" mean different things to different people -- some feel able to risk their life on a 25% chance of being right. again, we'll go off into philosophy here -- but that's inherent to science as much as anything and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. the truth is that no scientific law (the ideal gas law, for example, or any other gas model) yields 100% confidence -- there is no clockwork. science merely gets one close.

what i'm saying is that one cannot get close modeling a nonlinear system of nonlinear systems with complex couplings. the input may give you your expectation or its opposite with no apparent rhyme or reason -- and there is literally nothing that can be done to get close.

If that is your primary objection, then I have to say, "So what?" Indeed, it doesn't even conflict with what Shermer has to say on the subject.

when shermer posits "natural explanations for all phenomena", he presumes that which he cannot know by observation. how then does he presume to know it? i think this actually cuts right to the heart of the falsity of a rigidly scientific worldview. it is a leap of faith he takes to say that there are always natural explanation -- or indeed are EVER "natural explanations". after all, hume demonstrated irrevocably that we cannot observe causation.

|11.9.05 @ 2:39PM|#

MP,

You see the inappropirate vareity in courtrooms all the time. For example, this sort of language:

After you satiated your perverted lusts on this pure, virginal young woman, didn't you ravage her once again then ignore her please for help while taking perverse pleasure in slowly cutting her to pieces with a hacksaw? Didn't you?

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 2:40PM|#

Well, in my mind, science does do lots of meaningful stuff.

of course it does. i'm not arguing against utility; i'm arguing against universal application.

|11.9.05 @ 2:44PM|#

BTW, I know that the definition of postmodern was a subject of debate on this forum. Maybe I was incorrect to use the adjective "postmodern" to describe the gobbledygook that some humanities majors threw at me about quantum mechanics and Godel's theorem and whatnot. All I know is that there were some people who knew nothing about science but spouted lots of meaningless stuff at me about how it's all relative, man.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 2:47PM|#

this is an assumption

i think instead, mr mp, it is the conclusion reached by science observing and testing in the world. there is a large and growing body of study on nonlinear complexity that, in the end, concludes that the systems are fundamentally unpredictable -- not just unpredictable now, but unpredictable by their nature.

and that, i think, is a very good thing, metaphysically (if i may tangentialize). what place for free will in a world that is merely an endless string of colliding billiard balls? if the physical is entirely deductible by observation, the implication is of a deterministic universe devoid of free actors -- all things determined from the outset in predictable fashion.

even if the world is ultimately only physical, inherent unpredictability at least leaves room for the appearance of free will -- and we will never be able to catagorically disprove our freedom.

|11.9.05 @ 2:47PM|#

gaius marius,

...with any degree of confidence...

Dude, you are just question begging now.

of course, "confidence" and "accurate" mean different things to different people...

Which merely demonstrates my point. Glad you are simply acceding to it.

...yields 100% confidence...

100% confidence seems like an unusually high standard to demand of anything and is not likely necessary either.

...there is no clockwork. science merely gets one close.

Which hardly means that it isn't meaningful. So far, you've not demonstrated your claim or even come up with a definition of meaningful for that matter.

what i'm saying is that one cannot get close...

Close being what exactly? Close as in sharpshooter accuracy, or as in horsehoes and hand grenades? Like I wrote above, you have some high and probably unrequired standards.

when shermer posits "natural explanations for all phenomena"...

A natural explanation does not connote one which is 100% accurate. What you have a problem with is accruacy, not the ability to posit explanations. You are comparing apples to oranges and badly misreading what Shermer is saying.

VIking Moose|11.9.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Jason:

true.

|11.9.05 @ 2:49PM|#

gaius marius,

I don't think you know what you are arguing against. You certainly don't understand what Shermer is getting at.

thoreau,

Dude, stop reading my posts. :)

|11.9.05 @ 2:51PM|#

gaius marius,

BTW, I appreciated the meat pitch. Keep them coming. :)

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 2:52PM|#

To pretend otherwise is to insist on the straw-man version of reductionism

i agree, mr thoreau -- as you know, i have a technical background as well, and therefore naturally detest many of the unthinkers that populate the humanities. :)

i wouldn't argue that diffraction isn't understood by observation -- clearly, this is a case of a linear natural system (or at least a system approximated by linear modeling -- close enough, as it were, to be reliable).

i'm simply saying (as you know) that, while virtually all natural systems that we generally understand are of this type, in fact most natural systems are not of this type.

Viking Moose|11.9.05 @ 2:52PM|#

Comment by: Hakluyt at November 9, 2005 02:39 PM:

oh my. mercy...

|11.9.05 @ 2:59PM|#

Viking Moose,

I guess you know what a meat pitch is, eh? :)

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 3:00PM|#

Close being what exactly?

unfalsified, i suppose, is the best approximate term.

A natural explanation does not connote one which is 100% accurate

no, but it does connote a knowledge of physical, ie "natural" causation in all times and places that shermer cannot aspire to. he presumes to know the root of causation, when he clearly cannot.

badly misreading what Shermer is saying.

ok gg -- what is shermer saying? :)

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 3:02PM|#

I appreciated the meat pitch.

i don't want to tax your facilities relentlessly, gg. this is supposed to be fun, after all. :)

|11.9.05 @ 3:03PM|#

Again, returning to the Shermer statement, I think its helpful to repeat it:

Scientism is a "scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena...

He isn't making any predictions as to accuracy here, which appears to be gaius marius' main beef with science.

...eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

So far, gaius marius hasn't discussed these parts of the statement.

|11.9.05 @ 3:05PM|#

All this talk of meat and beef is making me hungry.

Or, as Herrick would say, horny.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 3:06PM|#

unfalsified

and, if i may preempt responses by consecutive posting, i say "approximate" because it is. the prediction of any law -- gas modeling, to stay on example -- is wrong and falsified. it's really just a matter of ignoring the unexplained variations between the predicted and the actual as trivial -- within the error rate of your observing equipment, for example.

popperian falsifiability is itself something of an abstraction, and that should be said.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 3:09PM|#

predictions as to accuracy here, which appears to be gaius marius' main beef with science.

no gg, or rather not only -- you're ignoring the whole sections of this conversation re: nonlinear complexity. it isn't a matter of being accurate; it's a matter of having any substantiative predictive mechanism to test.

Rich Ard|11.9.05 @ 3:13PM|#

The only thing I can say with any certainty is that those of you with more letters after your names seem to have a great deal more time than I to spend on this forum.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 3:14PM|#

eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations

i'm all for eschewing same.

empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science.

this is almost too subjective to qualify for analysis under your own terms, i think, gg. :)

what the hell does that mean? that nothing which cannot be deduced from observation is worth knowing? i think vis-a-vis the discussion of complex systems, we've already addressed that (ostensibly) natural systems do in fact yield results that cannot be reliably predicted from observation and deduction.

|11.9.05 @ 3:14PM|#

gaius marius,

i don't want to tax your facilities relentlessly, gg.

Ahh, so some sound arguments are just waiting in the wings, are they eh? Well, bring them out into the open.

unfalsified, i suppose, is the best approximate term.

Close equals "unfalsified?" Holy crap.

no, but it does connote a knowledge of physical, ie "natural" causation in all times and places that shermer cannot aspire to.

Again with the issue of accuracy. If accuracy is your main beef with science, then it must also be your main beef with our entire existance. Honestly, you appear to be creating an artificial distinction by which to judge science that you don't judge other aspects of human existance by and are thus inflating the reality of the issue beyond its true proportions in the process.

he presumes to know the root of causation, when he clearly cannot.

No, that is an unwarranted assumption on your part that you've thrown into his definition.

I've already told you what he is saying.

|11.9.05 @ 3:22PM|#

gaius marius,

it isn't a matter of being accurate; it's a matter of having any substantiative predictive mechanism to test.

Which is just another way of getting back to accuracy. Furthermore, its also another way of getting back to subjective value judgments.

this is almost too subjective to qualify for analysis under your own terms, i think, gg.

I'd appreciate it if you used my nick. Its not very subjective.

that nothing which cannot be deduced from observation is worth knowing?

Quite obviously no. Which why it refers to science.

natural systems do in fact yield results that cannot be reliably predicted from observation and deduction

Yet. again, we're back to an issue of accuracy. If the issue is that science is just too limited at any one point in time for you that's fine. But to argue that the goals of scientism are wrongheaded are another thing entirely.

|11.9.05 @ 3:25PM|#

gaius marius,

Until you can come up with another argument besides your continously retreated accuracy one there isn't much point in continuing this conversation. I am not into hitting upon dead horse flesh.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 3:31PM|#

Again with the issue of accuracy

a lack of basic causation is not an accuracy issue gg -- i'm saying that you and i and shermer have no way of knowing what causes a nail to be driven by a hammer. physical contact? is predicated on electromagnetic force? which is predicated on what, exactly? all causal chains end in the unknown at the smallest level -- where, we are finding, events are random and unpredictable.

No, that is an unwarranted assumption on your part that you've thrown into his definition.

what? it's the very basis of his statement gg! it predicates the entire concept of a "natural" event! you don't understand that?

I've already told you what he is saying

are you afraid to repeat it for fear of being too explicit? :) i know what it says -- i rather wonder what you imagine it says. please -- edify me.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Until you can come up with another argument besides your continously retreated accuracy one there isn't much point in continuing this conversation

lol -- gg, you're incorrigible. until you try to understand the argument in greater depth than you obviously do now, i don't see the point.

MP|11.9.05 @ 3:43PM|#

gaius,

Once you eschew supernatural and paranormal speculations, you are left with a faith that Science will ultimately be able to explain all. This does not imply a Universe without randomness. It also does not imply that Consciousness is simply cause and effect. Both Randomness and Consiousness could ultimately be entirely explainable yet unpredictable.

It appears that you two are saying the same thing and talking right past each other out of stubbornness.

Viking Moose|11.9.05 @ 3:45PM|#

Hak:

Herrick explained it to me :)

He reminds me of Gerhard from 28 days. aka "Steve the Pirate".

Viking Moose|11.9.05 @ 3:46PM|#

Hak:

Herrick explained it to me :)

He reminds me of Gerhard from 28 days. aka "Steve the Pirate".

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 3:48PM|#

But to argue that the goals of scientism are wrongheaded are another thing entirely.

i'm arguing in part, gg, that the basic predicate of scientism -- ie, all knowledge is deductible from observation because all events are natural -- is impossible to prove on its own terms. moreover, i'm arguing that, even if all events are natural (which i myself am inclined to take as a reasonable approximation of reality, if unprovable), not all knowledge of the physical world is deductible from observation. indeed, some systems are explicitly NOT rational.

|11.9.05 @ 3:48PM|#

gaius marius,

i'm saying that you and i and shermer have no way of knowing what causes a nail to be driven by a hammer.

Until this moment you have as yet to address causation.

all causal chains end in the unknown at the smallest level -- where, we are finding, events are random and unpredictable.

Which again is an issue of accuracy. We can't wholly accurately predict what caused "X" because what is happening at the QM level looks pretty random to us. Or at least that's how some schools of Qm look at the matter, not all by any means.

what? it's the very basis of his statement gg!

Not it isn't. There is nothing in the statement resembling that. If there was, you'd show me the language itself. You have made an unwarranted assumption the matter, and that is all.

are you afraid to repeat it for fear of being too explicit?

Since I told you what he says right above this comment I don't see a reason to repeat myself. Now, you can continue to be wilfully obtuse i suppose...

I'm not incorrigible, I'm just realistic. You aren't going to present anything other than your accuracy schtick and I have better topics to discuss here than that.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 3:50PM|#

Once you eschew supernatural and paranormal speculations, you are left with a faith that Science will ultimately be able to explain all.

no, mr mp. i'm against speculating irresponsibly on that which we cannot know -- be it through scientism or paranormal rantings. the field is more sophisticated than either/or.

|11.9.05 @ 3:52PM|#

gaius marius,

ie, all knowledge is deductible from observation because all events are natural...

Which isn't the basic presupposition of scientism from Shermer's viewpoint. Yours is the fallacy of the overinclusive definition I am afraid.

...not all knowledge of the physical world is deductible from observation.

Which is your presupposition based on some level of accuracy. Really the only person trading in absolutes here is you.

|11.9.05 @ 3:55PM|#

MP,

Dude, neither I nor Shermer have any problem with saying that "science" (a problematic term by itself) will never be 100% accurate, etc. What gaius marius wants to do is create a strawman which does claim such and then beat it up.

|11.9.05 @ 3:56PM|#

Note all of this started with another strawman of gm's - namely the hapless atheist, anarchist scientist.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 3:57PM|#

We can't wholly accurately predict what caused "X" because what is happening at the QM level looks pretty random to us. Or at least that's how some schools of Qm look at the matter, not all by any means.

gg -- it isn't that we can't "wholly accurately" predict. we cannot predict at all. we have no basis of prediction. you seem to imply that we have a mechanism in QM or in sociology or global climatology of these interactions which simply needs refining to get very accurate predictions to come out. this is not so -- in complex systems, there is no linear mechanism and no prediction -- just a chance of this or that outcome. to say that we can predict events based on this fundamentally misunderstands scientific prediction.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 4:00PM|#

Note all of this started with another strawman of gm's - namely the hapless atheist, anarchist scientist.

it did? lol -- gg, you make me laugh, but this is not one of your more convincing days on this site. come back rested and refreshed tomorrow. :)

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 4:04PM|#

despite all this, we're nowhere near 500 posts.

|11.9.05 @ 4:11PM|#

The server hamster ate a few of my posts, so let me jump in here:

"Both Randomness and Consiousness could ultimately be entirely explainable yet unpredictable."

I wouldn't argue with that. However, that begs the question. There is knowledge, and then there is knowledge gained by the scientific method. As many on here will quickly point out with reference to ID, repeatability is a component of good science. And the most common form repeatability takes is in predictive power. Absent predictive power or repeatability, you often have un-scientific knowledge.

This is evident in the social sciences, where getting a person exactly like you 10 years ago to face exactly the same situation you faced is pretty much impossible. So statistics and probabilities are brought in to make the information "scientific" through the use of sample populations. Yet it still is not repeatable in any meaningful sense, and the predictive power is close to zil.

One final note - if you believe that we can someday explain and know all, then you are saying that someday, centrally planned economies will be superior to freedom. That's the end result of believing that science can solve all problems - economics is perfectable and capable of accurate predictions.

Some knowledge is gained logically through a priorism. And unless you accept that, and realize that such knowledge is different from knowledge gained through the scientific method, you will fall for all kinds of charlatanism...

|11.9.05 @ 4:14PM|#

gaius marius,

we cannot predict at all.

Leaving aside the very strange way you define prediction in a scientific sense...

you seem to imply that we have a mechanism in QM or in sociology or global climatology of these interactions which simply needs refining...

We refine these things all the time.

in complex systems, there is no linear mechanism and no prediction...

Which assumes that all of science is involved in the linear (which is clearly false). That is another unwarranted presupposition of yours.

come back rested and refreshed tomorrow.

What, are you afraid or something? :)

|11.9.05 @ 4:16PM|#

quasibill,

...if you believe that we can someday explain and know all...

Well, an individual who believes such (which is neither myself nor Shermer) is exactly the sort of strawman that gaius marius keeps on trying to create. His reasoning is almost as bad as his reasoning was in the Irish Potato Famine debate.

|11.9.05 @ 4:19PM|#

gaius marius,

You do realize that climate modelling from the 1970s is radically different from that of today right, and far more complex, right? Yes, just as a map of the U.S. will never truly reflect what the U.S. really looks like (its just a model of the real thing) so a climate model will never fully represent the nature of the Earth's climate. But you are saying something radically different which is wholly unmerited - that the model can't even exist. Which, to be blunt, is as silly as arguing that a model can be 100% accurate.

|11.9.05 @ 4:20PM|#

Whatever the merits of scientism on the whole, there is only one argument necessary to determine the predictive value of the computer models used to predict the state of global climate change. Put in old data, and see if the predictions made by the models for the present world come true. This has in fact been done, and they have been empirically shown to be useless for predicting future outcomes. I'll add they their results predict temperatures that are too high.

Until someone shows them to work with past data, I won't believe that they'll work for the current data. Why would anyone?

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 4:20PM|#

We refine these things all the time.

gg, you should familiarize yourself with complexity and systems a bit more, i think. we don't refine these things all the time. there is a mathematically demonstrable unpredictability we have begun to appreciate in nonlinear complexity that upends the very idea that one can continually refine one's understanding through repeated observation and the application of scientific method.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 4:24PM|#

You do realize that climate modelling from the 1970s is radically different from that of today right, and far more complex, right?

yep, and still not much more a tennis ball. which is not to be dismissive of the hard work and intelligence of climatologists -- but, as with sociologists and economists to a lesser degree, there are simply limits to what they know and can know.

|11.9.05 @ 4:32PM|#

JDM,

One of the things that they like to do is to use their models to "predict" the past (or what they understand of it at least). Some are better than others at doing that obviously.

gaius marius,

you should familiarize yourself with complexity and systems a bit more...

Dude, if they are critical to your argument, you'd think you'd be able to define what you are talking about more precisely. Vague allusions to this or that won't really cut it.

there is a mathematically demonstrable unpredictability we have begun to appreciate in nonlinear complexity that upends the very idea that one can continually refine one's understanding through repeated observation and the application of scientific method.

Which gets us back to accuracy. No, its the application of the scientific method in a certain way that you take issue with. The idea that the scientific method is one rigid thing (which is part of the heart of your argues) ignores the reality of how science is done and how science has changed.

...there are simply limits to what they know and can know.

The latter is a presupption (and I'll wager an unwarranted one) and that is all.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 4:33PM|#

there is only one argument necessary to determine the predictive value of the computer models used to predict the state of global climate change. Put in old data, and see if the predictions made by the models for the present world come true. This has in fact been done, and they have been empirically shown to be useless for predicting future outcomes

even that is insufficient, mr jdm. this is known as backtesting in my line of work, and its a fraud in application to complexity.

i can take the last 100 years of stock market data on a minute-by-minute tick for every single issue and construct, using statistical analysis of past data, a trading program that seems undefeatable -- destined to make me wealthy in a very short time.

and then i put it into practice and it fails horribly almost immediately. (don't laugh -- very bright minds do this all the time in finance.)

this is because the system being modeled is one of nonlinear complexity -- the next event is totally unpredictable, and it would matter not at all if i had 10,000 years of data to draw on.

similarly with climate modeling -- making a model based on fitting available data to mathematical constructs is of virtually no use. to try to do so misunderstands the nature of complex systems entirely.

|11.9.05 @ 4:36PM|#

gaius marius,

What is particularly funny of course is that you are making an whole series of undemonstrated predictions about the limits of human knowledge. Like I wrote above, the only person dealing in absolutes here is you. I'm wise enough to realize that I don't know if such limits exist and I certainly don't know where they exist if they do. Yours is the arrogant, absolutist position - not mine or Shermer's.

|11.9.05 @ 4:38PM|#

gaius marius,

making a model based on fitting available data to mathematical constructs is of virtually no use...

Its worked quite well in predicting the sort of weather needed to create a tornado - and the development of a tordano is anything but linear. To be more blunt, such efforts saved my wife's life.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 4:40PM|#

Which gets us back to accuracy.

gg, you don't understand any better than you did four hours ago. you clearly don't grasp the issue. have you any familiarity with complexity and systems theory? a lack of such context would explain why you think i'm talking about accuracy.

|11.9.05 @ 4:42PM|#

gaius marius,

Other non-linear systems like that involved in hurricane formation and movement also seem amenable to our ability to predict their formation, movement, intensity upon landfall, etc. Earthquakes, which are hardly non-linear, are also becoming better understood and within the next decade or two predictability should have increased significantly. These and other natural phenomenon are difficult to understand, predict, etc., but a heck of a lot of effort has been put into and we understand them far better than we did before.

|11.9.05 @ 4:44PM|#

"even that is insufficient, mr jdm. this is known as backtesting in my line of work, and its a fraud in application to complexity."

Sure, I made it as far as stochastics in my days as a physics undergrad and understand the idea of curve fitting. But if your stock market model doesn't even work with past data, you'd never bother to try it out. You don't even have to bother to figure out if you're curve fitting. You certainly wouldn't gamble trillions of dollars on it, as is the case with GW. It's also much easier to get data on the stock market.

(As an aside, I don't get why you think there is predictive value in the concept of a civilization, the definition of which is curve fitting by errr... definition. This thread is broad enough, though, we can save it for some other time.)

|11.9.05 @ 4:44PM|#

gaius marius,

That's the extent of of your critique? A limp "don't understand" statement? Heh.

MP|11.9.05 @ 4:45PM|#

Absent predictive power or repeatability, you often have un-scientific knowledge.

Yet there could still exist entirely rational, scietific, and provable explanations for why certain things cannot be predicted.

|11.9.05 @ 4:48PM|#

gaius marius,

More to the point, and in clear prose, why don't you detail for me my errors? So far all I've gotten is an ipse dixit about my level of understanding. So if I am so clearly wrong, it should be rather easy to teach me why I am so clearly wrong.

MP|11.9.05 @ 4:51PM|#

gaius - i'm all for eschewing same.

By eschewing those items, aren't you inherently adopting a position of scientism?

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 4:51PM|#

These and other natural phenomenon are difficult to understand, predict, etc., but a heck of a lot of effort has been put into and we understand them far better than we did before.

which is all well and good -- again, i'm not advocating an ignorance of complexity. complex systems do tend to emit patterns (one reason i think an analysis of historical patterns is valid in estimating the present).

but this is nothing like prediction, and we should not pretend that we are ever going to be in a position to know nonlinear interdependent systems in a way such that they will not continually surprise us.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 4:55PM|#

That's the extent of of your critique?

there isn't a lot more to say than that, gg. this is a chatboard. i can't force feed you systems theory.

|11.9.05 @ 5:02PM|#

gaius marius,

...but this is nothing like prediction...

Dude, you obviously don't live in a place that has a lot of tornados, do you?

and we should not pretend that we are ever going to be in a position to know nonlinear interdependent systems in a way such that they will not continually surprise us.

Which is a far cry from saying that they are wholly unknown to us - which was your earlier claim. Honestly, you continue to ratchet down what you are claiming the longer this conversation continues, which is good evidence that you overstated your original claim.

i can't force feed you systems theory.

Yes, but you can prattle on for hours about other things? Heh. Right. If I am as obviously wrong as you write that I am, then a few brief bullet points you ought to be able to show that. Any time folks that "X" subject is too complex to relate here my bullshit detector immediately swings into full alarm mode. Look, I am loathe to call you a liar, but you sure as hell are acting like one. If I were to hem and haw about an issue like this, people would pounce all over my ass. To be frank, if you can't properly articulate your point, then its probably the case that you don't understand it well enough to be talking about it, and not knowledgeable enough certainly to be admonishing me about it.

MP,

He wants the science with the mysticism apparently left intact apparently.

|11.9.05 @ 5:03PM|#

gaius marius,

Until you can articulate what you exactly find wrong with my statements there really is no need to continue this conversation. You are not only waisting my time, you are also waisting your own.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 5:04PM|#

By eschewing those items, aren't you inherently adopting a position of scientism?

decidedly not, mr mp. one doesn't need to resort to an unsubstantiated explanation of what we cannot know, scientific or metaphysical. one can simply admit that we don't know. if its beyond science to explain, it needn't be supernatural. the basic point is that science is limited -- it cannot explain the entire physical world.

|11.9.05 @ 5:08PM|#

Is not.
Is too.
Is not.
Is too.
Is not.
Is too.

You're a poopy head.

I'm rubber, you're glue;
what bounces off me sticks to you.
........................................

The last couple hundred replies aren't entertaining or enlightening.
Why don't you guys take it somewhere else?

|11.9.05 @ 5:13PM|#

Let's push this thread to 500+ posts. I'll provide the bait:

Lincoln was awesome!
The incorporation doctrine rocks.
The French Marines are wimps!
The internment of the Japanese was wrong.
Sex toys.
More sex toys.
Religion is stupid.
And still more sex toys.

Discuss.

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 5:15PM|#

Dude, you obviously don't live in a place that has a lot of tornados, do you?

we don't predict tornados in illinois, gg -- we estimate that circumstances are favorable for their development, then wait for them to show up to warn people.

Which is a far cry from saying that they are wholly unknown to us

no it really isn't gg.

take the sandpile example. i have a pile of sand. i keep adding sand, grain by grain. at what point will i add the grain that destabilizes the pile and collapses it?

it's wholly unknown -- indeed, wholly unknowable. i can assume that its likely to slide at some point, and will eventually slide if i keep adding. but i don't -- and cannot -- know the detail of the collapse.

now, there is very little about the physical laws that govern sandpiles that is unknwon to us. and yet we cannot utterly predict their behavior. in a fundamental way, the future behavior of the system is wholly unknowable.

in a world where this is so, how can anyone believe that all knowledge of the physical universe is subject to scientific method?

You are not only waisting my time, you are also waisting your own.

that's rather the point of hnr, isn't it gg? :)

|11.9.05 @ 5:17PM|#

...wasting...

LennyBruce,

Well, after a point its like talking to D. Angelhone about Japanese internment. Its like beating dead horseflesh.

thoreau,

No thanks. :)

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 5:18PM|#

"Put in old data, and see if the predictions made by the models for the present world come true. This has in fact been done, and they have been empirically shown to be useless for predicting future outcomes. I'll add they their results predict temperatures that are too high."

JDM,

This is a lie. (DING DING DING!). Models do, in fact, generate predicted conditions fairly close to current observations when fed past data. The criticism you're levelling is based on models five or ten years ago; you need to update your playbook.

(Why is it a lie? Because it's continuously used by GW deniers despite being repeatedly debunked - at this point people KNOW better, and they say it anyways to try to fool those who DON'T).

|11.9.05 @ 5:18PM|#

The last couple hundred replies aren't entertaining or enlightening.
Why don't you guys take it somewhere else?


Yeah, get a room, you two. :)

Nobody wants to sit here and watch you two jerk each other off...

...well, ok, maybe Herrick would.

And Steven Crane.


...But you get my point.

|11.9.05 @ 5:19PM|#

LennyBruce,

See, there! It looks like that gm-horse its getting on its feet, but when you take a closer look, it really just the maggots rolling about in it.

|11.9.05 @ 5:20PM|#

I say let M1EK and gaius marius hash it out for another hundred posts or so.

M1EK|11.9.05 @ 5:22PM|#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming

gaius marius|11.9.05 @ 5:22PM|#

If I am as obviously wrong as you write that I am, then a few brief bullet points you ought to be able to show that.

a nice fallacy, gg, but you know as well as i that sometimes seemingly simple falsehoods require complicated debunkings.

|11.9.05 @ 5:26PM|#

gaius marius,

Well, give your penchant for writing paragraph upon paragraph upon paragraph replies that doesn't seem to be beyond your abilities then. That you provide nothing in the way of a response besides an ipse dixit is a good predictor that there is indeed nothing there. Anyway, you've seen my challenge seen fit to ignore it. Tough I guess.

|11.9.05 @ 5:36PM|#

More bait:

The society of today is far superior to anything that the Middle Ages had to offer. Discuss.

Come on, we can get 500 posts out of this!

|11.9.05 @ 5:38PM|#

thoreau,

Dude. Its no longer funny. Move on.

|11.9.05 @ 5:50PM|#

I'm a skeptic in the Humean sense. We don't really know very much at all. Empiricism is the one approach to epistemology that allows us to have feedback about knowledge we think we have attained. The scientific method is just applied epistemology in that sense.

If the scientific method is not universally applicable, as gaius suggests, we have to at a minimum acknowledge that the character of theories derived from the method is greatly different from the character of theories derived from non rigorously empirical techniques (and I use that term loosely). Non scientific theories are by definition exempted from the feedback process provided by other experimenters and therefore can't be seriously considered to be on epistemological par with scientific theories.

To me, the importance of not teaching ID in a science class is that to do so promotes sloppy thinking, and the scientific approach to thinking is really what is being taught in High School. It doesn't matter what material is covered, you are trying to convey that a given approach has seen enormous success in predicatibility. This approach needs to be categorized distinctly from purely rational thinking as in symbolic logic and mathematics and certainly needs to be distinguished from the utterly subjective argument that is ID. The whole purpose of a science class in high school is to be able to recognize an empirical argument when you see one, and to treat such arguments with the respect they deserve.

|11.9.05 @ 6:01PM|#

Does the fact that there's even a discussion about this "Intelligent Design" nonsense bother anybody else as much as it bothers me?

Wait, not so much bother, but it simply amazes me that in this 21st Century, with all we know, people still can't accept that there might not be some intelligent creator?

Not saying that we really know a lot...I agree with Jason, but we've come much to far to be bogged down with these primitive notions.

Call me an elitist, atheist asshole, but it just makes me shake my head in disbelief.

|11.9.05 @ 6:05PM|#

Lowdog,

Your self-referencing insults are poisoning the debate.

|11.9.05 @ 6:06PM|#

Smacky,

HA! :)

|11.9.05 @ 6:07PM|#

Whoo-hoo! Come on all you non-ESTers! It's not 5 yet! We can get this thing over 300 posts!

Just doin my part. If we hit 300, .6% of these posts will be from me :-)

|11.9.05 @ 6:12PM|#

Call me an elitist, atheist asshole, but it just makes me shake my head in disbelief.

Bah. Don't let it bother you. Let it entertain you.

Go read H.L. Mencken's coverage of the original Scopes trial.

Comedy Gold.

|11.9.05 @ 6:12PM|#

Jason Ligon,

I'm a moderate skeptic in the sense of Montaigne, Sterne and Rabelais. :)

|11.9.05 @ 6:14PM|#

linquist,

We need some bloggers from Hawai'i or something. :)

|11.9.05 @ 6:23PM|#

I'd like to interrupt this thread to let everyone know that the Idaho State Legislature has proposed a bill the sole purpose of which is to commend the creators of the film Napoleon Dynamite, simply because it was filmed in their state.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled gaius marius/Hakluyt faceoff.

|11.9.05 @ 6:25PM|#

mediageek,

Ha ha ha. :)

I'm watching the coverage from Jordan actually.

|11.9.05 @ 6:27PM|#

0.6% of 300 is 1.8 posts.

How'd you manage that cunning feat, linguist?

I really think the practical significance of evolution needs to be emphasized. If the only significance of evolution was that we know something about events that happened millions of years ago, I could see the argument against teaching it. It would be basically useless stuff. Enlightening and interesting, but useless. Or at least not worth fighting for.

But it isn't useless. Ideas from evolutionary biology show up in practical problems: Our arms races against insects, bacteria, and weeds (not that weed). Comparing humans with related species to figure out whether something associated with cancer or other diseases is simply a harmful mutation that hasn't yet been weeded out (there I go again with that word, well, it's close to 4:20 in the Mountain Time Zone), or is instead a useful adaptation. (The more species it shows up in, the more likely it is to be useful.)

Not to mention that the notion of common descent gives intellectual unity to biology and underpins the notion that we can (often) translate results from mice into useful medicine for humans. It isn't coincidence, there is a reason why this stuff works, why a yeast cell can tell us something about humans. (Yeast is the simplest organism with a nuclear membrane, and we share many cellular features with yeast due to common descent.)

There would probably be ways to wave our hands and make sense of biology without the idea of common descent, natural selection, and random variation. But the foundation provided by evolution has much more empirical support than any other proposed foundation, and scientists deal in data. And the methods used to study that empirical foundation provide useful tools for attacking practical problems in the present.

The past is something that a lot of people like to claim for themselves: We all find it convenient to subscribe to certain versions of the past, our favorite narratives of history. We all cherish some myths.

But we tend to be more practical about the present: Most of the people who prefer a past with Adam and Eve still send their kids to a doctor in the present. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are fairly rare.

People need to understand that evolution is very, very relevant to the present. It won't win all of them over, but it will win some over. Perhaps most important, it will win over a lot of people who are fairly comfortable with evolution but think we ought to be "fair", or who simply aren't sure. If they realize that the issue isn't just academic, that it is practical, we'll win a lot of them over. Yes, I know, there will always be people who are deeply committed to ignorance, but there are also people who can be reached if they realize that evolution is a matter of practical significance. Maybe not as practical as transistors and whatnot, but still practical.

|11.9.05 @ 6:46PM|#

Incidentally, what does "Hakluyt" mean?

/c'mon 500!

|11.9.05 @ 7:06PM|#

mediageek,

Well, its a Welsh name, and its most famous bearer (Richard Hakluyt) was a writer of books on exploration and geography. Shakespeare and other authors mined his work and his work also proved to be a great inspiration for English exploration. The Hakluyt Society is named after him: http://www.hakluyt.com/

|11.9.05 @ 8:45PM|#

...we share many cellular features with yeast due to common descent.

What are you saying? Our mothers all had yeast infections?

|11.9.05 @ 9:27PM|#

Hak,

Oh yeah? Well, Hume would kick Montaigne's ass, and he could drink him under the table. Take THAT!

I don't know much about Montaigne, actually. Being largely self taught, my philosophy tends to be narrow but at least somewhat deep. I've really focused on the epistemology debates from maybe Descarte to Wittgenstein and Kant, which is pretty much the end of the road. Witt made it all about language, though probably inadvertently. Hume was The Man. I often think about how much better the world would be if more people appreciated the gist of Hume. Not so much Wittgenstein. The world doesn't need any more of those, thanks.

|11.9.05 @ 10:22PM|#

Jason
I totally agree. I am a huge fan of Hume. I actually was first introduced to him after being taught Kant. I thought Kant was great but that Hume kicked his butt and I attributed this to my (mistaken) belief that Kant had come before Hume and so Hume had an advantage. When I learned that Hume's work pre-dated Kant it made me just really in awe of the guy.
Empiricism is where it is at. Everyone believes in empiricism, despite your religion or ideology. Some folks will argue that empiricism is limited or such, but noone denies solid empirical evidence in numerous matters daily. However other forms of 'knowing' such as faith and mysticism are rarely able to convince folks who are not already believers. That is just one reason why empiricism is so great.

raymond|11.10.05 @ 12:57AM|#

(In a bid to help thoreau realise his dream of "500+ [irrelevant] posts"...)

Newton's laws aren't wrong. They're quite in a wide range of experimental domains. If you look in a book on Relativity and ask how objects move and interact gravitationally when the average speeds are much less than light, the book will tell you to go consult Newton's Principia.

A prize to thoreau if he can, without googling, tell me where the following sentences are to be found:

It must necessarily be accepted that such an amazing uniformity in the planetary system was brought about by intelligence and wisdom.

The same can be said of the uniformity there is in the bodies of animals. That is, virtually all animals have two sides, the right and the left, which are similar in form; and on each side, at the rear of their body, they have two legs, and at the front two arms, or legs, or wings attached to their shoulders; and between their shoulders they have a neck, with a head fixed onto it; and in the head there are two ears, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and a tongue; and all these have similar positions in virtually all animals. Then there are all those other parts of the body which have been constructed with exquisite skill and wisdom -- the eyes, the ears, the brain, the muscles, the glands, the heart, the lungs, the chest, the throat, arms, wings, swimming bladders, transparent membranes covering the eyes of some animals like spectacles, and other organs of sensation and motion, and the instincts of dumb animals and insects. Obviously the original uniformity of all these things cannot be attributed to anything other than the intelligence and wisdom of a powerful and immortal being -- that is, who is present everywhere, and who can, by his will, move all bodies in his infinite sensory, and hence can fashion and re-fashion all parts of the whole universe as he chooses. It is analogous (though to a far higher degree) to the way in which our soul (which is the image of God within us) is capable of moving the parts of its body by its will.

(disclaimer: Who knows. Maybe he's right.)

|11.10.05 @ 12:58AM|#

Jason Ligon,

You'd like Montaigne. His foremost goal in his Essays was to describe himself and in doing so describe humanity generally. He found the religious wars of the time barbarbic and silly (unlike most people around him). Was a cultural relativist of sorts, arguing that a difference in culture by itself is not a mark of inferiority (obviously its the content that must be judged). Unlike all of his contemporaries he found torture to be both barbaric and untrustworthy as a source of gaining knowledge. He despised dogmatic religious beliefs. He was basically several hundred years ahead of his time.

"There is nothing more notable in Socrates than that he found time, when he was an old man, to learn music and dancing, and thought it time well spent." - Montaigne

MP|11.10.05 @ 6:41AM|#

300!

|11.10.05 @ 8:22AM|#

To all those who say they "want a ruling": Have you really thought through the consequences of such a thing? As I understand it, the PA lawsuit is based on the notion that ID should not be taught because it violates establishment clause principles. If that is what would be ruled, would not that logically mean that ID could not be taught in government schools even if it was a valid scientific theory? Is that the result you want?

The courts are not a proper forum for establishing scientific facts. They are not designed for it, and they are not capable of it.

|11.10.05 @ 8:48AM|#

"the scientific approach to thinking is really what is being taught in High School."

Well, I agree that it is what should be being taught in high school. Whether it is or not is debateable.

"This approach needs to be categorized distinctly from purely rational thinking as in symbolic logic and mathematics and certainly needs to be distinguished from the utterly subjective argument that is ID."

Once again, someone state my point much more succinctly than I managed. As I noted, logic is not the scientific method. It can be categorized as part of the first step - forming a hypothesis. But just because something is logically inferred from existing evidence does not make it "scientific". It makes it a logical inference.

|11.10.05 @ 9:35AM|#

raymond-

I'm guessing Newton. The man had some wacky ideas, I admit. But the stuff that he did with numbers, observations, and rigorous logic (e.g. the mathematical proofs in the Principia) were pure gold.

The latest issue of Physics Today has a great article on Einstein's mistakes. Even great scientists make them. The difference is that the great ones also get a lot of important things right.

|11.10.05 @ 9:36AM|#

As a citizen and tax-payer of another officially-designated "Island of Ignorance" (Cobb County, Georgia), I would love to see the school board here get the Dover treatment.

But the theocrats here would never stand for that. Surely fire and brimstone would rain down.

gaius marius|11.10.05 @ 9:40AM|#

the scientific approach to thinking is really what is being taught in High School. It doesn't matter what material is covered, you are trying to convey that a given approach has seen enormous success in predicatibility.

i agree, mr ligon. this should still be taught, especially at the secondary level. beyond high school, however, for a more advanced power of consideration, we must teach that epistemology is not wholly comprised of scientific method -- that the method cannot, in fact, suffice to explain the physical world in total (indeed, only a small sliver of it).

|11.10.05 @ 9:46AM|#

quasibill:

"But just because something is logically inferred from existing evidence does not make it "scientific"."

With some qualifiers, I agree. The big qualification is that induction from evidence must be recognized as part of the scientific method. What makes it scientific is the empirical basis of the argument and that its acceptance is subject to revision as empiricism demands. Any argument that by its nauture is not subject to verification or falsification by empirical methods is not scientific.

|11.10.05 @ 9:54AM|#

"that the method cannot, in fact, suffice to explain the physical world in total (indeed, only a small sliver of it)."

The physical world can only be analyzed empirically. You must confess utter ignorance about those areas that are untouchable by scientific investigation. The clear message to be sent is not that empiricism is good up to a point, and then for certain areas of investigation there is something else that is just as good. Rather, the message is that there is a sphere of rational epistemology and a sphere of empirical epistemology. Once you are outside of those two, you are in the land of ignorance.

gaius marius|11.10.05 @ 9:56AM|#

Anyway, you've seen my challenge seen fit to ignore it. Tough I guess.

not ignore, gg -- as can be seen by the duration of this thread -- but simply unable to use this foru as a vehicle for the depth of consideration necessary to get you to see my point.

you claim this is an issue of accuracy. i say it is not -- and offer this example:

when copernicus offered a heliocentric model of the universe to displace epicyclical ptolemaic models, it has to be noted that copernican predictions for ht emovement of the planets were, in fact, less accurate than the most advanced epicyclical models (due to the assumption of circular movement). it wasn't until kepler that heliocentric models actually modeled the paths of the planets better than ptolemaic models.

the epicyclical model was more accurate -- and yet much farther from the truth.

this is an insufficient analogy, but consider: the application of scientific method to nonlinear complex systems is very much like the application of epicycles to the movement of the planets. a degree of accuracy is possible. prediction -- an approach to truth -- is not.

the key to gaining knowledge by scientific method is repeated testing rendering duplicable results, and thence induction by enumeration.

this is not sufficient to grasp complex systems that cannot produce duplicable results. and this is not because we don't sufficiently understand the mechanisms -- it is because the systems are complex and nonlinear and cannot be predicted, are as a matter of mathematical fact beyond prediction.

a hard concept to grasp if one has been indoctrinated into the belief that sufficient observation yields pefect knowledge in time. these systems demonstrate that complete knowledge is beyond our capacity as observers.

as soon as this becomes true, one must concede that scientific method -- indeed, observation -- is in fact limited in its utility in understanding the physical world.

this is not the revolutionary statement it might appear to some -- i think it's only been in the last few centuries that anyone believed that man could know everything about the world by watching it.

gaius marius|11.10.05 @ 10:03AM|#

Rather, the message is that there is a sphere of rational epistemology and a sphere of empirical epistemology. Once you are outside of those two, you are in the land of ignorance.

absolutely, mr ligon. and shermer's adherent to scientism transgresses it by claiming that there are or will be "natural explanations for all phenomena". there are not -- there is indeed a vast field of physical phenomena for which no natural explanation is forthcoming, for which there could just as well be a divine hand at work as any billiard ball collision. we cannot know. the assumption that we can know and that there will be a natural explanation is rank belief system -- a faith, like any other.

You must confess utter ignorance about those areas that are untouchable by scientific investigation.

i think something less that utter ignorance, mr ligon. philosophy clearly has yielded insights into fields untouchable by science.

gaius marius|11.10.05 @ 10:11AM|#

it simply amazes me that in this 21st Century, with all we know, people still can't accept that there might not be some intelligent creator?

Not saying that we really know a lot...I agree with Jason, but we've come much to far to be bogged down with these primitive notions.

as it does me, mr lowdog.

but what amazes me equally is that whole opposing school who hubristically assume that there cannot be a god because they cannot evidence one.

i submit that god is not a "primitive notion" so much as a placeholder for all that which we do not or cannot know. as science expands its purview, god should acquiesce -- and this certainly applies to evolution. but that is not to say that we can, chests inflated by technological successes, assume that nothing will be beyond our techniques. clearly, most things will always be. a good scientist -- unlike one taken with scientism -- can humbly admit that.

|11.10.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Damn! I guess I should have checked this thread again to defend myself. I just found that guys post interesting. If its full of shit, so be it. Please don't shoot the messenger.

Carry on.

gaius marius|11.10.05 @ 10:23AM|#

[Montaigne] was basically several hundred years ahead of his time.

i'd say that's something of a modernist conceit, gg. it could also be said that he was a man who retained some of the sensibility that had left the society of his period.

Hume was The Man

certainly a titanic intellect, the greatest of the empiricists and a worthy object of study. but it must be noted that it was hume who lethally undermined causality, and pointed out that the underpinning of an empirical understanding of the world is indeed only belief of a different kind. this was perhaps his greatest triumph -- the application of his principles with such incisiveness as to understand their own fallacy.

|11.10.05 @ 10:24AM|#

"there is indeed a vast field of physical phenomena for which no natural explanation is forthcoming"

There is a vast field of physical phenomena not explainable by physical processes? I don't think that is true.

"but what amazes me equally is that whole opposing school who hubristically assume that there cannot be a god because they cannot evidence one."

The Razor is very, very important to the skeptic, gaius.

"i think something less that utter ignorance, mr ligon. philosophy clearly has yielded insights into fields untouchable by science."

Not about the physical world. Atomism is an example. We didn't know until we had empirical verification.

gaius marius|11.10.05 @ 10:30AM|#

The Razor is very, very important to the skeptic, gaius.

the razor is also a statement of faith, and can be wrong, mr ligon.

There is a vast field of physical phenomena not explainable by physical processes?

virtually all of it at the moment, mr ligon. as you yourself stated above, what we do not know is vastly greater than that which we do.

indeed, what is gravity? how does it function? even very basic everyday things, you see. some of the most compelling arguments (imo) regarding the mechanism of gravitation run into m-theory, positing extradimensional extrauniversal branes that we cannot and will never be able to (as physical creatures) observe.

|11.10.05 @ 10:34AM|#

"the greatest of the empiricists and a worthy object of study. but it must be noted that it was hume who lethally undermined causality, and pointed out that the underpinning of an empirical understanding of the world is indeed only belief of a different kind."

Only belief of a different kind, yes. Humean skepticism is a profound skepticism. However, he goes on to note that since you have belief systems to choose from, to the extent possible you had better restrict yourself to those empirically derived and extended by 'that which you can't help but believe', which is to say causation being constant conjunction and universality being necessary not to go mad. It is a mistake to read Hume as anything other than a proponent of empiricism as the only thing we have.

gaius marius|11.10.05 @ 10:35AM|#

The Razor

and, just to try to get to 500 posts, let''s ask:

isn't the assumption of a god a far more parsimonious than elaborate and necessarily incomplete observational constructs? it seems to me that there is in fact a skeptical argument to be made in favor of some sort of god (although i don't make it).

Viking Moose|11.10.05 @ 10:38AM|#

Jason, Gaius:

thank you both for such intersting discussions!

you two are making this citizen's day a little brighter.

carry on and THANKS!

kindly,
V. Moose

|11.10.05 @ 10:48AM|#

gaius:

Ahh. I think we differ on what we mean by physical phenomena being explained by empirical study. It is very likely that quantum gravity, and even quantum nonlocality can only be described mathematically. Once you are in to the realms of drawing a picture of what a the wave equation of an electron implies for the physical structure of the electron, you are in metaphysics that is only somewhat constrained by empirical knowledge. It may be that multiple pictures of the universe can be devised that satisfy the requirements of the equations that accurately predict behavior.

My plea is that we don't conflate the picture with the empirically derived equation, which is to say we shouldn't act as though a bad picture implies a limit to the epistemological value of the equation.

It seems highly improbable that evolved human brains and mental worlds can accomodate accurate pictures of the world in itself. Not to roll out Kant, but we will only ever be looking at space time projections of actual phenomena anyway.

|11.10.05 @ 10:50AM|#

gaius:

I've always felt that the Razor chops God because of the defined infinitude of such a being.

gaius marius|11.10.05 @ 10:53AM|#

It is a mistake to read Hume as anything other than a proponent of empiricism as the only thing we have.

i think so as well -- but hume nonetheless, with his insight (which is surely one of the most profound in western intellectual history) awoke kant, who felt empirical knowledge this so compromised as to necessitate his revolution in the theory of knowledge, which was the end of the development of empiricism.

|11.10.05 @ 11:22AM|#

Jason,

If I could time travel, one of the things I would do is put Wittgenstein and Socrates in the same room and see what happens (with translators obviously, but I'm already being fanciful). I think the argument would give the best Hak/Gaius thread a run for it's money.

raymond|11.10.05 @ 11:33AM|#

I'm guessing Newton.

Right you are.

The man had some wacky ideas...

Wackiness is in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe in 350 years archaeologists will dig up fossilised H&R posts and express amusement at our ideas about liberty and human rights. Maybe they will heap scorn on our notions of free will. But what the heck. Free will works for me. It may be a wacky illusion, but it's one that pleases me mightily.

Science is a useful way of understanding many things. Metaphor is another. Holding two opposing ideas at the same time is yet another.

I'm not too worried about Creationism and Intelligent Design in the classroom. After all, our greatest scientists - the ones who have increased understanding - have all sprung from creation-believing cultures. It took institutionalised atheism to give us Lysenko.

btw. Did you know that the seeds of the scientific method were sown by Muslim thinkers in Baghdad in the 8th century in the "House of Wisdom"? I thought of that today when I caught the tail end of a news report about a Florida school board which caved in to complaints about Muslim holidays in the new school calendar. Apparently, board members received threatening emails with comments about "subhuman Muslims".

There's more wrong with your schools than ID.

|11.10.05 @ 11:47AM|#

"I'm not too worried about Creationism and Intelligent Design in the classroom."

The key question is, In which classroom? It is imperative that we keep science science.

raymond|11.10.05 @ 12:54PM|#

The key question is, In which classroom? It is imperative that we keep science science.

As I said above somewhere, preferably in a TOK classroom. However, it wouldn't bother me if the biology teacher discussed it.

Recently I read that the US is at the bottom of the league tables in science and maths. (I wish I could find the article, or even remember where I read it.) If this is true, it's not the fault of ID. It's the fault of lousy teaching and lousy learning. And it's also probably the fault of "universal education". There's just a greater percentage of American kids taking high-school biology than, say, Hong Kong kids.

If I remember correctly, too, many American universities have to offer remedial reading and writing courses to their freshmen. The finer points of theories of this or that have probably been lost on these kids anyway.

Let's face it. Most schools are just huge baby-sitting/job-training centers, where we keep kids until the market is ready to absorb them.

Go to a mall and ask 10 high-school kids at random about the Declaration of Independence or the nucleus of a cell or a noun or the square root of 9 or where Iraq is. Heck. Do that with random _adults_.

Go to the White House and ask a random president to pronounce nuclear.

It is imperative that we keep science science.

In high school?

You can't keep what you don't have.

|11.10.05 @ 1:11PM|#

gaius marius,

i'd say that's something of a modernist conceit, gg. it could also be said that he was a man who retained some of the sensibility that had left the society of his period.

You keep on glorifying a non-existant past which you refuse to periodize. It suits you. Its a shame that you are such a poorly trained historian.

...but simply unable to use this foru as a vehicle for the depth of consideration necessary to get you to see my point.

Dude this forum is more than appropriate. You could write a very long essay if you would like. Sorry, I just don't buy this excuse at all given your willingness to write very lengthy posts on subjects.

you claim this is an issue of accuracy.

No, I claim that is all that you are talking about. There's a difference.

when copernicus offered a heliocentric model of the universe to displace epicyclical ptolemaic models...

Because he worshipped the sun! At least get the story right.

...it has to be noted that copernican predictions for ht emovement of the planets were, in fact, less accurate than the most advanced epicyclical models (due to the assumption of circular movement).

Accuracy wasn't foremost in his mind. Sun worship was.

it wasn't until kepler that heliocentric models actually modeled the paths of the planets better than ptolemaic models.

Which is just the sort of refinement I keep talking about.

the epicyclical model was more accurate -- and yet much farther from the truth.

It was more accurate for a time. Which is to be expected, given all the effort put into the former to reform it over time so that it would match what was observed and thus remain consistent with observation.

a degree of accuracy is possible. prediction -- an approach to truth -- is not.

Which is merely a presupposition on your part.

the key to gaining knowledge by scientific method is repeated testing rendering duplicable results, and thence induction by enumeration.

That's one type of science, its not science as a whole by any means. A fallacy of an underinclusive definition.

this is not sufficient to grasp complex systems...

A claim which is predicated on an underinclusive definition.

...it is because the systems are complex and nonlinear and cannot be predicted, are as a matter of mathematical fact beyond prediction.

Yet we do predict the formation and movement of hurricanes, which are non-linear systems by themselves and evolve in a non-linear system.

these systems demonstrate that complete knowledge is beyond our capacity as observers.

Dude, this is true of any system, non-linear or not.

...limited in its utility in understanding the physical world.

Heh. Nice strawman. No one claimed otherwise.

More dead horseflesh from you. How boring.

there is indeed a vast field of physical phenomena for which no natural explanation is forthcoming...

Here is where specificity is important. Name some fields where no natural explanation exists - whatever the accuracy of such explanation is. I think we'll soon see you confusing accuracy with some other things.

|11.10.05 @ 1:16PM|#

gaius marius,

philosophy clearly has yielded insights into fields untouchable by science.

No, philosophy asks some good questions, but it has no answers. What is the good life? What is the proper type of state? etc. All these remain unanswered from the purely philosophical perspective. It takes science, historical analysis, etc. to answer these questions.

|11.10.05 @ 1:23PM|#

gaius marius,

virtually all of it at the moment, mr ligon. as you yourself stated above, what we do not know is vastly greater than that which we do.

Which is a very different claim from what you are arguing. You claim ignorance forever, Jason Ligon does not.

|11.10.05 @ 1:25PM|#

gaius marius,

BTW, any historian worth his or her salt making claims about the past you do wouldn't refuse to periodize them. Indeed, they'd bracket the period via period, geographical area, etc. As you are unwilling to do so I can only assume that you are a bullshit artist who knows enough about the history of man to get himself in trouble. Sort of how you got yourself in trouble over the Irish Potato Famine.