#48774: — 11/15  at  09:48 AM
Maybe he meant to say that he was engaging in a little bit of street theater.

(Actually, I wouldn't mind the "street theater" defense, if those raising it would act like street mimes and SHUT THE FUCK UP.)

#48777: — 11/15  at  09:56 AM
What is it with cartoonists debating evolution these days? Gary Varvel of the Indianpolis Star has been posting a weekly "Stuck on Stupid Thursday" feature in the Expresso blog. (blogs.indystar.com/expresso) He's currently on #5. As opposed to Adams, he's not joking.

#48781: — 11/15  at  10:01 AM
I also picked up from Scott an inability to engage in critical reasoning--to be able to distinguish good sources of knowledge from bad. From his perspective, all sources are equally corrupt.

He's pretty much saying that biologists of every stripe are equally untrustworthy. The "evidence" is that they all assume the truth of the basic idea of evolution. Thus, they are zealots not to be believed.

From one perspective his argument has merit. If one is untrained, then one cannot verify the truth of assertions from systematic observation. We must therefore rely on authorities. So which one to trust? I would ask Scott, which is more plausible? (1) That biologists will earn money or anything worthwhile if he believes in evolution, or (2) if our religious mullahs risk losing their tithes and offerings if he accepts the principle of evolution. Trust least the group that has most to gain or lose. But, reading his reply and consequent comments, such an argument by me would do no good.

#48786: — 11/15  at  10:09 AM
With all due respect, I think that you're missing the point of Adam's posts.

He doesn't want to actually pick up an introductory textbook and study evolution, and he needs to justify his intellectual laziness by claiming that there are no credible sources for the relevant information. So, he designs a "Catch-22" test: he writes a post on evolution and ID sufficiently that is (1) full of explicit and implicit qualifiers and (2) definitively ignorant. Then, by definition, anyone who (humorlessly) responds to the most likely meaning of his text with facts and condemnation -- rather than sycophantic appreciation of Adams' rhetorical brilliance – is not credible. By rising to the bait, you have established yourself in his eyes as not credible. Presumably, if you had ignored him completely, your credibility would remain unknown, rather than be affirmed. I don't imagine that you'll need counseling to get over this.

You're right: he’s a Wally.

#48787: — 11/15  at  10:11 AM
I like how Adams declares that "What I’m denying is the existence of credible PEOPLE to inform me of this evidence [for evolution]."

So there are no credible people to inform him of the evidence for evolution? Huh? Wha? I mean just live in that idea for a moment. How dumb is this guy?

Really what his piece reduces to is a naive skepticism, saying, hey, you never REALLY know anything do we? (I will sign onto that as an arguable philosophical position, but I wouldn't vote to de-fund molecular genetics due to it). But it goes even further than that because there are sort of nested levels of ignorance: ignorance of science qua method, ignorance of science qua state-of-the-evidence, ignorance of philosophy/epistemology.

So it boils down to Scott Adams saying since HE doesn't know anything, NOBODY can know anything, and look how silly we all look for arguing with each other. Oh that's good.

...In the meantime, some of those who don't know anything better come up with an approach to halting avian flu.

#48789: — 11/15  at  10:15 AM
I can't believe it, but you actually appear to be, um, misrepresenting what he said and then attacking it. Even after you read his post. You certainly have chutzpah.

He didn't say he was only joking.

He didn't say evolution is unpersuasive. He said the proponents of it are (a very different thing) due to their habit of misrepresenting the alternative positions and then attacking the misrepresentations.

By continually misrepresenting what he's said and then attacking it, you're not exactly going the right way about convincing anyone that that's not the case...

#48792: — 11/15  at  10:18 AM
Or, Scott Adams could just be an idiot.

#48800: Orac — 11/15  at  10:27 AM
Scott Adams made the claim that evolution proponents misrepresent ID and then attacked the straw man. Notice that Adams failed provide a single valid (or even invalid) example of evolution proponents "misrepresenting" ID.

I noticed. Apparently he thinks we should just accept his word for it.

Adams is using an intellectually lazy fallacy that I like to call the "pox on both houses" fallacy. This particular type of canard fallaciously claims that both sides of a debate are equally fallacious (or equally badly behaved, rhetorically speaking) and then condemns both as unpersuasive or unbelievable, when it is objectively demonstrable that one side has a valid position based on the evidence and the other doesn't. Or, as Adams puts it: "What I’m denying is the existence of credible PEOPLE to inform me of this evidence [for evolution]." Then, when called on his fallacies, he retreats into the lame defense of "satire" or "stirring things up."

I would like to see Adams or his apologists to point out where PZ has "misrepresented" the ID position in order to attack it. I want specific examples. I bet any examples he comes up with will be specious (or his apologists come up with), but I leave open the possibility that there might be one or two that aren't.

#48803: — 11/15  at  10:29 AM
"What is it with cartoonists debating evolution these days?"

Ruben Bolling has done Tom the Dancing Bug comics on evolution. His view is more in line with this blog, however.
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/06/30/boll/index1.html

Here's another one, not really about evolution, but inspired by the politicization of March of the Penguins.
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/10/06/boll/index1.html

#48806: — 11/15  at  10:31 AM
How much of a "misrepresentation" is it to point out that every "fact" and all of the terms that Mr Adam's uses are from Creationist sources?

#48807: — 11/15  at  10:32 AM
god! (or as you people call him einstein) i hate nerds how about instead of concentrating on how the world began you could learn how to male it better because last time i heard you supposed scientists were supposed to be inventing cures for aids and cancer so stop messing around with pointless debates and get back to work!
sincerly
pissed off irishman

#48809: HP — 11/15  at  10:33 AM
Perhaps I'm an Internet dinosaur, but all this blog-based Scott Adams criticism got me all nostalgic for the dark, benighted days before weblogs, in the pre-9/11 world when we all so innocent, and corporatization and trade were considered important issues:

Norman Solomon on "The Trouble with Dilbert."

Sparky takes on Dogbert, circa 1998. In those days, webcomics were all in black and white, and Salon was free!

Dan Perkins, aka Tom Tomorrow, discusses Scott Adams in something called an "Internet Journal," which had to manually ftp'ed using a telephone modem. You'll have to scroll down, because permalinks had not been invented.

#48813: — 11/15  at  10:37 AM
And while im on this page scott adams is a genius because he uses creativity and dosent base all his decisions and stupid facts. i hate nerds. (end of rant)

#48814: velid — 11/15  at  10:37 AM
Adams just wants to reduce a debate about ideas to a debate about persons. It is a sure sign of a lack of intellectual integrity.

#48817: Nick — 11/15  at  10:40 AM
I've come to the conclusion that he's just wanking over his objective, agnostic brilliance. "How can we know anything?! Ahahaha scientists are wasting their lives!!!!" Several worshiping commenters reinforce this.

#48818: — 11/15  at  10:40 AM
Scott Adams is a "domain expert" who's accurate and funny when it comes to criticizing stupidity in the workplace. Outside of that area, he strikes me as a yet another kneejerk contrarian with a libertarian streak. Cartoonist Dan Perkins (Tom Tomorrow) had Adams pegged pretty well years ago. I wouldn't expect E.O. Wilson to say funny things about pointy-haired bosses (at his level his doesn't have to deal with them). Likewise, why would I expect Scott Adams to add anything new to a discussion about evolution?

#48819: — 11/15  at  10:41 AM
"He didn't say evolution is unpersuasive. He said the proponents of it are (a very different thing) due to their habit of misrepresenting the alternative positions and then attacking the misrepresentations."

What Orac and velid said.

I would further add that there is no alternative position to caricature. The only evidence of intelligent design there is, is animal domestication, specialized breeding, hybridizing plants, and so forth. I can (or conceivably can) observe humans controlling those events. The Creationist version of ID is only a viable alternative design as soon as the diety condescends to become visible and show him/herself bringing animals and plants together. Only then does ID offer a testable hypothesis.

Caricature, heal thyself.

#48821: Hrun — 11/15  at  10:43 AM
Hrun: "It's possible that Scott Adams is a moron."

Scott Adams: "Hey, I'm not a moron!"

Hrun: "Hahahaha. See what a moron Scott Adams is? First he misrepresents me since I never claimed that he actually is a moron. And second, he denies the possibility that he actually is a moron."

It's that simple.

#48822: — 11/15  at  10:44 AM
I find this statement by Scott Adams in the comments pretty telling:

[You trust people who have a financial/career stake in taking a particular side? I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that no matter what the question, you have to be skeptical of anyone who is getting paid for an opinion, either directly or indirectly. By analogy, virtually every highly qualified financial advisor will tell you they are better then random at picking stocks, but all studies show the opposite. -- Scott]

In othe words, Adams doesn't udnerstand that any biologist who disproved evolution would become an overnight celebrity. Also, who is making the money? The fellows of the Discovery Institute or the scientists working at labs? Last I checked, DI fellows made quite a lot more than lab scientists.

#48824: — 11/15  at  10:46 AM
I'll never understand people who are too lazy to go read articles for themselves. Adams says:

And since I don’t have any relevant scientific knowledge myself, nor direct access to the data, everything I know has to come from non-credible types.

But of course he has access to the data. All he has to do is get in his car, drive to the library, and read the papers. Heck, he's probably rich enough to afford subscriptions to journals, so he can do it all from home! Willful ignorance is a lousy defense.

#48827: — 11/15  at  10:50 AM

If one is untrained, then one cannot verify the truth of assertions from systematic observation.

Well, one could go and learn something about the subject, I guess. Another method might be to observe the asserters (is that a word?), watch who indulges in the most ad hominem attacks, who shifts ground continually in a debate, who claims to do things they have not done, who out-and-out lies.

I would say, Don't trust authority; always verify that they're telling you the truth and that their truth corresponds to reality.

#48828: — 11/15  at  10:52 AM
You people crack me up. If anybody disagrees with you, they haven't studied the issue, and therefore, instead of educating, you resort to an ad baculum form of argument. You seem to have adopted the Muslim "Conversion by the Sword" techniques.

Congratulations. You lack of reasoning seems to have won the argument. Either that, or your fingers are stuck in your ears.

#48829: — 11/15  at  10:55 AM
so on a more positive and interesting note who a part from me thinks the I.R.A should get back together it was good to see them getting rid of all there old guns i bet they got a load of brilliant new ones in. we should start a petition.

#48831: — 11/15  at  11:00 AM
amen deacon thank you for making such a convicing point to these nerds

#48832: — 11/15  at  11:00 AM
NelC,
What you said.

Just a quick caveat. We (meaning scientists) do have to rely on authorities a lot. So do our students. We (and they) usually don't have the time to verify everything through our own experimentation or use of other research designs.

That's why we have to have rules for determining whether an authority is credible or not. One rule is to have the right training. But there are other rules anybody who can read and comprehend can follow. Carl Sagan's Rules for Baloney Detection is one accessible place to start. Of course, Adams is probably too damn lazy to google it.