PZ Myers. 2005 Nov 17. Open Thread. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/open_thread_adams_edition/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Thursday, November 17, 2005
Open Thread
This is not going to become the all-Scott-Adams blog, and this will be my last post on the subject, but he has put up another comment—a request that people write in and show specifically where he was wrong. Of course, Adams moderates his comments, and is going to use this as an excuse to whine editorially. For instance, there's one comment there that says that "Scott claims that the Darwinism/ID debate is scientific", and that ID doesn't meet the standards of science; Adams says he didn't say that and dismisses it. But of course, what Adams did do was assume parity of the scientific and creationist arguments, and present the ID arguments against evolution as if they had some legitimacy. You can tell that he's just going to hide behind his excuse of "I'm a humorist just reporting what some people have said," and that thread is going to go nowhere.
So, instead, I'll take advantage of the open thread mechanism here and invite you all to put your rebuttals here. Remember, take specific things Adams has said and explain why they are wrong.
It is really silly and hypocritical for Adams to be doing that. My original comment on this business was a list of specific things Adams got wrong with explanations for how they were wrong, and he just ran away and said he didn't say any of it. Expect much hairsplitting from him.
Anyway, here's the short list of things I said in that first post. Add some more!
- Adams claims the Designists only differ from us in answering the question of how change occurred. I pointed out that they don't try to answer the "how" question, and asked him to list some specific hypotheses.
- Adams made a vague statement that "Darwinism" was full of flaws; it sounded much like the usual Discovery Institute claims, most of which are cataloged in Wells' Icons of Evolution. I linked to a refutation of the book.
- Adams made a specific claim that all hominid fossils would fit in a small box. I gave a link and a quote from a source that shows that is wrong, and also mentioned that it was irrelevant—ID creationists argue against evolution of properties common to all chordates or all eukaryotes.
- Adams made claims about biologists that are completely wrong. He says that "90%+" of all scientists think Darwin got it right; I pointed out that this is not the case at all, we are well aware of parts that he got wrong, and this is why we object to the silly business of calling us "Darwinists".
- Adams says that it is a "not-so-kooky argument" that scientists are so specialized that they don't understand the big picture, that all scientists are thinking their own fields lack evidence for evolution, and we're all cluelessly assuming the other guy has the data. This is not true at all for most of us. He seems to reject the arguments of scientists, though, because they are scientists. Apparently, cartoonists are supposed to be better able to understand what scientists know than scientists themselves.
(Oh, and since this is an open thread, feel free to say anything else you want, too. I agree that Adams is rather boring, and I'm sorry that recent server problems have limited what I can post.)
Posted by PZ Myers on 11/17 at 07:35 AM
Creationism • Open thread • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
Creationism • Open thread • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
"Darwinists often argue that Intelligent Design can’t be true because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old."
Wrong, if he refer to scientists. Of course it depends
on his definition of "darwinists". It's a bit difficult
though, to find one which render his claim true.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 07:55 AM -
Scott Adams appears to be exhibiting signs of paranoid schizophrenia (I'm not making this up, in another blog post he's afraid of radiation from his microwave). A common sign of schizophrenia is that you get paranoid and won't trust anyone but yourself. When Scott Adams rails against scientists for not being "credible" and then throws out his own "theory," he's showing how hypocritical he is, because by any measure of his definition of credibility he is most definitely not credible.
Also, Scott Adams said something about not believing in evolution or creationism -- he thinks panspermia is the way to go. He doesn't realize that panspermia simply shifts the location where life evolved to some place else. -
The thing that made up my mind for me was Adams' ridicule (in his comments section) of the idea that he should read some books by Gould or Dawkins. He essentially said that he wouldn't trust them because, as biologists, they had a conflict of interest.
His silly little squibs have helped me to crystallize my abhorrence of the cheap cynicism of a whole sector of American society. These are people who believe that everyone is a scam artist, and that no one's reasoning is honest, so that what you need to do is just to figure out the angles and decide which of the players you feel best about, rather than deciding which one is right. (This kind of know-nothingism was a major factor both in Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry. The media gaggle is full of Scott Adams closes.)
Adams was basically asking for an authority to trust -- someone whom he liked, and who talked his language. He wasn't asking for reasons at all. In this he's oddly like my very nice, anti-intellectual right-wing cousins who get their political opinions ready-made from Pat Robertson and James Dobson, who they think are very nice people and who talk their language.
Adams' credibility wasn't helped when someone pointed out that he was already writing cheesy little anti-evolution squibs more than five years ago.#: Posted by John Emerson on 11/17 at 08:00 AM -
Never argue with people who take pride in their "common sense". Look out the window: common sense will tell you the Sun goes around the Earth, and from there the argument can only go downhill.
Sample 1 (from a radio talk show): 1998 was the warmest year on record. That was 7 years ago! If there really is global warming, shouldn't it be getting warmer???
Sample 2: Besides that, they didn't have thermometers 10000 years ago, so how do we know what the temperature was then???#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:08 AM -
For the record, I just submitted a comment to Adams containing the following, referring to definite statements that he said in the original post (without disclaimers), that were incorrect.
* You claimed that all human-like fossils would fit inside a small box. This was just plain wrong.
* You said more than 90%+ [of scientists] are sure that Darwin got it right. This is also not true - evolution has moved on a hell of a lot since Darwin's time due to inaccuracies in his original theory.
* You use the term Darwinist, something only generally employed by Creationists/ID folk. "Evolutionary biologist" would be more appropriate.
* You stated "Better yet, no one seems to understand their own side’s argument". I think if you had a discussion with the faculty of a biology department, you'd experience firsthand how untrue this is.
* Your assertion that effectively no scientist can be credible because they all have intrinsic bias is terrible. Do you have any idea how famous a scientist would become if they found real evidence against evolution? Sadly, the only people that can be impartial in this debate is those that are ignorant of the facts.
* Finally (on a different topic), the idea that gravity is caused by the expansion of matter is simply laughable. On the other hand, I'm not sure if you consider this a valid hypothesis, although I've heard that you mention it in The Dilbert Future. However, this last point may be incorrect.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:09 AM -
These are people who believe that everyone is a scam artist, and that no one's reasoning is honest, so that what you need to do is just to figure out the angles and decide which of the players you feel best about, rather than deciding which one is right.
Actually, most cynics aren't like that at all. Rather, the cynic assumes everyone is a scam artist and nobody is honest, and then tries to extract the truth from the evidence he can be sure about and the hidden subtexts of what the scam artists say. Evidently Mark Twain and Ambrose Bierce managed to be cynical without descending to lunacy or idiocy. -
Better yet, no one seems to understand their own side’s argument.
this is of course false. What he means is that his grasp of the arguments of both sides is so bad, that he doesn't understand either sides arguments.
I’ve been doing lots of reading on the subject, trying to gather comic fodder. I fully expected to validate my preconceived notion that the Darwinists had a mountain of credible evidence and the Intelligent Design folks were creationist kooks disguising themselves as scientists. That’s the way the media paints it. I had no reason to believe otherwise. The truth is a lot more interesting. Allow me to set you straight.
The fact is that science does have a mountain of evidence, and ID people are creationists - another false statement from mr Adams.
For example, Darwinists often argue that Intelligent Design can’t be true because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old. That would be a great argument, supported by every relevant branch of science, except that it has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.
Scientists do not OFTEN argue that the age of earth disproves ID - Adams should be able to provide multiple examples of this if this was true - perhaps someone somewhere HAS made the argument, but Adams claim that the claim is used OFTEN!
/Søren#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:14 AM -
Adams writes: "If you make a good argument on your side, I respond by attacking your bad argument instead." I could respond by saying that the IDists have yet to make a good argument, but that would simply be question-begging rhetoric. The fact is, 'good' or bad, I don't know of a single ID argument that hasn't been attacked and thoroughly demolished. Even their 'flagship' example of the bacterial flagellum has been thoroughly destroyed by Ken Miller.
Adams can't hide behind his chosen profession as a humorist and commentator. So's Lewis Black, and he's got the balls to come out and say to creationists: "We have the fossils! We win!" As we saw on the Daily Show's "Evolution Schmevolution" special, Lewis Black demonstrated himself to be informed and critical with respect to the creationist movement and their attacks on evolution.#: Posted by Martin Brazeau on 11/17 at 08:14 AM -
Wrong, if he refer to scientists. Of course it depends
on his definition of "darwinists". It's a bit difficult
though, to find one which render his claim true.
I've never heard anyone (aside from Scott Adams) make that claim - and I'm not a biologist. What I have heard is people saying that evidence for an old Earth is a problem for young earth creationism.
I guess the question now is - Did Scort Adams confuse arguments specifically against YEC with arguiments against ID? Or is he deliberately misrepresenting one side of the discussion? Or is he just too lazy to look up what both sides are saying and making sh*t up?
Alternate theory: Scott Adams died shortly after the publication of his first Dilbert collection. He has subsequently been replaced with a Perl script that dutifully fills in recycled cartoon bubbles for his strips, but a problem with his server has corrupted his code, causing him to spit out random snippets of nonsense on science - physics and biology in particular - that the script pieces together from internet search engines.
Now, since I have no financial stake in whether Scott Adams is a malfunctioning Perl script or, in fact, any knowledge of whether he is a Perl script at all, I think my theory hasw acheived perfect credibility.
Right?#: Posted by Rick @ shrimp and grits on 11/17 at 08:15 AM -
Let's see: In his bizarro-world, I'm not credible to write about anatomy informatics/knowledge representation, because I get paid for doing so, even though I took a 75% pay cut when I left software consulting to go back into academia. Yet Scott "One-Joke Wonder" Adams is supposed to somehow be credible on evaluating evo-devo scientifically, and we're just supposed to somehow accept that uncritically?
Personally, I don't see where he has demonstrated expertise on any topic other than how to continue to flog the same old joke long after its sell-by date. -
Adams hasn't a clue. Moving on...
This remark reminded me of a question I'd like to hear your thoughts on:
"Apparently, cartoonists are supposed to be better able to understand what scientists know than scientists themselves."
What do you think about historians and philosophers? Do you think that they can know what scientists are doing even if it disagrees with what scientists say? This is something that comes up now and again in history and philosophy and recently, over at the philbio blog, consistent pain-in-the-ass Keith Burgess Jackson has slammed a rather well respected philosopher of biology for not having any degrees in biology and claiming that we shouldn't listen to her because of that.
What do you think? -
Adams made a specific claim that all hominid fossils would fit in a small box.
This is another Creationist/IDCreationist claim that Adams credulously presents without the slightest effort to check it out.
Apparently it's derived from miss-quoting Henry Gee, who said in his book In Search of Deep Time, "Between about 10 and 5 million years ago - several thousand generations of living creatures can be fitted into a small box." The creationist trick is to ignore the fact Gee was only talking about Hominid fossils from 5-10 million years ago and to pretend that he's doubting the fossil record overall.
In no way can the hominid fossils fit into anything that could be characterized as a "small box". Adams tries to evade by saying he obviously only meant the individual species, one representative of each. But this ignores the fact that even within a species there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record...not all Homo erectus' are equal. Even so, it's hardly relevant what size box the bones could fit into, although you'd still need to streatch what "small" means just for those fossils.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:25 AM -
consistent pain-in-the-ass Keith Burgess Jackson has slammed a rather well respected philosopher of biology for not having any degrees in biology and claiming that we shouldn't listen to her because of that
That's nothing more than an appeal to authority, so his argument's already a non-starter. Does the evidence back her up? That's the only relevant question, not her degrees. -
Unfortunately I think this is going to be a pointless battle. Mr. Adams has constructed a very nice argument-by-paradox with his pox-on-both-your-houses defense. Anyone who has an opinion is obviously biased by the fact that they have an opinion. Ergo, the only people qualified to have an opinion about the subject are people who don't have opinions about the subject. Which they can't have, because it would bias them.
Toss in some presumed equivalence of facts to opinions - after all, nobody can present facts unbiased, right? - and it's a nice little self-reinforcing argument. It's 100% bull, of course.
(It's also more of the anti-elitist strategy of "well, I obviously know better because I'm just a regular guy" that our good buddy Mr. Lileks is so fond of, discounting the fact that Mr. Adams is not a regular guy by mere virtue of his profession)
I say we skip the facts and go straight for the ad hominem attacks.
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:36 AM -
Here's the one that ruffles my feathers.
Each branch of science, [IDers] say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the "good stuff."
Let me offer that there is a branch of science in which practitioners are very well versed in the evidence for evolution from many biological disciplines. This branch of science is called Evolutionary Biology.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:36 AM -
"Darwinists often argue that Intelligent Design can’t be true because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old."
Wrong, if he refer to scientists. Of course it depends on his definition of "darwinists". It's a bit difficult though, to find one which render his claim true.
I commented to this effect at Adams' latest post. I fully expect, however, that you are right, eviledv, and that he will weasel out on an idiosyncratic definition of "darwinist". Or maybe, based on his wriggling so far, he has his own definitions of "Intelligent Design", "often", or "true"...#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:37 AM -
Scott Adams = Johnny Hart, except BC is drawn better. As far as the ol', "I'm just a humorist..." shuck and jive is concerned, that is so right wing bs 101. Rush Limpbutt and Bill "Osama" O'Lielly use that hackneyed dodge every time they step on their crank.
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:44 AM
-
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050718-120338-9682r.htm
Churches get thumbs-up at theaters
By Keyonna Summers and Amy Doolittle
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 18, 2005
From the article-
"We're not trying to be hip for hip's sake," said Bill Craig, pastor of Summit Trace. "We're just trying to meet people where they are and take them where God wants them to be."
Mr. Craig said the comfortable setting of a movie theater is perfect for those who feel intimidated by more traditional religious settings.
"We get to see them on their own turf, in their own place, [yet] there's still a sense of anonymity," he said, adding that people often stumble in expecting to see a movie and end up staying for church. "There's the smell of popcorn, and there's no hint that this could be a church other than the people there demonstrating God's love."
I've noticed a movie theater where I live is doing the same thing, renting out
a theater for church services. While I certaintly recognize the owners can
run their theater the way they want, I wonder if this trend continues this will
be a way to exert pressure on theater owners to not show certain movies-
"if you show this movie we may have to take out services and money elsewhere..."
Has anybody else noticed movie theaters renting out for church services?
Permeation, permeation, permeation into every aspect of the culture........
I wonder if they are actually trying to create the Magisterium of the
"His Dark Materials" novels?#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:52 AM -
I had some brief email correspondence with Adams over this (given the flurry, I'm amazed he took the time to respond directly, I do give him credit for that.) He specifically stated in his last email that reviewing TalkOrigins is what started his tirade. He feels that TO is poorly done, and that they misrepresent the ID people, and attack the misrepresentation. There's also a comment that by default implies the TO/science side do not argue rationally.
I asked him for specific examples of what he's talking about in TO's material, and haven't heard back. I don't think I can ding him for that in my specific case, again given the volume of email I'm sure he's gotten and the surgery he had in the middle of all this. But it doesn't surprise me that he's trying to put the ball back into our court, asking us to prove our case, when he's the one who needs to back up his own claims. I run into this argument all the time with creationists--often, very specifically "well, you're the one who has to prove me wrong!" "Uh, no...you're the one who has to prove it RIGHT, it's your claim."#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:55 AM -
I am not a scientist, so when I became interested in this debate, I did what every intellegent and inquisitive human being does, I read some books.
Adams is typical of the cube farm drones that he speaks for. Their professional lives are so pathetic and meaningless that they rationalize their ignorance and smugly flaunt it every chance they get. They are the most intellectually lazy class of people I have ever encountered, nearly equal to fundamentalist christians. They base their opinions on what they hear from the guy in the next cube and not by exerting any mental effort.
It doesn't surprise me that he is comfortably ignorant about ID/creationism and evolution. Understanding it would entail some research and effort, and that would be too much like work.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 09:01 AM -
I fully expected to validate my preconceived notion that the Darwinists had a mountain of credible evidence and the Intelligent Design folks were creationist kooks disguising themselves as scientists. That’s the way the media paints it.
FALSE! Ever read any Evolution Vs. Creationism Articles from the New York Times?#: Posted by on 11/17 at 09:04 AM -
I am not a scientist, so when I became interested in this debate, I did what every intellegent and inquisitive human being does, I read some books.
Adams is typical of the cube farm drones that he speaks for. Their professional lives are so pathetic and meaningless that they rationalize their ignorance and smugly flaunt it every chance they get. They are the second most intellectually lazy class of people I have ever encountered, nearly equal to fundamentalist christians. They base their opinions on what they hear from the guy in the next cube and not by exerting any mental effort.
It doesn't surprise me that he is comfortably ignorant about ID/creationism and evolution. Understanding it would entail some research and effort, and that would be too much like work.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 09:09 AM -
They are the most intellectually lazy class of people I have ever encountered
That's because most of them are Business Majors. A business major is the hallmark of intellectually laziness - or at least that what I've found from experience.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 09:15 AM -
Adams is lost in his own distrust of expertise and possible bias. If only there was a way to learn things that was very good at identifying and elminating bias and error in all their forms (error, fraud, unconscious cheating, self-deception, etc.) What we need is a process for gathering and analysing knowledge based upon standards of logic and ethics that is self correcting over time, a process where all the data, rationale, and methodology is required to be available to anyone who's interested in learning or evaluating what others have done and concluded. Maybe this process couldn't answer all of life's questions, but at least it should provide immense benefit to all mankind. I wonder what such a process would be like...
Oh, wait! There's science. Nevermind. -
It wasn't so much Adam's parroting of ID creationists fallacies that irritated me. I've seen that before too many times from the uninformed. Rather, it was Adams' nihilistic concept that no one who has a preexisting opinion or "a financial/career incentive" regarding an issue can be considered "credible" about that issue definitely flirts with wingnuttery. Also, it implies an unwillingness even to try to think for oneself. Apparently, Adams wants to be spoon-fed the information and can't be bothered to try to learn about evolution a bit himself.
Adams' position implies that he considers people who don't know enough about a topic to have formed an opinion and who have no professional connection to the issue at hand to be "more credible" than experts who have dedicated their professional career to studying a problem. It's one thing to have a healthy skepticism about the claims of experts (a good thing), but it's another thing entirely to blithely dismiss all experts as "not credible" just because they have a preexisting opinion or because they make their living studying an issue. That's a simplistic and childish approach. Basically, because he can't understand the arguments for evolution and against ID and because he perceives advocates on both sides of the issue to have behaved badly, he just sticks his fingers in his ears and starts saying, "Nah nah nah, I can't hear you" and declares both sides to be "not credible." -
He specifically stated in his last email that reviewing TalkOrigins is what started his tirade. He feels that TO is poorly done, and that they misrepresent the ID people, and attack the misrepresentation. There's also a comment that by default implies the TO/science side do not argue rationally.
Talk.Origins has many debates on their site where the creationists have responded to their evolutionary critics, and while I'm sure one can find a snarky response or two to Ed Conrad's eternal claim about man being as old as coal, there are others like as the matter of those polonium "halos" where creationists are given a very fair opportunity to respond. I suspect Scott Adams may be cherry-picking from the vast material on Talk.Origins in an attempt to rationalize the situation he's now found himself in with PZ.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 09:21 AM -
Here's what I sent him. We'll see if he puts it up:
Scott, you wrote, "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." This is spectacularly false on many levels. First, evolutionary theory predicts that protein and DNA sequences must fit into nested hierarchies. You have direct access to all of those sequences, as well as the tools to analyze them and test this prediction, at pubmed.gov. Second, most scientific journals provide free access to papers >6 months old, some scientific journals are free to begin with (plos.org), and you make enough money to buy subscriptions anyway. Finally, I'm a cell biologist and geneticist, not an evolutionary biologist, in case you try to claim that I have some financial interest in supporting evolutionary theory.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 09:24 AM -
So he thinks that the gang at TO "misrepresent the ID people, and attack the misrepresentation", but he won't be specific about how? Typical -- he demands very specific complaints in his latest or he won't post them, but won't deliver the same.
I'd really like to know where on TO he found the argument that ID is false, because the earth is more than 10,000 years old. -
Dark Matter, speakin' of blurring the line between church and theater, a couple of months back our local, yokel NBC affiliate ran a story how the production company for the latest Left Behind "movie" was distributing it directly to churches. One of our local, yokel churches fell for this crap. They prepared for 300 butts in the seats. They got 50.
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 09:31 AM
-
Keith Burgess Jackson has slammed a rather well respected philosopher of biology for not having any degrees in biology and claiming that we shouldn't listen to her because of that.
What do you think?
Depends. Does the person being slammed have a reasonable knowledge of what she's talking about or not? Are the arguments the person makes good?
(The reason Scott Adams is getting piled on is not that he's a cartoonist. It's that he's a cartoonist who claims that he is essentially a better authority than biologists on biology specifically because he is ignorant of the subject. And he's presenting bad arguments. And he's unwilling to listen to what people with knowledge of b iology have to say. Et cetera.)#: Posted by Rick @ shrimp and grits on 11/17 at 09:49 AM -
A couple of people have already mentioned this, but Adams does not come into this "debate" as the objective, impartial observer he tries to portray himself as.
I wasn't looking for anything negative about Adams, but in browsing a site about kooks and crackpots last night, I happened on an entry about Mr. Adams
http://www.insolitology.com/rloddities/dilbert.htm
I'll only post one snippet from the page:
" It’s when we turned to page 225, the beginning of chapter 14, that we get a shock so nasty that we might think it’s just another joke (it took me a long time to convince myself) – there, in a black outlined box, is prediction 63: The Theory of Evolution will be scientifically debunked in your lifetime."
The quote is apparently from his 1997 book, The Dilbert Future. The page I pasted goes on about several other beliefs Adams reportedly holds. I say "reportedly" because no way in hell am I ever gonna actually read Dilbert again, since I've found it sophomoric and unfunny for many years. So yeah, I'm hardly unbiased about Adams myself.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 09:52 AM -
Scott, you wrote, "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." This is spectacularly false on many levels. First, evolutionary theory predicts that protein and DNA sequences must fit into nested hierarchies. You have direct access to all of those sequences, as well as the tools to analyze them and test this prediction, at pubmed.gov. Second, most scientific journals provide free access to papers >6 months old, some scientific journals are free to begin with (plos.org), and you make enough money to buy subscriptions anyway. Finally, I'm a cell biologist and geneticist, not an evolutionary biologist, in case you try to claim that I have some financial interest in supporting evolutionary theory.
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 09:57 AM
-
Scott suggests he finds the musings about evolution of someone who never previously gave much thought to ID or evolution more credible than the assertions of fact from a PhD in microbiology. That tells you all you need to know about how credible Scott is.
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 09:58 AM
-
10:00 CST, one comment total posted by Scott. I posted there at least a couple of hours ago.
#: Posted by John Emerson on 11/17 at 10:28 AM
-
Truly, seriously considering the expansionism hypothesis for gravity and not being able to work out why it's hideously flawed is pretty embarrassing. I'd be honestly ashamed to be in Adams' position.
*points and laughs*
It works for one observation in the entire universe, which is that things close to the Earth accelerate towards it at 9.81 m/s^2.
After that, it falls utterly apart like the junk it is.
On the other hand, that didn't stop The Final Theory from selling, a book that actually promotes this point of view and is advertised as "The Da Vinci Code of Science".
*shakes head in despair*#: Posted by on 11/17 at 10:34 AM -
Isn't the gravitational force exterted by an object proportional to its mass not its size (at least in Newtonian mechanics)?
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 11:02 AM
-
I am wasting incredible amount of working time trying to post a comment, as sugggested by PZ, that "incredibly intelligent" blogger mentioned by Scott. PZ, do something with or to your satanic blog machine! Your ominous mumbling is clearly ineffective. It justifies Scott's argument that PZ is not credible. Look! even his own hardware does not believes him.
Mr Scott says: "My point is that every argument I have heard in favor of Darwin’s version of evolution or in favor of Intelligent Design all come from people who have the same credibility problem wonderfully demonstrated by PZ."
His point is crystal clear: He is an outsider, a certified incompetent, liberated from any responsability. He need not to think or to say anything. He doesn't have to refute anything nor defend any position. His method is an ancient but effective rethorical trick, the argument ad hominem. He simply disqualifies the other person.
How he does it? Easy. PZ is so naïve. For one, he writes that he talks to machines. No, Scott does not mention that, he missed it. But he says PZ maliciously misstated what he meant, ergo, PZ has a problem, a terrible credibility problem. Since according to Scott he said nothing, somehow it escapes me how the "incredibly intelligent" PZ succeeds in maliciously misunderstanding and misrepresenting him. Clearly, how could anybody believe anything said by PZ?
I feel quantifying the concept of "credibility" would help, so we could test if PZ has it or not, and in what measure. Luckily, others have already written volumes on credibility, so I dont have to waste time in technicalities. PZ comes out as is incredibly credible. In a scale from 0 (like that sick author of the Book of Apocalipsis) to 100 (a tzaddik from Hassidic legends), he is found as approaching saintitude.
Given that happily I am free of PZ's intellectual integrity limitations, I could also apply Scott's method. As a cartoonist, does Scott feel intellectually qualified to discern between a bona fide academic evolutionary biologist and an experimented fundamentalist preacher? If he feels so, is he? The cartoonist's art is to express ideas in the simplest of the ways, so that slow fifth graders can understand it. Army manuals and airline emergency procedures are written at that level, illustrated with caricaturized figures to enable semi-morons to shoot and to put on the oxygen mask that falls into their hands. To communicate effectively at the semi-moronic level, one has to be able to think or be like one. SA does it well, and this is the reason that he finds great difficulty to discern between a scientist and a preacher. Not to speak of deciding between a body of evidence accumulated by thousands of highly trained specialists, and a fantasy world based on ancient sacred books written in a language long forgotten.
But probably Scott knows how to evaluate credibility. If he has to decide which doctor to consult, he knows which one is credible. He has to choose a fund manager, he knows who is a crook and who is honest. He has no problems to decide the credibility of CNN vs Al Jazeera. Robertson vs the Pope. Batman vs Spiderman. The New York Times vs The Onion.
Scott, if he is like most of us, relies on the opinions of people he knows to be reliable. If so, Scott, rest assured, jaimito says that PZ's credibility rating is maximal, and emphatically more so in the field of evolutionary biology. Quod erat demostrandum.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 01:00 PM -
PZ, do something with or to your satanic blog machine! Your ominous mumbling is clearly ineffective.
Hehe, he's working on it... I think we're stuck with the occasional bout of wonkiness until the whole new server thing is completed, which of course takes time.
An unrelated bit of silliness--it's kinda unfair snark, but I just can't not share this observation. Anyone notice that Adams looks a bit like Dembski?
Look:
http://www.designinference.com/
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 01:14 PM -
http://www.greythumb.org/blog
(Look at the first entry... it wouldn't let me post it due to the keyword!)
Just something I figured the "information cannot be created" crowd would enjoy.#: Posted by Adam Ierymenko on 11/17 at 01:18 PM -
Why don't we spread the rumor that one of Adams' horde of deranged cubicle slaves hacked Pharyngula and shut it down? Then he can call us paranoids too.
#: Posted by John Emerson on 11/17 at 01:20 PM
-
Oh, jeez. Sorry about the picture. I know the site already has bandwidth issues. I dunno how/why it did that... :(
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 01:21 PM
-
Why am I not surprised about his reply to the 10.000 year claim:
From dilbertlog:
"For example, Darwinists often argue that Intelligent Design can’t be true because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old."
Name one.
[Here I was referring to personal conversations, not famous Darwinists. I can name three off the top of my head, but you wouldn't know them. And I've received that argument by e-mail about a hundred times. I'm also reading the Dover trial transcripts where the lawyer opposed to ID in schools is painting the ID experts as creationists to make his case. -- Scott]
His defenses are:
"The lurkers agree with me", "someone said so in an email" or - this is the modern variation of the age old "the voices in my head told me so"
Secondly he moves the goalposts. His claim was about 10.000 years, and then he talks about the lawyer in the Dover trial painting the IDists ad creationists - as if being a creationist means you think the earth is about 10.000 years old!
/Soren#: Posted by on 11/17 at 01:30 PM -
Geez -- now you guys are complaining that he isn't devoting his entire workday to answering your complaints. He's actually doing a heck of a lot more to answer people than PZ, who refuses to answer the argument that biologists and the people who are SUPPOSED to convince uneducated people about evolution FAIL to do so because they fail to come up with persuasive arguments and they answer questions with indignation rather than logic.
Yes, Adams is irritating me because he's hiding behind the "I didn't say that" defense. But geez -- you guys are just illustrating why people are predisposed to listen to the ignorant instead of the educated.
If you want a majority of people in this country to believe what you and I know is true, then start by treating others with respect. Otherwise, have fun in your ivory tower. -
There are a great many stupid people in the world who get by by demanding respect when they haven't earned it. I think we should stop granting it to them.
Now where do you get the idea that I refuse to answer the argument that scientists are supposed to instruct uneducated people? The answer I give is that yes, they are. Yes, we do.
That doesn't mean we should never slap fools upside the head with a cluestick. -
He's actually doing a heck of a lot more to answer people than PZ, who refuses to answer the argument that biologists and the people who are SUPPOSED to convince uneducated people about evolution FAIL to do so because they fail to come up with persuasive arguments and they answer questions with indignation rather than logic.
You mean evolutionary biology teachers teach their classes with indignation rather than logic or persuasive arguments? After all, they're supposed to convince uneducated students about evolution.
Oh, right, I forgot. Biology teachers get paid to teach biology, so their opinions are biased and don't count!
I wonder if Scott Adams wrote his books for free, and if he also expects people to believe the things he writes. I sense a bit of hypocritical special pleading here.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 01:45 PM -
I wonder if Scott Adams wrote his books for free, and if he also expects people to believe the things he writes. I sense a bit of hypocritical special pleading here.
Good point. Scott Adams makes a great deal of money by being a snarky asshole. Why should we grant his snarky assholery in this instance any credibility?#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 11/17 at 01:54 PM -
Scott adams has a BOOK ONLINE, called "God's Debris". Go download it (for free!!) here:
http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/
and read the "science" section (starts on page 18 of the pdf).
Sigh. I used to really like Dilbert. I assumed Adams wasn't an annoying guy. Oh well.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 01:55 PM -
Well, Adams replied about his "darwinists say ID is false because the Earth is old" quote, and it went pretty much as expected:
Here I was referring to personal conversations, not famous Darwinists. I can name three off the top of my head, but you wouldn't know them. And I've received that argument by e-mail about a hundred times.
So, by "darwinist", Adams means "three people you don't know who talked to me, and a bunch of people who e-mailed me". I guess they were credible. Reminds me of someone:
"'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' 'But 'glory' doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master- that's all.'
Adams must have learned from Humpty Dumpty- elsewhere, when he said "all hominid fossils", "all" means "one from each species". Masterly.
He goes on:
I'm also reading the Dover trial transcripts where the lawyer opposed to ID in schools is painting the ID experts as creationists to make his case. ---Scott
So, for Mr. Adams, a lawyer equating ID with Creationism is the same as a darwinist saying ID is false because the Earth is old. Hmmm... illogical, full of himself, unfunny... that's enough of my time wasted.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 01:57 PM -
It only gets better!
On his comments, Adams says that the pro-evolution people who made the faulty "10,000 year" claim were not "famous evolutionists", but just ordinary pro-evolution people.
So when he says that the pro-evolution and the ID people he's encountered are equally bad, he's only talking about pro-evolution laypeople. It has to be that way, since he's already excluded biologist evolutionists from his pool, because of their conflict of interest.
!!!!!!!!
So what does he mean then, when he says that the evolutionist spokesmen are unsuccessful at communicating with the average man? When he says that, he seems to be talking about experts, but he deliberately ignores experts except when they're dissing him personally.
I've never seen the cynical, sorta hip, sorta cool, vaguely populist American Group Mind out itself quite so blatantly. This has been tremendous fun, except when I think about how many of them there are.#: Posted by John Emerson on 11/17 at 02:00 PM -
I'd really like to know where on TO he found the argument that ID is false, because the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
Assuming Adams is talking about http://www.talkorigins.org/ -- I wonder if he is unaware that this is a resource dedicated to providing information in the entire gamut of anti-evolutionary pseudeosciences -- not just ID. So if he looks at the Moon Dust answers and thinks "well, the ID folks don't claim that," he's right -- but nowhere on talkorigins.org is that claimed. Maybe he went there thinking he was looking at http://www.talkdesign.org/ instead.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 02:03 PM -
Murphy, what are you going on about? Have you ever actually read any posts at this site, other than this one? For example, you've never actually read any of PZ's evo-devo posts, have you? I mean, can you show us any indignation or lack of logic in the cichlid mandible teaching post, just to take the latest of many?
PZ spends a lot of time* crafting elegant and beautiful essays on evolution and development, and he strikes the fine balance of making them accessible to a lay audience without dumbing them down. He responds to questions in the comments and treats people, regardless of biology background, with respect when they ask sincere questions, as opposed to just striking nihilistic poses like Adams did, earning the smackdown he got.
* unpaid time, I'm sure, since I doubt professors are paid for blogging--he does that as a service, and the only reason even to mention this at all is Adams' silly "paid != credible" constraint. -
Sorry for doubleposting here, and for breaking my vow to put Scott Adams behind me, but I couldn't resist this zinger: called on his assertion that the intelligence agencies of all major countries thought Saddam had WMD's, Adams replied:
My information comes from Colin Powell and John McCain. I suspect the truth is that while there was plenty of doubt about individual bits of evidence of WMDs, no intelligence agency thought Saddam had zero. -- Scott
So, here we have the credible sources for this assertion about what intelligence agencies the world over were thinking: Powell, McCain, and, you guessed it, Scott Adams! Hey, he is a pretty funny guy after all!#: Posted by on 11/17 at 02:17 PM -
There are a great many stupid people in the world who get by by demanding respect when they haven't earned it. I think we should stop granting it to them.
Now where do you get the idea that I refuse to answer the argument that scientists are supposed to instruct uneducated people? The answer I give is that yes, they are. Yes, we do.
That doesn't mean we should never slap fools upside the head with a cluestick.
PZ - you're sounding a lot like Dawkins in that post.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 02:26 PM -
You know, when I first started reading Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, talkorigins, etc., I too thought that the scientists, although correct, were rather mean to the creationists and IDers (who were just as mean back). I thought something disturbingly similar to Murphy's post: wouldn't it be tactically better to convince these people with patient explanation of why their arguments were wrong?
But, I kept reading.
I noticed something. Whenever I came upon a conversation where a scientists WOULD patiently dispatch all the claims posted by a creationist or IDer, that creationist or IDer would either a)disappear without a trace when proven wrong, b) post a number of other incorrect "arguments" (a process that would repeat over and over until the poster would get back to the first "arguments" again, and repeat them as though they hadn't already been proven wrong), c) post a statement that he or she "just wasn't convinced" although poster would never specify why, and furthermore that he or she "didn't have any more time to waste on this thread" and would THEN disappear without a trace, or d) finish up with a statement along the lines of "I'm not convinced because I don't WANT evolution to be true." This last approach was often accompanied by statements that atheists' worlds were devoid of meaning and that belief in evolution was the cause of the world's major problems today.
No matter how many times I saw a creationist or IDer begin a debate with an incorrect claim, and have the error patiently explained to him or her in a clear-cut manner (full of references to further helpful materials), I never saw that creationist or IDer say, you know, you're right! Now that you have patiently explained why my arguments are wrong, I accept evolution!
I'm not saying this never happens, I'm just saying that the kind of people who come to these sites and belligerantly rant about why evolution is wrong aren't looking for explanations. They aren't won over by respect. They have already chosen the view that evolution is wrong, and they will cling to that view come hell or high water.
Murphy, do you really believe that the people who claim that evolution is wrong, but refuse to learn anything about it (and, in fact, scoff at the very idea of doing so) are going to be won over by *respect*? Do you really think that the average American who rejects evolution, rejects it because that American has never been able to find a source that explains evolution *politely*? Example: do you really think that Adams would change his tune if some scientist sat him down and said, "here, let me gently and respectfully lead you through the wonderful world of evolutionary theory"?
Do you think the average anti-evolution American would? Should we mail each of them an evolutionary biology textbook? Apparently, they have no access to this material except through websites full of rabid scientists.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 02:33 PM -
This is true. Most Creationists are a lost cause and the best we can hope is to make fools of them in public so that their stupidity doesn't spread.
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 02:45 PM
-
All that said, I will say I have seen posts on talkorigins by former creationists telling their stories of discovering and accepting evolution. I believe at least one of these people explained that he had previously posted "arguments" against evolution (the ones we've seen a million times before), just like the creationists and IDers we get so annoyed by. I think most of these people were creationists because they had been raised that way and had never been exposed to a real education in evolution.
The difference is, people who aren't a lost cause behave with intellectual honesty. They read the references they are sent, make the best effort they can to understand what is explained, and THEN ask other questions they may have.
They don't leapfrog from argument to argument in an attempt keep from getting pinned down. They don't conclude their argument with "well, despite whatEVER you say, I am unconvinced, although I refuse to explain why." They don't completely ignore replies that disprove them. And they admit when they're wrong. Maybe you can't quite tell if this is one of the few diamonds in the creationist rough from the first posting, but you can tell from subsequent replies and exchanges.
I think it's obvious that Adams does not fit into this category.
I think it's obvious that we rarely get creationists or IDers who fit this description here at Pharyngula.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 03:10 PM -
I might get around to posting something relevant later, but for now I have to note that, whereas Pharyngula is loading very nicely today, dilbertblog keeps giving me DNS timeouts.
Yes! There is a God, and She is just
.
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 03:20 PM -
I know I shouldn't have but I went ahead posted a response of at Dilbert's site. Basically I said that he has unwittingly made it clear he know's nothing about evolution, and what's worse he refuses to learn anything about it. Now that's deeply wrong!
#: Posted by on 11/17 at 03:40 PM
-
On the same note, and since today I can (mostly) get this site to work for me, I thought I would post a link to an article I found yesterday. Also one I saw today that was kind of neat:
Amateur's Find is Missing Link in Ancient Lizards
http://livescience.com/animalworld/051116_missing_link.html
The Secret of Bright Butterfly Wings: LED Technology
http://livescience.com/animalworld/051117_wings_led.html -
Me: He's actually doing a heck of a lot more to answer people than PZ, who refuses to answer the argument that biologists and the people who are SUPPOSED to convince uneducated people about evolution FAIL to do so because they fail to come up with persuasive arguments and they answer questions with indignation rather than logic.
PZ: Now where do you get the idea that I refuse to answer the argument that scientists are supposed to instruct uneducated people?
PZ, the important part of that sentence wasn't the subject. It was the verb. "FAIL." "FAIL to do so." "FAIL to do so because ..." This negligence in reading comprehension is why Adams is having a field day with you. The people piling on against you on The Dilbert Blog aren't ID fans -- they're people who are amused, perhaps shocked, that a rational biology professor would argue like this.
The point is this: Scott Adams posted a critique of the ID discussion that had a few errors. But the over-the-top response to it and PZ's constant misrepresentation of everyone who isn't genuflecting to him has "proved" -- in a perverse way -- that Adams is right to be skeptical of you guys.
The reason I'm not letting it go: On the underlying topic, you're RIGHT!! There are too many people in this country who think ID belongs in science classrooms as a scientific theory, and it's your job to stand up and say otherwise. If you argue as PZ has in the quotes I've cited above -- taking part of a sentence as if it's the whole point -- you will lose the argument.
That ... is ... the ... point ... I'm ... making.
KMarissa raises an excellent question:
Murphy, do you really believe that the people who claim that evolution is wrong, but refuse to learn anything about it (and, in fact, scoff at the very idea of doing so) are going to be won over by *respect*?
No, I don't. I can't recall if I've already said so, but those aren't the people with whom you're arguing. You're arguing for the benefit of the people who haven't made up their minds. Most likely, it'll happen at a school board meeting in which you'll have a couple of board members who will swing the vote, and you may not even know which members they are. And it's an argument you HAVE to win.
Beyond the school board, you have to convince those who vote in the board elections -- like the people in Pa. who, thankfully, picked the right side of the argument.
If you go into a school board meeting and misrepresent opponents' arguments, tell people they're parroting arguments that exist on some obscure Web site they likely never read, or tell people they're idiots because they aren't familiar with some terminology that's only tangentially related to the discussion, you ... will ... lose ... the ... argument.
Please don't.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 04:29 PM -
One important part of that sentence is the verb "refuses". This is false. If you're going to complain about misrepresentation, don't try to misrepresent me.
There was no misrepresentation of Adams. He erred in treating creationism and science as having equal footing and equal problems in explaining the origins of life on earth. This is incorrect. He did not make a "few errors". His entire argument was riddled with major errors.
You must understand that trivializing gross errors, treating them as inconsequential in making his major point, is a serious problem. You want to complain about scientists failing to make a solid argument. What about popularists who build an elaborate argument on a foundation of lies? All of his premises were false, which should cast into doubt his conclusions...but strangely enough, all the dilbert fans seem to gloss over that.
Yes, we may lose the argument. It will be because people like you and Scott Adams make excuses for idiocy, and demand that people with expertise treat people armed only with ignorance as equal partners. I don't do that. I won't do that.
There's a little something called "integrity" that prevents me from pandering to wrong-headedness and dishonesty. -
Murphy (and Adams) just don't get it...
Who's supposed to convince the uneducated? They say the experts, and they're wrong. The experts' jobs are in research, not p.r.
The experts are failing to come up with persuasive arguments? Perhaps, but the experts' job isn't to presuade, it is to present their data and rationale in a way that can be examined. In important ways (ethics, logic, transparency, etc), what they do is the very opposite of persuasion.
Finally, Murphy asserts, "they answer questions with indignation rather than logic." I suppose you have to have some expertise in logic before you can differentiate it from indignation ;) -
Murphy, Adams is a lazy, dishonest, superficial guy who made negative statements about us (i.e. evolutionists), which he hasn't been able to justify. He's not The American People. Why shouldn't we slam that turkey they way he deserves? He's basically telling us that he'll stop being an idiot if we kiss his ass, but screw that. (That Common Man schtick is pretty nasty, coming as it does from a famous multimillionaire).
I didn't see any piling on against us at Adams site -- he's got four comments up at the moment. He moderates his site according to his whims, so I wouldn't necessarily take a one-sided response there very seriously anyway.
Adams draws particular contempt here because of the pride he takes in his ignorance. He's a snide little game-player, not an average citizen, and he can go screw himself. (He's been on record for a long time as an evolution skeptic, BTW).
And... please... stop... talking... to... us... this... way...
I... don't.. know... what... effect... you're... trying... for... but... it... isn't... working.#: Posted by John Emerson on 11/17 at 05:05 PM -
I... don't.. know... what... effect... you're... trying... for...
Captain Kirk? - No, no. You see, he's the tourist and we're the natives who don't speak his language. He thinks he'll get his point across if he says the same things again, only slower and louder. Hey, it works for Twoflower.
-
Adams' complaint that he can't find anybody 'credible' to believe on evolution/ID is the same kind of wrong as stuffing your eiderdown with live geese because you can't be bothered getting the feathers off, and then bitching about the noise they make.
Scientists are people. We have our own interests, we have our prejudices, and yes, sometimes when somebody flaunts their ignorance we charge at them flapping, honking, and pecking instead of respectfully attempting to educate them. (This is largely because most of us have long since learned that those who flaunt their ignorance will cling to it like a limpet; vis. the number of Dilbonians who persist in labelling us here 'Darwinists' long after being corrected on that. At least flapping-honking-and-pecking is satisfying, and wastes less time.)
But if you want to keep warm at night, it doesn't matter a damn how obnoxious the goose is. What matters is the quality of its feathers, and with science, what matters is the quality of the argument. Telling scientists "you guys need to be more diplomatic, or you're going to lose the argument" misses the point - when somebody decides to choose between scientific theories on the basis of their proponents' personalities, science has already lost, even if it wins. If ("I'm only going to stuff the quietest, most well-behaved geese into my eiderdown!") Sure, we could smarm up and play the "trust me" game, and maybe win a few more votes in the next round of school board elections - but it would mean forgetting what science is actually about, and in the long run that would be losing the war in order to win a battle.
If you're not prepared to pluck the feathers, you don't get a comfortable eiderdown, and there's nothing the goose can do to change that. If you're unable or unwilling to evaluate scientific arguments yourself, no 'credible scientist' can make your decision more meaningful than a coin-toss.#: Posted by Geoffrey Brent on 11/17 at 06:03 PM -
Adams' complaint that he can't find anybody 'credible' to believe on evolution/ID is the same kind of wrong as stuffing your eiderdown with live geese because you can't be bothered getting the feathers off, and then bitching about the noise they make.
I try to avoid "Amen!" posts, but damn, Geoffrey, you hit the head of the nail as squarely as I've ever seen. Not just the above-quoted metaphor--the entire post. Well said!#: Posted by on 11/17 at 06:17 PM -
Adams is getting way more attention than he deserves with this.
Intelligent Design Creationism is Political Poison in the Plymouth/Minnetonka Special Election.
From the Strib:
But their differences grow clearer when the focus turns to their views on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
[Republican candidate Judy] Johnson is an opponent of abortion who also supports an amendment to the state Constitution banning gay marriage. She said she is open to the idea of teaching students in public schools about "intelligent design," an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.
"I personally don't believe in evolution," she said at a recent debate, adding, "I think you need to teach all points of view."
But Bonoff calls intelligent design "a euphemism for teaching about God in schools," and she opposes its introduction into the classroom. She's an abortion rights supporter and opposes amending the state Constitution to ban gay marriage.
I've been following this race:
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/10/sd-43-chamber-of-commerce-debate-i.html
The other area where they differed was on whether Intelligent Design Creationism should be taught in the public schools. In response to a question about "Intelligent Design", Johnson said that all points of view should be taught, though she did not say whether she thought Intelligent Design Creationism belonged in the biology curriculum. Johnson did make a point of calling Intelligent Design "creationism", which other Intelligent Design advocates try to deny. Bonoff said Intelligent Design was religious views and should not be part of the public school curriculum.
After the event, I talked to a writer for one of the local newspapers, who said she has been following my blog coverage of this race. That's nice to hear. This person mentioned that I should look into the Minnetonka School Board race. Intelligent Design Creationism is a major issue in that race. Creationist Minnetonka School Board member, Dave Eaton is NOT up for election this fall. There are other Intelligent Design creationism advocates running for school board seats in Minnetonka.
More coverage at Lloydletta's Nooz.
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/10/matt-abe-loses-his-mob-teeshirt-matt.html
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/11/intelligent-design-creationism-is.html
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/11/judy-johnson-running-away-from.html
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/11/intelligent-design-creationism-loses.html -
Adams' complaint that he can't find anybody 'credible' to believe on evolution/ID is the same kind of wrong as stuffing your eiderdown with live geese because you can't be bothered getting the feathers off, and then bitching about the noise they make.
Wow. I second the "Amen!"
Murphy, if you read that and thought "What the hell geese?!" then do yourself a favor and go over it again more carefully. That was my first reaction too. =)
But back to this:
"If you go into a school board meeting and misrepresent opponents' arguments..."
Again, what was PZ's mischaracterization? He is quite right, Adams DID make major, gross errors, and presented them unambiguously. I'm sorry, but I don't launch into a four-paragraph discussion of a claim made by another party, describe it as "not-so-kooky," and include your own independent example backing up the claim, and then try to say that I was in no way trying to lend credibility to that other party's claim.
Adams was NOT just saying "you science types need to learn to argue better." He was saying, both directly and indirectly, "your evidence isn't as good as you think it is." You cannot sanely tell me you interpret this:
"On the other side, Intelligent Design advocates point out a number of flaws in the textbooks that teach Darwinism" to mean anything else. We called him on these "flaws" and his other misstatements, and he got snippy. Flaws he hasn't presented, by the way, and neither has he presented examples of the mischaracterizations that he claims he found at TalkOrigins which STARTED this whole thing.
You seem to keep thinking we don't understand what you're saying. We understand DAMN well. You're saying the errors Adams made were not that big a deal and that PZ's mischaracterizing him. Again, 1, they ARE a big deal, and 2, where did he mischaracterize him? Be as specific as you possibly can.
And while you're at it...since you continue to insist that we don't know how to argue, give us a specific example of how we SHOULD. Seriously. Okay:
I'm Scott, you're PZ. I just said to you "Well, I'm no biologist, but those ID people aren't so nuts when they say the strength of your evidence is illusory because each of you guys thinks the OTHER guy has the 'really good stuff.' Heck, it's just like this situation I had when I was building this tech lab..."
Now, what do you (as PZ) say to me?#: Posted by on 11/17 at 08:17 PM -
This is the best blog in the universe.
#: Posted by Federico Contreras on 11/17 at 08:54 PM
-
Why are Powerline and the like calling themselves center-right on this Minnesota blog compiler:
http://mnorgblogs.blogspot.com/
Where did they get that "center" idea from? GeoCENTRism? EgoCENTRism? -
#49404: PZ Myers — 11/17 at 04:52 PM
There was no misrepresentation of Adams. He erred in treating creationism and science as having equal footing and equal problems in explaining the origins of life on earth.
This is your whole problem. There currently is a debate going on between your theory of evolution and Intelligent Design. If there wasn't such a debate, there would be no trial to follow now would there? There would be no books to ridicule. There would be no Panda's Thumb website. You’re burying your head in the primordial clay if you think otherwise. You may not like it, I grant you that. But there it is.
(I don't know what to call your theory of evolution because if I call it Neo-Darwinism you'll call me a creationist)#: Posted by on 11/17 at 11:09 PM -
This is your whole problem. There currently is a debate going on between your theory of evolution and Intelligent Design. If there wasn't such a debate, there would be no trial to follow now would there?
Please, sir. We are not that dense. If you would read us with a bit more care, or simply used a bit of thought, you would realize that we're extremely, painfully aware of the debate that rages on. The POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS debate. There is no scientific debate over evolution.
We are also aware that being right scientifically may not help us politically. That leads to an entirely different discussion, but in short, I think many of us maintain the hope that sanity will prevail in the long run. In the meantime, we do what we can with public education. Despite Adams' vague protestations to the contrary, I think the quality of our efforts is good and improving, even if the audience we manage to reach is still limited.#: Posted by on 11/17 at 11:47 PM -
The POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS debate. There is no scientific debate over evolution.
You're absolutely correct. But the intelligent designers have brought the debate to the general public as a scientific debate.
How are you going to explain to a school board made up of housewives and cabbies in some school district this subtle difference?#: Posted by on 11/18 at 12:21 AM -
"housewives and cabbies"
They are paying the taxes that pay scientists and teachers's salaries. In a democracy, it is necessary to convince them it is a good investment. Should housewives and cabbies reach the conclusion that schools are indoctrinating their children with harmful nonsense like grandpa was a chimp, we shall have a problem.
Scott Adams may have a point: We have a credibility problem with the plebs. Our vehement protests of innocence only increase their suspicion. We should learn the techniques from politicians, who succeed to sell their credibility while they have none. We know we have it, but Dilbert Sr. and the people like him cannot accept it.
The bottomline is that scientific truth - that is, truth - is impalatable. The mere thought of evolution makes people vomit. It tastes like death. We know it is good for us but it is terribly bitter. No amount of public relations can mask this reality.#: Posted by on 11/18 at 01:33 AM -
Post Scriptum. Charles Darwin himself was terribly anguished and suffered continuous stomach ache and other psychosomatic ailings while thinking about evolution. He thought the idea so difficult to accept that spent his life amassing a vast and even excessive amount of evidence. He never got himself to publish his findings. Only the fact that Wallace, a younger man, was about to publish the same idea, forced him to do it.
#: Posted by on 11/18 at 01:47 AM
-
jaimito- isn't it thought that Darwin had Chagas' disease, contracted from an "assassin bug" in South America? Not that he didn't experience the anguish about evolution you describe.
About the credibility issue of scientists with the public: people who don't understand that science is not politics or religion, and who (like Scott Adams) simply want some authority (the Darwinist General, perhaps) to tell them what to believe in lieu of trying to learn for themselves, are, unfortunately, going to be difficult to win over in any case.#: Posted by