Entry 1581, on 2013-10-21 at 20:06:09 (Rating 3, Comments)
Is it OK to embellish the truth, or exaggerate reality, or ignore inconvenient data contrary to your preferred position, for the greater good? In the past I would have said no, that is not appropriate under any circumstances, and I have tried to present what I see as the facts with all the appropriate disclaimers. But after listening to a couple of podcasts on the subject, and being involved with an actual potential instance, I am beginning to think otherwise.
In a formal environment, such as a scientific paper, there must always be total truth. For example if the scientific data only shows climate change can be attributed to human activity with 95% certainty then that is what must be stated. But in informal and political discussions I think it might be OK to say that human activity is certainly the cause of climate change.
It is also OK to say that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains the mechanism extremely accurately. And it is OK to say that the Apollo Moon missions were real, and that secret elements of the US government were not behind the 9/11 attacks, and that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, and that there is a conventional explanation for UFO phenomena.
None of these statements are strictly true, but neither is this one: the Sun will rise tomorrow just like it always has. We should more accurately say that according to the experience of millennia and our best understanding of solar physics, the Sun will rise as usual tomorrow, but there is a small chance it might be affected by a passing black hole or it might become unstable. But no one plans their day around the tiny chance that the Sun might not continue to shine as expected which makes the absolute statement that it will good enough.
Now I agree that the phenomenon of the Sun behaving normally has a greater chance of being accurate than any of those other cases I mentioned above, but that just makes this an argument around where to draw the line. Nothing, absolutely nothing, about the real world can be known with 100% certainty so unless we are going to stop making absolute statements completely there has to be a cut-off point where a percentage chance is thought of as being close enough to 100%.
Where that point is will depend partly on the subjective opinions of the person making the statement and it doesn't so much matter where that point is as much as it should be consistent. So libertarians who deny the reality of global warming should also deny their own political philosophy which has far greater uncertainty. And creationists who deny evolution should never be certain about the myths and dogma of their church which have almost no supporting evidence. And people who think the 9/11 attacks were caused by secret American government elements should also wonder whether their own beliefs are the result of a secret propaganda campaign.
That's what being a rational, skeptical person is all about, but by doing that you will be at a disadvantage to those who make absolute statements. Most people respond more to simple, direct statements. They find a statement from deniers that "climate change has always happened without human activity and there is no evidence that this time is any different" (which is simple but untrue) easier to relate to than "according to the majority of experts there is a 95% chance that global warming is primarily caused by human activity". The less certain statement is true but sounds more evasive and uncertain to many people.
According to a veteran of science communication who was interviewed in one podcast we should be saying that climate change is real and caused by humans because most people think in absolutes and by that standard the statement is true. And saying that evolution is a fact is true because if evolution isn't a fact then nothing is. There are few (if any) phenomenon in the real world that I can think of with better support. If evolution might be untrue then so might gravity and I invite the denier to jump off the top of a tall building to test this uncertainty.
The problem is that after some consideration I just can't force myself to do it. Look back through this blog and you will see many instances where I have qualified a statement with an estimate of uncertainty, or a warning that nothing can be known with certainty, or that the essential truth of a theory might be modified in the future to give greater accuracy without changing the underlying idea.
According to some people that makes my arguments less convincing but I have to do what I think is right, even if it is less effective in some ways. A similar case applies in the atheism versus religion debate - but that is a subject for another blog entry.
A final point, in a similar way to the previous blog entry I again sound fairly arrogant, because I'm saying that I have the moral strength to tell the real truth where my opponents don't. Yeah, well, I think most people from the "reality based community" would say that there's an about 95% chance that is true... but we can never be sure!
Comment 1 by journeyman on 2013-10-31 at 16:30:47:
I think this is an interesting topic. I agree with you on virtually everything, with one possible discrepancy. I would argue that you DO speak in absolutes. When someone asks you what you’re doing for the weekend, you answer “I’m gonna go see a movie with my girlfriend,” not “I’m planning on going to see a movie with my girlfriend, but…” and then run through the other things you might do if that doesn’t work out.
You also don’t mention all the little things that you will also do that weekend (get groceries, take a shit, etc). These “white lies” are just part of communication. We necessarily oversimplify. Science is one of the exceptions, because we strive to use language that perfectly defines what we mean, rather than the laziness that we take in everyday conversation.
Here’s what I would argue, when you say that evolution is “proven” in everyday conversation, that really isn’t any different from saying that your dishes are “clean” when in reality they probably still have a few bits of microscopic food still stuck to them.
Give yourself a break :p
Comment 2 by Richard on 2013-11-01 at 17:44:57:
Yeah - another really nice topic. I agree with Journeyman in that in many cases you can give yourself a break, as most people understand that there is always an inherent level of 'uncertainty' in every truth claim. However, I would disagree with the notion that 'omitting irrelevant or insignificant details', (like the additional weekend activities listed in the example given), are 'white lies' at all. I would expect the usual definition of 'white lies' is something along the lines of 'small or less significant deviations from the truth' (as opposed to 'real' LIES). The critical point being, white lies are still lies (deviations from the truth). So in the context of the 'truth claims being requested or discussed' - both parties usually understand there are many details that are simply not worth including. Omitting those is not at all a deviation (small or large) from the truth claim in question at the time, so are not lies of any shade.
In addition, inherent to the definition of lies of course is 'motive' - they are DELIBERATE deviations from the 'known' (known being a tricky concept as you state above) facts. Non-deliberate deviations are not technically lies, they are simply 'ignorance' (that word used with no derogatory intention at all).
As to your post Owen, the 3 behaviours you offered as potential 'white lies' in the first sentence of your post, require separate analysis as they are not the same wrt to the question being considered, when filtered by this principle of 'context and significance'.
1 - What does 'embellish the truth' actually mean? - adding MORE truth can hardly be a problem - but adding 'untruth' to add weight to the truth claim being offered clearly is always problematic surely? 2 - Exaggeration, by definition implies a departure from the truth, so it is hard to see how that can ever be justified either. Ignoring 'inconvenient' data is not the best way to analyse whether it's OK to omit it - rather the question must be whether that data is sufficiently SIGNIFICANT to the specific truth claim in discussion. To complicate that - it is not always clear or agreed just how significant a particular piece of 'evidence' really is, in order to make that judgement.
And to complicate things further, the issue you mention of 'greater good' is highly significant. It brings in the 'relative moral' aspect of when 'lying' is perhaps OK - a separate question to whether those behaviours are actually lies or not. We know (with some considerable certainty) that 'lying' is sometimes morally the right thing to do - Schindler knew that for example in WWII.
As you stated, Science should NEVER be found guilty of deliberate truth 'distortion'. This is why papers almost always try to quantify the level of error in the data used to make the claim, so the reader can make their own assessment of the 'certainty'. That's understood and appropriate.
Sometimes though, even after doing that, there is considerable mis-understanding (or perhaps I should say disagreement), on the level of uncertainty among experts for any particular 'claim'. So it may not be appropriate to invoke your science veterans claim that it is OK to state it as fact - in any particular case. Not an easy assessment at all.
More importantly, Science can NEVER EVER determine what is 'the greater good' - it is simply not equipped to do that. You cannot even use Science to claim that the greater good involves 'those actions that would promote human flourishing' for example. By a truly astronomical margin, the universe is dead barren rock (at least a margin known with sufficient certainty for this point I think he he)! ;-) So the 'scientific' argument would be that the universe itself would 'prefer' all life on earth to hurry up and die, and return this little rock to the same state. Of course the universe doesn't actually 'prefer' anything' at all - a preference takes sentience - that's the key point. Thus, there is nothing 'scientific alone' that can claim that even 'human flourishing' is for the 'greater good'. Of course we believe that it IS for the greater good, but that's done by invoking principles outside of science, namely by philosophy.
This is simply pointed out to show why SCIENCE in particular absolutely MUST always provide the most accurate 'truth' it can possibly do - there is NO justification at all for even the slightest DELIBERATE distortions of truth of any kind in the scientific realm. That realm is I take it, the only important realm to you (in this post anyway)?
Cheers,
Rich.
Comment 3 by Rich on 2013-11-01 at 17:56:54:
Sorry for the double post - I meant to finish my post by saying that's why I appreciate your posts when you 'qualify your truth claims' and I absolutely do not think that 'makes your arguments less convincing' - it makes them a more honest assessment of 'reality' (the truth claim being aligned with reality by definition), which we would all agree is the appropriate and desired outcome for everyone after all. Put simply - You provide an example we should all try our best to follow! :-)
Comment 4 by OJB on 2013-11-02 at 09:23:23:
I agree that omitting irrelevant details doesn't constitute a white lie, but deliberately leaving out small but relevant ones does. So is saying that "evolution is an accepted fact in science" OK when effectively it is true even though you could make a case to say that some of the details are still being debated making the statement possibly not entirely true?
It sounds like your conclusion is roughly similar to mine. Science should always report the absolute facts, including uncertainty, but there might be times when other groups (politicians, bloggers, science communicators) might simplify the conclusions by using what are effectively "white lies".
For example, the scientists contributing to climate change research should always report with 100% accuracy but should the IPCC (an organisation for collating and reporting those facts) be allowed to "clarify" those results through simplification and other methods (which might get really close to being white lies).
And regarding your ideas on the source of morality. I don't entirely agree, but that's another subject, and at least you didn't mention God!
Comment 5 by richard on 2013-11-04 at 11:58:52:
Thanks. LOL - I am certainly not intending to 'mention God' in posts on topics where you haven't directly opened that door. My response was (I hope) simply adding relevant and maybe even interesting (even if you disagree) aspects to the qn raised. Reference to 'God' is not at all necessary to establish the claim that Science simply cannot be a definer of the 'greater good'. That is just simple logic. Science can only determine for us whether certain actions contribute to or hinder what the society performing (or examining) the 'science' has already decided is 'in the greater good'.
To answer your query re is saying evolution an accepted fact in Science OK? That's a tough one but the addition of the last two words IN SCIENCE is honest and critical. Please note that I am not bashing Science at all here - I am always a complete supporter of Scientific discipline. What I say here is just in the context of your specific qn. We must bear in mind that something being an 'accepted fact in Science' only declares our current very high level of believe about a claim, not whether it actually is a true 'fact of reality'. I agree that in the vast majority of times, the two are indeed the same, but this clearly is not always the case. Stating that the earth was flat has been a clearly 'accepted fact in Science' for longer than what we know declare is an 'accepted fact in science'.
So - I would have no problem with declaring that 'Evolution is an accepted fact IN SCIENCE' with that in mind, except for another problem. The other requirement is based on the definition of 'accepted'. The difficulty with evolution,is that as new observations and lines of research have come to light since Darwins day, (in the areas of fossil evidence, biology, biochemsistry, information theory etc etc), there is an ever increasing number of doubts arising within the Academic community about the ability of evolution to fully account for the emergence of the incredible complexity of life we observe. BTW - This has nothing to do with 'creationsists' or even 'Intelligent Design' (which is a totally different thing). There are doubters who are actively looking for another 'naturalistic' cause that better matches the evidence.
Now lets not react to the above, by labelling any scientist who dare to doubt Darwin as crack-pots etc (the expected reaction). An honest appraisal at least would confirm that whether you like it or not, there ARE capable scientists raising a number of fair and reasonable questions about it.
Remember we are NOT discussing the truth of evolution itself here in this post, merely it's claim to a particular title.
So given that straight forward observation of 'disagreement' on this claim, the answer to your fair question becomes 'what level of disagreement' becomes 'significant' to the claim to the label 'accepted fact in Science'. While I do agree that in some topics there is a low enough level of disagreement in established facts to dismiss the doubters, I also think that to lay claim to 'accepted FACT in science' status, the level of disagreement needs to be shown to be quite low, and I for one am not convinced that you can so easily dismiss ALL the 'credible doubters' in this particular topic.
We have gone thru that before, in previous blogs and you are quick to attempt to discredit their credentials or their honesty, and that's disappointing, but to be expected. One thing is certain however, until new research provides sufficient evidence to counter the fair questions raised, the disagreement will remain, despite some evidence of highly unscientific 'gagging' techniques used by some Academic Institutions to defend darwin e.g. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/sign_the_petiti072461.html.
So I am not accused of bias, I believe this next reference here is from a site in support of evolution, and it compares a well known list of 'motivated registered' Darwin Doubters (840 as at Oct 2012 apparently), with a similar list of Darwin Supporters (1229). Comparing PhD qualified in areas of relevance quite fairly changes the numbers to 236 Doubters/683 Supporters).
That approx 35% level of doubt is in my view still a significant enough level to disqualify a claim as 'accepted fact in science', and remember again - this is irrespective of what actually turns out to be FACT. I am not aware of any other 'accepted facts in science' that have to grapple with anything like that level of doubt!
Cheers,
Rich.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2013-11-05 at 09:14:13:
It all comes back to what "the greater good" actually means. I think it's perhaps a meaningless phrase which might contribute to its popularity in philosophy and theology! If we define more precisely what we really mean (greatest happiness for the greatest number, longest healthy lives, etc) then science can be used to help address the issue.
I think you do bash science (maybe not deliberately) because you have to. You cannot have a superstition-based worldview without unfairly criticising the opposing view based on rationality. The two just aren't compatible.
I totally agree about the idea that we can never state any fact with 100% certainty. I have certainly discussed this idea many times in this blog. But, a flat earth was never an accepted part of science. That's an old fake story many science deniers use.
You use all the standard creationist tricks trying to make it look like there is significant doubt about evolution. You use the term "Darwinism" (which scientists don't use), you quote irrelevant sources (a retired chemistry professor), you use religiously motivated web sites. It's all very intellectually dishonest, but it's what creationists have to use to support their ridiculous beliefs.
Now let's look at some facts instead. Have a read through the Wikipedia article "Level of support for evolution". And if you don't like Wikipedia use the references used to create the article. For example, there's this: "A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved..." although there is debate regarding the details. This does include scientists in other fields whose opinions might be expected to be less supportive.
If you really think there is any credibility at all in that crazy number of 35% based on irrelevant nonsense from a creationist web site then I think you really have been lost in a fantasy world. Why can't you be honest with yourself and just admit you want to believe in creation because of your faith. Stop pretending it has anything to do with facts. Sorry if this sounds insulting, but I think it is true.
Comment 7 by OJB on 2013-11-05 at 10:01:58:
Had a look at the Discovery Institute's list of dissenters. The first ten...
Philip Skell: An Emeritus Professor, retired, now deceased. No evolution related research.
Lyle H. Jensen: An Emeritus Professor, retired. No obvious evolution related research.
Maciej Giertych: Primarily a conservative politician.
Lev Beloussov: A Russian professor. Couldn't find any research questioning evolution.
Eugene Buff: No longer a scientist, now in some sort of tech business.
Emil Palecek: Obscure Czech, but seems genuine. Couldn't find any research questioning evolution.
K. Mosto Onuoha: Obscure Nigerian academic (geology). Seems to be primarily an administrator.
Ferenc Jeszenszky: Obscure theoretical physicist, invovled with ID movement.
M.M. Ninan: A professor of Christian ethics?
Denis Fesenko: Very obscure, associated with the Discovery Institute.
I mean, this is almost worse than having no list at all. You're an intelligent person. Can't you see how ridiculously dishonest this is? The DI is just a science denial organisation. It's as simple as that.
Comment 8 by richard on 2013-11-05 at 13:37:35:
As for your first paragraph - you completely contradict yourself. Firstly you claim that my use of it is 'meaningless' and then you defame 'philosophy and theology' for using the term, then you proceed to 'define it precisely' for us, so the term clearly is NOT meaningless at all. Why on earth would I not be using the term with the same definitions you so 'graciously' provided for our 'uneducated' benefit. In fact - I agree that is a perfectly reasonable MEANING for the term. However, even if I wasn't using the same definition - you also missed the point that this isn't relevant to the actual point of interest I raised, that Science cannot do the 'defining' (whatever that turns out to be). You actually agreed with that point completely, when you said 'THEN science can be used...', which was PRECISELY and ONLY the point I offered. All so simple really, and so all that combative posturing you added could have simply been replaced with - 'Yes I agree to that point (in isolation)'. It seems that your drive to be combative, too often gets in the way or your ability to reason.
As for the rest - exactly the expected response given the above. Here are the clarifications - leaving out any pointless ad hominems, mis-repsresentations and obvious 'distractions'.
1 - I don't know how you can with any confidence make the claim that a flat earth was never an 'accepted part of science'. And again, lets not suggest I am comparing evolution to 'a flat earth' in in way other than wrt the topic in question. Of course they are not in the same category in terms of 'certainty' today. And again - you started by agreeing with my simple point about certainty (which again I only brought up because of it's relevance to the qn you asked for discussion on, so again - take a chill pill and be more reasoned than argumentative.
2 - Looking at your facts - If I was asked by Pew to state whether I agreed or disagreed to the statement 'humans and all living things have evolved' I would be happy to agree. Of course that is true! Again the 'details' (that BTW the article AGREES exists!) revolve around specific definitions of the
important terms like evolve. There are numerous definitions for evolve and evolution etc, and they all matter. And even you are happy to quote a value 97% before later admitting there are 'scientists in other fields etc' which invalidate that number, making it meaningless.
3 - It was my understanding that the site I provided (comparing the two lists of those motivated enough to admit doubt or support of evolution), was actually an evolution SUPPORTING site, answering that question to buoy confidence in evolution not undermine it. Once again though, do I have to remind you and readers that the origin or motivation of any site hosting the information is irrelevant. The data supplied is a pretty straight-forward comparison of the two supporter lists, and with the 35% figure it was careful to compare those with PhDs 'in relevant fields'.
4 - All that leaves your keen defamation of the first ten in the list irrelevant. They are not listed in any particular order of 'importance'.
5 - If your claim that the DI was a 'Science denial' organisation had any validity, then you would have to wonder why the purely scientific questions that are raised, and the rebuttals by 'scientists who disagree' are all openly and honestly available within their pages, so that people are free to make up their own minds. (Ok lets not call them Darwinists - what term would you prefer? - another pointless red-herring - BTW scientists do use the term 'neo-darwinism' to describe a particular description of evolution),
Whether you agree with their conclusions about the same observed data or not, that is NOT science denial, that is closer to science in action.
And they specifically state they are NOT religiously motivated, and they also demonstrate that clearly in their actions and their site content.
Once again that is a mis-leading (and scientifically embarrassing quite frankly) charge on your part, because you do not seem able to make the simple distinction between 'creationism' and ID, which simply aims to use standard principles of science to determine whether its more reasonable to suppose that 'intelligence' is involved in an event in the distant past. Just like Archeology, Forsensic CSI's, or even the SETI program!
Comment 9 by Richard on 2013-11-05 at 14:06:42:
OK - had a closer look at that site, and it was indeed surprising. The top level appears to be looking for some 'harmony between science and religion', and it even appears to have LDS (Mormon) connections. However, wrt the blog topic, this is totally irrelevant, as there is no doubt that the actual post reference I provided includes nothing of this and focuses only on the qn of scientific agreement with evolution. It is furthermore written in full support of evolution when it uses the supplied data. That is all that is necessary for me to claim an unbiased use of the page on my part, which was certainly my intention. Cheers.
Comment 10 by OJB on 2013-11-05 at 20:06:13:
I point out the term "the greater good" can mean many things then offer some more specific alternatives. Science can examine claims which are specified in sufficient detail. Not sure exactly what you are criticising there. Maybe you could clarify.
1. Science as we define it today has only been around for a few hundred years. Clearly it was well known that the Earth wasn't flat long before that. Also Eratosthanes, using scientific reasoning, calculated the Earth's diameter about 240 BC (having a diameter means it can't be flat). I will point out where you're wrong. Simple as that. You don't want me to argue? Then don't get so many things wrong!
2. So you agree evolution is true now. What have we been arguing about then? The 97% number is likely to be low because people in non-biology fields tend to be less supportive of evolution (because they are more ignorant of it). That's the only reason I mentioned it. From memory the number amongst biologists is 99% or more.
3. The number was nonsense. The site is religiously motivated. That doesn't mean it was wrong necessarily, but it does show that we should be skeptical of any claims made there.
4. I don't have time to got through the whole list. Do you want me to choose another ten at random or what? It won't matter because the list has no credibility. For example, I found at least one other person on the list with a "junk degree" from a Christian "university".
5. From Wikipedia: "A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organisations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is a theory in crisis, through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community"
It is science denial. They are a conservative Christian think tank with absolutely zero scientific credibility. If they had real evidence against evolution they should be publishing it in real scientific journals.
They say they are not religious. But they are, very obviously. But they are also liars, so no surprises there. Wikipedia again: "In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions".
ID is a dishonest attempt to push creationism. In fact creationism is preferable because at least it doesn't try to hide its true mission. Another quote: "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum."
So you're wrong... about everything!
Comment 11 by Anonymous on 2013-11-06 at 09:16:07:
If God is the creator of all things how could we be aware of right and wrong if God had not created within us His image? The reality is that we have no reference point for all this discussion about morality except as God reveals it. Any other morality is based on false and wicked beliefs.
Comment 12 by OJB on 2013-11-06 at 09:43:43:
OK Anonymous, did you even read the discussion here before commenting? I have already agreed that for some people the question of morality changes if god exists, yet you start with "If God exists" then continue as if that is proven. Well it isn't.
But even if it was, that doesn't mean that god is the automatic source of morality. Have a look at my argument above, briefly: the statement that god is the source of morality is itself a moral statement meaning that the alleged truth of god's moral rules is itself one of those rules. Surely this is a circular argument?
Comment 13 by OJB on 2013-11-06 at 09:46:28:
Regarding the status of Intelligent Design (aka Creationism) in the scientific community, here's a partial list of the main organisations in the US which reject Intelligent Design as a scientific theory...
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of University Professors
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Psychological Association
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Botanical Society of America
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
National Association of Biology Teachers
The National Center for Science Education
The National Science Teachers Association
United States National Academy of Sciences.
Still think ID is "science in action"?
Comment 14 by OJB on 2013-11-06 at 10:08:00:
I did some background research on the first few members of the Discovery Institute's directors and board...
Bruce Kerry Chapman (born 1 December 1940) is the director and founder of the Discovery Institute, an American conservative think tank often associated with the religious right. He was previously a journalist, a Republican politician, and a diplomat.
Phillip E. Johnson (born June 18, 1940) is a retired UC Berkeley law professor and author. He became a born-again Christian while a tenured professor and is considered the father of the intelligent design movement.
Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson, Jr. (born February 3, 1950) is an heir of the Home Savings bank fortune built by his father Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson, Sr.. Ahmanson Jr. is a multi-millionaire philanthropist and financier of many Christian conservative cultural, religious and political causes.
Edwin "Ed" Meese, III (born December 2, 1931) is a noted Republican attorney, law professor, and author who served in official capacities within the Ronald Reagan Gubernatorial Administration...
Do these people sound like they are running an unbiased, scientific organisation?
Comment 15 by richard on 2013-11-06 at 10:40:48:
I will leave it to other readers to decide whether my frank criticism of your 'greater good' post was clear. I don't think it requires any clarification, in the full context of the discussion history. :-)
OK - thanks for the expected clarification around the fact that 'Science as we define it today has only been around for a few hundred years'. You are claiming that as an excuse that you can't blame 'Science' for getting stuff wrong in the past, but I reject that as 'word trickery'. What this line of thinking also leads to is that in a few more hundred years, Science itself may be again 'redefined' and thus not to blame for all the things we believe now, that will later turn out to be wrong. That 'excuse' doesn't hold. Therefore I was/am using a basic definition of science that has 'always' occurred in some sense - simply the attempt to explain observations of the world around us. However primitive the methodology (actually it's the 'philosophy of Science' we are talking about here) may have been, the point we were discussing (way back now, and almost lost LOL) still remains I think.
You can (like all those other organisations) attempt to distract from the questions that ID asks by claiming 'religious motivations', but a rational honest open minded person, is quite able to make the distinction, between trying to ask fair questions about the existing evidence, and any potential 'meta-physical' ramifications of proposed conclusions.
As for Science in Action - Yes I do - I fully accept that these people (like yourself) may decide that the conclusions are completely wrong and reject ID as TRUE theory, but it is not fair to label it as 'an unscientific theory' simply because we don't like the hypothesis. Fine - label it as an incorrect scientific theory, and then open the debate, not shut it down with ONLY an 'unscientific' label. Currently that label stands only on the basis of the (current) 'Philosophy of Science' that excludes any possibility of 'inference to a directly unobservable' intelligent cause for life on earth.
Books that open the debate on ID, (like the latest New York Times bestseller by Stephen Meyer Darwins Doubt), address only the currently available scientific evidence for evolution, and ask fair questions about it, from a scientific basis only. He is qualified enough to ask those questions. I encourage anyone to take a fair honest look at the book, and yes - all the responses and rebuttals from qualified scientists - and decide for themselves whether that process is science in action. Remember being 'Science in action' has nothing to do with the perceived truth of the claims being addressed.
Comment 16 by Anonymous on 2013-11-06 at 12:04:14:
Poor rich/richard. Destroyed by logic, just like his god.
Comment 17 by OJB on 2013-11-06 at 12:20:10:
Well I still don't quite think you get what I was saying. The original statement, about "the greater good" is too imprecise to be discussed sensibly so I offered some more precise alternatives which have a more specific meaning making them easier to discuss and test, including by science.
Science has been formalised to a system of precise specification of the question, empirical testing, formal reporting, criticism, and repetition. That has only happened recently and is unlikely to change much in the future. Some elements of science were used earlier of course, for example by Eratosthanes who showed the Earth isn't flat (a fact that science in whatever form has always known).
Yes rational people are able to ask what relevance ID has and they have seen it for what it is: a despicable, dishonest political and religious ploy to introduce fantasy into science classes. See my list of critics of ID above.
ID has been labelled as a non-scientific theory because that's what it is according to almost every expert in the field. See my list above. Just because you can't accept this (for clearly religious reasons) doesn't make it untrue.
I haven't read the Meyer book so I can't really comment. But you also claimed that your other sources were scientific when they obviously weren't so I am initially skeptical of it. Looking at Meyer's bio he has no background in biology and is involved with the Discovery Institute which I have already shown is a political organisation so I would say his credibility is close to zero.
Comment 18 by OJB on 2013-11-06 at 12:27:42:
Looks like "Darwin's Doubt" is nothing more than a collection of clumsy lies and misrepresentations, just like all creationist propaganda...
Meyer published Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design on 18 June 2013. In this book, he describes the mysterious explosion of animal life around the Cambrian period, 530 million year ago, found in the fossil record. The sudden emergence of large number of animal life during this period, termed the 'Cambrian explosion', is suggested by Meyer to contradict Darwin's evolutionary process. Meyer argues that the Cambrian explosion of animal life is best explained by intelligent design.
In a review published by The Skeptics Society titled Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Amateur Cambrian Follies, paleontologist Donald Prothero points out the number of errors, cherry-picking, misinterpretation and misinformation in Meyer's book. The center of Meyer's argument for intelligent design, Cambrian Explosion, has been deemed an outdated concept after recent decades of fossil discovery. 'Cambrian diversification' is a more consensual term now used in paleontology to describe the 80 million year time frame where the fossil record show the gradual and stepwise emergence of more and more complicated animal life, just as predicted in Darwin's evolution. Prothero explains that the early Cambrian period is divided into three stages: Nemakit-Daldynian, Tommotian and Atdabanian. Meyer ignores the first two stages and the fossil discoveries from these two periods, instead he focuses on the later Atbadbanian stage to present the impression that all Cambrian live forms appeared abruptly without predecessors. To further counter Meyer's argument that the Atdabanian period is too short for evolution process to take place, Prothero cites paleontologist B.S. Lieberman that the rates of evolution during the 'Cambrian explosion' are typical of any adaptive radiation in life's history. He quotes another prominent paleontologist Andrew Knoll that '20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two' without the need to invoke any unknown processes. Going through a list of topics in modern evolutionary biology Meyer used to bolster his idea in the book, Prothero asserts that Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist, does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of promoting the 'God of the gaps' argument: 'anything that is currently not easily explained by science is automatically attributed to supernatural causes', i.e. intelligent design.
In his article Doubting "Darwin's Doubt" published in The New Yorker, Gareth Cook discusses that this book is another attempt by the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement, another go-around in masquerading religious belief as science. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not available to Darwin (hence his 'doubt' in Meyer's words). The contemporary scientific consensus is that there is no 'explosion'. Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life. Cook references scientific literature to refute Meyer's argument that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of intervention by the 'intelligent designer'. Like Prothero, Cook also points out the absurdity of Meyer's stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against spirituality.
Comment 19 by OJB on 2013-11-06 at 12:34:41:
Please Richard, do yourself a favour and just admit you are wrong. If you want to reject evolution because of your religious faith then fine, do that. But please stop pretending that this is anything other than science denial!
Comment 20 by Anonymous on 2013-11-07 at 15:54:45:
What happened to Richard?
Comment 21 by Richard on 2013-11-07 at 21:41:12:
LOL - Still here - I do have a life, so am certainly not hanging on Owens every unkind word. Look, I am happy for you to 'enjoy' (or pity LOL) what you state is my total mis-understanding of reality wrt this topic, but please - both your language and the language used consistently in the articles you cite shows the very typical tactic of those who are not prepared to act reasonably and with respect, not to mention unscientifically and inconsistently.
Firstly, you repeatedly insist (in this post and others) on stating that I must believe this nonsense on religious grounds, when you know that I have explained many times that this is not the case. If anything, it's the reverse, i.e. that my own assessment of the lack of sound evidence for atheism in the real world, that leads to my other 'world-view'. (noting the other post). Now sure, I get that you disagree - fine. I also understand that you may believe that even my assertion above is somehow 'a sad delusion' on my part. You couldn't do that though, without having to accept the same possibility that the very same delusion occurs for you - that your 'world-view' clouds your ability to assess the evidence. I have never ever stooped to that - and am not doing it now and I would ask you not to either.
Besides, it is a lack of understanding on your part that assumes that this even has any bearing on the case for or against the arguments being discussed. If it does, then I am completely justified in dismissing the first article you cited above purely because it was published by the Skeptics Society. They just must be deluded because they are skeptics, or maybe are from New York. No - of course not. I am not guilty of that folly, yet you ask readers to think like that all the time when you employ this sad tactic.
Readers (including anonymous), should look carefully at the 'non scientific' text used in both the above articles. Shame they don't seem to understand some basic principles in reason/ argument.
1) Simply asserting something (or citing that someone else asserts something) does not affect the case for (or against) a claim. This is all these articles do. We already know that there are scientists who disagree on all sorts of details in this area, so simply stating an assertion does little to help. What is only useful is when the experimental data and evidence that these scientists used to draw their conclusions is presented clearly so that people can make up their own minds.
2) Name-calling doesn't help find the truth either. You and both articles just can't help yourself, dropping in all the key creationist buzzwords simply for their rhetorical 'power' in spite of the fact that you should know better, that only the data and the arguments drawn from that data are of any relevance. It's such a common tactic that it should make readers suspicious, as it is usually only used when backed into a corner and when there is in fact trouble with the evidence and data in defending the case. This is simply intellectual bullying and readers should feel either intellectually ashamed for their mis-understanding in thinking this type of tactic holds any weight, OR they should feel intellectually insulted that they are being treated as if they do have that lack of reasoning power, and are being manipulated in this way.
By all means dispute Meyers arguments and conclusions, but it is simply bad science do do so by claiming he fails simply because he 'isn't a paleontologist or molecular biologist' as Prothero does. You don't need to be these things in order to be skilled at extracting the current research published BY all these various scientists and demonstrating inconsistencies and 'doubts' in the data. Speaking of inconsistency...
3) Inconsistency doesn't help your case either; After claiming he is unqualified, Cook then states he 'skillfully sews together the trappings of science', and writes in a 'seemingly serious and reasonable manner' - What on earth justifies 'seemingly' - he either does all that or he doesn't! Clearly he does use skill, and write in a serious and reasonable manner, or Cook wouldn't have even mentioned it. No it betrays Cooks motivation, as he then resorts back (as he started) to the same mis-representation and name calling and mis-representation re an attack on science.
Remember (once again), a hypothesis of intelligence on it's own, is not an attack on science, IF there is some evidence to suggest the possibility. Fine if people disagree on the evidence for that, but to claim it not science is on the basis of a decision to discount a possibility for which we can (by defintion) have no 'scientific' basis to do so is clearly unsound. This is far worse than the so called 'God of the Gaps' argument, (which is NOT justified btw) because it limits the ability of science to go anywhere where the evidence leads. ID may well indeed be completely wrong, but in that particular respect it is more behaving with more scientific and intellectual honesty!
I will be happy to admit that I am wrong on evolution, when I see some 'real' evidence that is not based on circular reasoning. i.e. IF matter is really all there is then sure I agree, evolution is the best explanation available so far, and ONLY THEN can the fossil record evidence that does appear to suggest evolution be justifiably interpreted in it's favour. But you can't use that to assert evolution on that basis because similarities in fossil structure (and even in DNA sequences) are also perfectly well explained by a design hypothesis. There are also serious limitations and contradictions in the fossil evidence that you shouldn't expect to find if evo were true, and the evidence there is does nothing to disqualify the opposing hypothesis of intelligence on it's own merit. No, that is only rejected on the basis of a philosophical objection, not a scientific one. Hence the ongoing debate.
This post is also now well away from the original topic, so once again I will leave you with the last word. As always an enjoyable exchange. Am still happy to bear the brunt of your 'enjoyment' Owen - if only it could always be more respectful. I'm a sucker for punishment though. Cheers, Richard.
Comment 22 by Richard on 2013-11-07 at 22:05:53:
Hoping to slip this in before you reply - so you still have the last word! Where I accidentally wrote mis-representation twice back there (LOL) I meant to provide the example. It is NOT the case that ID is 'automatically' attributing' anything that cannot easily explained by science, to supernatural causes' as Prothero wrongly asserts. Nowhere does ID assert that anything we don't know about must be done by intelligence. That's rubbish and unfair. The whole point of ID, is looking at what we observe about what we already know are intelligently caused artifacts in the world, and then assessing whether the same principles could apply to artifacts that have similar properties, for which we do not know the cause i.e. this is usually related to 'specific complexity'. There is absolutely nothing automatic about that process. Shame on him.
Did readers note too the clear admission by Prothero (an expert you will remember) that the area of discussion in Meyers book is (and I quote) 'not clearly explained by science'.
Comment 23 by OJB on 2013-11-07 at 23:41:59:
I think you are an intelligent person Richard, and I have shown you a lot about the background of the Discovery Institute and of the Intelligent Design movement. If you still can't see how fake it all is then there must be something stopping you from facing the facts. Given the subject under discussion a religious belief seems the most likely candidate.
The article in the Skeptic magazine was written by a very well-known expert paleontologist. That was the point. Where it was published is irrelevant.
I can't totally follow all your arguments so I think I should summarise by stating the following points...
1. The Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think-tank and has no scientific credibility at all. They do no research and produce no papers for respected journals. Anything presented there has no relevance to science.
2. Intelligent Design has had a small element of science in the past with the original papers which were quickly discredited. Since then it is simply a political ploy to try to force teaching of creationism in American schools. This is recognised in the list of scientific organisations who reject it on those grounds.
3. I tried not to insult you, but I didn't hesitate to insult the Discovery Institute. Anyone who deliberately lies and cheats just to force their own religious views on others deserves no respect.
4. If ID was presented as a serious scientific idea with fully testable hypotheses instead of being just a political tool, science would be happy to accept it and test it. But pretending that the current form of ID is a real scientific theory is just a way to make it look like there is debate where there really isn't any.
5. In fact the fossil and molecular evidence doesn't indicate design at all. There are numerous errors, many extinctions, inefficient structures, etc. If there was any design involved it sure must have been really, really bad design! So bad in fact that it is indistinguishable from random mutation! And these "serious limitations and contradictions" only exist in your religious propaganda.
Thanks for the discussion. I really don't know what would convince someone like you that you are wrong. If every respected scientific organisation rejects something and you still think it's real science then I think maybe there is no hope.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE