RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Skullboy



Posts: 24
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,21:21   

Stevestory:

I think it just looks that way because DaveScot moved the 'Attaboy PZ' thing to the top again because he was so excited by new poll results.

  
stevestory



Posts: 9027
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,21:29   

Ooo, you're right. A foolish error on my part.

   
Jkrebs



Posts: 328
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,21:30   

Over here  StephenB writes,

Quote
nullasalus: Excuse me, but I think you may have missed my question. Here it is again:

ID says that a DNA molecule contains empirically based, observable patterns that manifest themselves as functionally specified complex information FSCI. Under the circumstances, design is the best inference because our experience confirms that each time FSCI is present, intelligence is the cause.

You have stated many times that ID is not science. Please tell my why the above is not a scientific argument.


Fortunately, I'm not over at UD to answer, and I'm certain StephenB doesn't come here to read, but he has managed to succinctly offer the fundamental mistaken proposition of ID, and to ask the fundamental question of why is ID not science.

So here's my short response, just to get it out my system.

StephenB says, "Design is the best inference because our experience confirms that each time FSCI is present, intelligence is the cause."

Assuming that FSCI has any meaning at all, this statement is wrong because its premise is true ("our experience confirms each time FSCI is present, intelligence is the cause") only if its conclusion (that DNA has FSCI) is assumed to be true.

If in fact DNA arose by natural means, then it is false that "that each time FSCI is present, intelligence is the cause."  How DNA arose is precisely the empirical question at issue, and they can't use their assumption that it was designed as evidence for the premise that they use to conclude that it was indeed designed.  This is circular reasoning at its best.

Second, ignoring this issue, the statement that "design is the best inference" is not a scientific statement until it has some testable specifics concerning the implementation of the design, which necessarily leads to hypotheses about the nature of the skills and powers held by the designer - all areas in which ID refuses to tread.  If the designer has more or less any possible set of skills, and yet is unknowable as to those skills, then anything could be designed.

There is just nothing scientific about the design inference as they claim it, and their fundamental argument in support of it ("our experience confirms that each time FSCI is present, intelligence is the cause") is not scientific support at all, but rather a logically flawed argument with no empirical content.

There - now I feel better.

  
stevestory



Posts: 9027
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,21:39   

on the thread Jack mentions above:

Quote


53

parlar

09/09/2008

4:57 pm

DaveScot,

This response became too long, sorry about that.

I recognize that there are many things about biology that we don’t understand. One thing that really puzzles me, for example, is the relative short time that life had to get started. But that doesn’t mean that I instantly buy religious (or the ID proxy) arguments for how it happened.
Admittedly, a significant problem in evolutionary theory (which IDists take careful note of) is that historical events cannot be proved, simply because we cannot turn back time to see what actually happened. It is likewise clear also that major evolutionary feats happen extremely rarely, often just once, in an earth-sized test tube over billions of years, which make probabilities difficult to estimate. We’re also kind of biased by the end result. Most of the time, however, we can quite easily reconstruct plausible chains of events of how things likely could have happened.
I did my homework regarding ‘irreducible complexity’ (IC), and found that I indeed had misunderstood the concept, please excuse my ignorance.
Here is the definition that I found:
“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.” (Darwin’s Black Box p39.)
Thus, if the ORIGINAL function of a complex structure disappears by the removal of one subpart of it, then that would establish that evolution couldn’t have done it. (indirectly supporting that a maker must have constructed it.)
The reasoning of this argument is appealing if you are inclined to accept the concept of a creator, but is logically flawed as I’ll demonstrate. The more conservative connotation that I intuitively thought it had, namely that subparts of the system would at all not be allowed to have other (previous) functions, actually made more sense. It would still suffer from the same logical flaw, but it would be more impressive.
The logical flaw lies in the test implied in the first sentence of the cited paragraph. The principal reason comes from the fact that a molecular complex (AB) evolves together. Original functionality in one part A is likely to disappear if a second part B exists that performs that function more efficiently. If B did not perform it more efficiently, evolution would not have promoted this complex AB. The reason why A doesn’t keep the function is that (purifying) selection pressure is required to maintain protein functions; otherwise they are degraded by genetic drift. And if B does the job, selection doesn’t make A keep the function. Simple enough. So, if you remove B and test the function of A, you will often find that it cannot do anything.
Behe’s argument can therefore not be used as an evolutionary test.
I can now imagine arguments that purifying selection and genetic drift is just Darwinist complicated wish-thinking, but I assure you that these are well-established facts with tons of concordant evidence behind.
Just to briefly re-connect to the previous discussion on the flagellum: the paper that you refer to from the year 2000 was written and coordinated (last name authorship) by Milton Saier Jr., who was also last name on the review in Microbe by Wong et. al. (2007) that I referred to earlier in this conversation. Apparently, he changed his mind.
Actually, I’m not really sure what this significance is of the progression of these appearances. If the flagellum appeared first (I’ll gladly admit that it very well might), and that the T3SS then would be partly derived from flagellum components, wouldn’t that still require evolution? Or how does ID then explain that the T3SS later came about? How does this support the ID case?
To really disprove evolution, you would have to find a credible way to deal with the massive amounts of data that supports it in all corners of biology and paleontology. How can the progressions in fossil records be dealt with in a credible way? What about the real-time observations that we make every day on the spreading of antibiotic resistance (adaptive phenotypes)? What about data that demonstrates increased genetic drift in small populations? What about data that demonstrates how new pathogens have come into existence by import of pathogenicity traits (such as genes for T3SSs). Actually, what about molecular data that demonstrates phylogenetic relationships between taxa? From an ID perspective, this must be extremely weird. Homology must be devastating.


Enjoy it while it lasts parlar. It won't last long.

   
Jkrebs



Posts: 328
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,21:48   

Aha - nullasalus brings up a good point in his response:

Quote
What are you defining ‘a scientific argument’ as here? I’m not arguing that you can’t make reference to scientific knowledge to bolster or attack a design claim, or even a philosophical claim for that matter. But I don’t think such arguments are themselves ’science’ - I guess you could say I go by the falsification standard. How do you falsify the claim that FSCI patterns don’t arise from non-intelligent sources? Watch one spontaneously develop in nature? But even if you did, how do you know you didn’t just witness an intelligence creating the FSCI, either in a front-loaded way or through some kind of intervention?


I asked Behe this same type of question at a conference one time, and got a side-step for answer:  what if we set up an experiment with lots of bacteria cultures, such as has been done by Lenski, and we found that a very novel pathway evolved.  How would we know that it hadn't been designed right there in our petri dishes?  In the absence of any knowledge whatsoever about any limitations of the designer, who is to say that he didn't step in and design the result in ways that just look like a plausible evolutionary set of genetic changes over multiple generations?

So nullasalus is right: there is no way to falsify the generic design inference because it has no empirical specifics.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,21:49   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 09 2008,22:30)
StephenB says, "Design is the best inference because our experience confirms that each time FSCI is present, intelligence is the cause."

Assuming that FSCI has any meaning at all, this statement is wrong because its premise is true ("our experience confirms each time FSCI is present, intelligence is the cause") only if its conclusion (that DNA has FSCI) is assumed to be true.

If in fact DNA arose by natural means, then it is false that "that each time FSCI is present, intelligence is the cause."  How DNA arose is precisely the empirical question at issue, and they can't use their assumption that it was designed as evidence for the premise that they use to conclude that it was indeed designed.  This is circular reasoning at its best.

An argument very similar to one I made upthread in response to DaveScot's shiny new "law": "Intelligence only comes from intelligence." Said I:

Quote
Dave claims there are no counter examples to his new law. I say there are many: human beings (and many other organisms) are counter examples. I say they arose in nature, unguided. Dave disagrees - but he can't claim his law in support of his position. The argument "intelligence only arises from intelligence" is suspended in mid-air, an assertion only, essentially a restatement of the ID position, and can offer no support for the intelligent design hypothesis because the argument assumes its own conclusion. Ultimately the resolution of these questions will be empirical, not tautological, and ID will play no role in devising that solution because it can play no role in positive empirical investigation.


[Edit to fix link]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 328
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,22:01   

Thanks for finding and adding that - I noticed when you wrote that and I liked how you said it.  This is a hard point to try to express, and it is useful to be able to point out the flaw in the reasoning when people like Dave, StephenB, and Behe et al make this type of argument.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,06:24   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 09 2008,22:49)
 
Quote
Dave claims there are no counter examples to his new law. I say there are many: human beings (and many other organisms)...

It should read, "...and all other organisms..."

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2612
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,07:06   

Filed under Intelligent Design:

Quote
PharyngulaWatch: Update 9/10/08: B. Hussein Obama, in the process of self-destructing, says of McCain/Palin “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig“. We here at UD note that you can put a Harvard law degree on a misogynist pig, but it’s still a misogynist pig. Given the Muslim faith I guess we should be thankful the pig didn’t suggest Governor Palin put on a burka and get back in the kitchen where she belongs.

Let's see.

*  Hussein
*  Harvard Law
*  Misogynist
*  Muslim
*  Pig
*  Conflated a moderate liberal with very conservative, foreign and domestic cultural norms.
*  Comments Off.

Same tired arguments that avoid the issues, with dissenting opinions not allowed.

Filed appropriately under Intelligent Design.

--------------
Not joey

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,08:25   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 09 2008,21:48)
Aha - nullasalus brings up a good point in his response:

   
Quote
What are you defining ‘a scientific argument’ as here? I’m not arguing that you can’t make reference to scientific knowledge to bolster or attack a design claim, or even a philosophical claim for that matter. But I don’t think such arguments are themselves ’science’ - I guess you could say I go by the falsification standard. How do you falsify the claim that FSCI patterns don’t arise from non-intelligent sources? Watch one spontaneously develop in nature? But even if you did, how do you know you didn’t just witness an intelligence creating the FSCI, either in a front-loaded way or through some kind of intervention?


I asked Behe this same type of question at a conference one time, and got a side-step for answer:  what if we set up an experiment with lots of bacteria cultures, such as has been done by Lenski, and we found that a very novel pathway evolved.  How would we know that it hadn't been designed right there in our petri dishes?  In the absence of any knowledge whatsoever about any limitations of the designer, who is to say that he didn't step in and design the result in ways that just look like a plausible evolutionary set of genetic changes over multiple generations?

So nullasalus is right: there is no way to falsify the generic design inference because it has no empirical specifics.

It's the ID problem that Bobby Henderson pointed out in his now-famous FSM letter to the Kansas state school board :
 
Quote
[The FSM] built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

Once the door is open to unbounded and undefined "designer" powers, science is dead.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
PTET



Posts: 133
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,09:09   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 10 2008,07:06)
Filed under Intelligent Design:

 
Quote
PharyngulaWatch: Update 9/10/08: B. Hussein Obama, in the process of self-destructing, says of McCain/Palin “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig“. We here at UD note that you can put a Harvard law degree on a misogynist pig, but it’s still a misogynist pig. Given the Muslim faith I guess we should be thankful the pig didn’t suggest Governor Palin put on a burka and get back in the kitchen where she belongs.

Let's see.

*  Hussein
*  Harvard Law
*  Misogynist
*  Muslim
*  Pig
*  Conflated a moderate liberal with very conservative, foreign and domestic cultural norms.
*  Comments Off.

Same tired arguments that avoid the issues, with dissenting opinions not allowed.

Filed appropriately under Intelligent Design.

Comments off? O noes!!!eleventy!!one1!

Then how can all the principled, ethical, fair-minded people at Uncommon Descent point out that John McCain used the same phrase before talking about Hillary Clinton?

They must be devastated!

--------------
"It’s not worth the effort to prove the obvious. Ridiculous ideas don’t deserve our time.
Even the attempt to formulate ID is a generous accommodation." - ScottAndrews

   
stevestory



Posts: 9027
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,11:22   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 10 2008,08:06)
Filed under Intelligent Design:

Quote
PharyngulaWatch: Update 9/10/08: B. Hussein Obama, in the process of self-destructing, says of McCain/Palin “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig“. We here at UD note that you can put a Harvard law degree on a misogynist pig, but it’s still a misogynist pig. Given the Muslim faith I guess we should be thankful the pig didn’t suggest Governor Palin put on a burka and get back in the kitchen where she belongs.

Let's see.

*  Hussein
*  Harvard Law
*  Misogynist
*  Muslim
*  Pig
*  Conflated a moderate liberal with very conservative, foreign and domestic cultural norms.
*  Comments Off.

Same tired arguments that avoid the issues, with dissenting opinions not allowed.

Filed appropriately under Intelligent Design.

And the words "Muslim Faith" is linked to a dumb lie that Drudge was pushing. Supposedly Barack slipped up and referred to his muslim faith by accident. Well, he didn't. I saw the exchange in question, which happened Sunday on ABC's This Week, and it went down like this:

(GS--george stephanopoulos  BO--Barack Obama)

GS: Well, McCain himself didn't call you a secret muslim.
BO: No, but..look, George, they love throwing a rock and then hiding their hand. So they get FoxNews or somebody to say it.
GS: But McCain himself isn't saying it.
BO: (sigh) No. You're right. McCain never specifically referred to my muslim faith. But their underlings are putting it out there.
GS: your christian faith you mean.
BO: I'm christian, but I mean the allegation that I'm a muslim.

I'm not surprised that comments are off. Maybe the UD poster wasn't sure that even UD readers would be dumb enough to swallow this stuff.

   
stevestory



Posts: 9027
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,11:43   

and the 'He called Palin a pig' notion is BS also. In context:

Quote
   “John McCain says he’s about change, too — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That’s just calling the same thing something different.”

   With a laugh, he added: “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.”


as Sullivan says: "We are being asked to believe that he called Sarah Palin a pig. If the people making that accusation have half a brain they know it's not true. This is not a question of interpretation. It is a fact. So we now find out again that John McCain is prepared to tell an absolute lie - in public, verifiable, uncontestable."

It's appropriate that UD classified this as "Intelligent Design", since ID is a bunch of dumb lies too.

Linky

   
Spottedwind



Posts: 83
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,13:22   

This pig-lipstick thing kills me.  I really find it hard to believe that people honestly think Obama was taking a dig at Palin.

I don't remember anyone in Hilary's camp getting riled up when McCain used it.  I didn't even know McCain said it until today.  If Hilary's group did get offended, it was as stupid a tatic then as it is now.  But, if they did, and if the supposedly liberal media does hate anything Republician, then why wasn't this news?  Would have been great attack stuff.  Why?  Because it's a common phrase!  So many people have said it and use it frequently...it just blows my mind.

It reminds me of the Texas commissioner that was offended by the use of the word 'black hole' when describing an office that often lost paperwork.  Perhaps I'm a bit off, but to me, black hole is as much of a pop-culture word as it is a science term.  It's is referenced so often in TV and movies I'd be surprised to find people that didn't know what a black hole was.

I can kind of chalk the Texas situation to miscommunication, maybe...but Palin's crew knows better.  They saw an opportunity and are playing it, their base, and the media.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3607
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,13:39   

Political tricks are both old and common. I suspect the Republican strategy is simply to extract a price for the attacks on palin. I could have told the democrats that such attacks would backfire.

If you look at Republicans who have been defeated in recent decades, it has mostly been on significant issues. Goldwater and the bomb. Bush I and taxes.

If you look at Republicans who have won, it has been despite attacks on their personality and character. Nixon, for God's sake, won two elections. Reagan benefitted from the possibly accurate portrayal of him as senile. Bush II won dispite attempts to portray him as stupid.

Attacks on Palin, even if some turn out to be justified, have negative utility for Democrats.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,14:26   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 10 2008,13:39)
Attacks on Palin, even if some turn out to be justified, have negative utility for Democrats.

Have to totally disagree with you on this!

Miss Piggy has to go.  IMO, we can laugh her off of the stage.

If "You've been Palined", or "It's just Miss Piggy" become the answer to the questions, or the punchlines of late-night jokes, we can open the champagne.

Or, we can go with Matt Damon's "absurd".

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3607
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,14:57   

I'm just trying to stay in tune with reality here. Since the attacks on Palin started, McCain has taken the lead at Intrade. The personal attack isn't working. I understand the Enquirer has a hit piece on two of her children. That's like a paid ad for the McCain campaign.

It really takes some effort to make Republicans look clever, but the Democrats seem up to the task.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,15:15   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 10 2008,19:39)
[SNIP]

Attacks on Palin, even if some turn out to be justified, have negative utility for Democrats.

Well I agree entirely.

Focus on the issues, rise above the personality politics, it is where the Republicans (and conservatives in general) are weakest. Playing to the mob might get you elected (if you are lucky, it's failed before), but it never keeps you there.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3607
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,15:33   

Running a woman for VP turns out to be a good idea. To bad the Democrats didn't have that option.

Seriously, I never figured out why so many Democrats seem to hate Hillary.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,17:15   

I heartily disagree. I think the attacks are good. In the past everytime there has been an attack by the dems, there has been a manufactured outroar and the dems have backed down.

The polls are currently neck and neck. This is not because of the attacks but because of the convention boost. Think about it, you suddenly have all the right wing fundies suddenly saying that they will vote (there were a lot that said that they would never vote for mcCain), but the boost has only been a few percent. I think that the republicans lost a lot of votes from the middle purely because the lies and hypocracy is being pointed out by the Dems and it is working.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the swing go back to the Dems if Obama keeps holding McCain/Pallin to the fire.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,19:13   

DaveScot asks, "where is the peer review?"
         
Quote
Bad Science; Lack of Expert Peer Review
DaveScot

This isn’t intelligent design, per se, but just something that popped up on the Drudge Report and caught my attention. It’s about a research article that appeared in the Journal of Clinical Psychology where the researchers conclude that marijuana use causes earlier onset of psychosis...

Pssst...Dave...
         
Quote
...Where was the peer review that should have prevented this junk science from reaching the pages of the Journal of Clinical Psychology without correction of obvious flaws?

Dave!

Check your reference. Your article is from the "Journal of Clinical Psychiatry," not the "Journal of Clinical Psychology." How does junk like this get published at UD without correction of obvious flaws?

(Psychologists know how to do experimental work and have been more aware of developing research protocols with genuine experimental power than perhaps any other discipline. The logic of true experimentation, as distinct from observation of correlations, is taught to college freshman on day one of every introductory psychology course in the country. Publications in medicine and psychiatry are much more likely to present case studies and observations of correlations such as this.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
sparc



Posts: 1735
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,22:02   

Quote
How does junk like this get published at UD without correction of obvious flaws?
I guess while writing this DS was smoking something.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1073
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,22:10   

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 10 2008,22:02)
Quote
How does junk like this get published at UD without correction of obvious flaws?
I guess while writing this DS was smoking something.

And violating SLoT.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2008,23:44   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 10 2008,15:15)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 10 2008,19:39)
[SNIP]

Attacks on Palin, even if some turn out to be justified, have negative utility for Democrats.

Well I agree entirely.

Focus on the issues, rise above the personality politics, it is where the Republicans (and conservatives in general) are weakest. Playing to the mob might get you elected (if you are lucky, it's failed before), but it never keeps you there.

Louis

Funny - it's worked the last eight years.  All you have to do is get to power.  Don't commit any crimes on camera and make sure you stall any investigation - that's the secret of success.  

That and signing statements saying you are above the law (and maybe now and then a shotgun to the face).

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 9027
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,00:28   

Quote
Cause, Effect, and Cannabis.

Category: Accidental • Medicine • Science
Posted on: September 10, 2008 11:43 PM, by Mike Dunford

You have to give Uncommon Descent poster DaveScot credit. He's not one of life's overly specialized intellects. He's a good, old fashioned generalist, able to talk about absolutely any area of science with exactly the same degree of spectacular incompetence. Today, he's turned his attention to the intersection of mental health and substance abuse.



GOES HEAR TO READ SOME MORES!!!!!!!!!1111

EDATED TO MAKE LINK WORK STUPID LINK

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 11 2008,01:31

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,01:25   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2008,12:28)
Quote
Cause, Effect, and Cannabis.

Category: Accidental • Medicine • Science
Posted on: September 10, 2008 11:43 PM, by Mike Dunford

You have to give Uncommon Descent poster DaveScot credit. He's not one of life's overly specialized intellects. He's a good, old fashioned generalist, able to talk about absolutely any area of science with exactly the same degree of spectacular incompetence. Today, he's turned his attention to the intersection of mental health and substance abuse.



GOES HEAR TO READ SOME MORES!!!!!!!!!1111

EDATED TO MAKE LINK WORK STUPID LINK

countdown to daveScott disappearing his entry ....

  
stevestory



Posts: 9027
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,01:28   

Quote (bystander @ Sep. 11 2008,02:25)
countdown to entry disappearing ....

Quote
10 September 2008
Bad Science; Lack of Expert Peer Review
DaveScot

This isn’t intelligent design, per se, but just something that popped up on the Drudge Report and caught my attention. It’s about a research article that appeared in the Journal of Clinical Psychology where the researchers conclude that marijuana use causes earlier onset of psychosis.

This is a wonderful demonstration of how crap science that supports something politically correct is used and abused all the time.

The gist of it is that people who become psychotic at some age tend to become psychotic years younger if they are marijuana users and further that increasing amounts of marijuana used causes increasingly earlier onset of psychosis.

Immediately obvious to me is the possibility that voluntary marijuana use is a symptom of an underlying problem that has nothing to do with marijuana use. People often resort to recreational drug use to escape and/or ameliorate some underlying problem. Alcohol abuse is a classic case of being symptomatic of some other problem. These researchers had no control group to rule out the very likely possibility that people who tend toward psychosis are unconsciously or consciously attempting to self-medicate. The medication isn’t the cause, in other words, its a symptom. What you need to discriminate between cause and symptom is take a randomly selected group of people who aren’t marijuana users and administer marijuana to half the group and monitor all of them for onset of clinical psychosis. If marijuana is a cause then the marijuana user group will have a higher percentage of psychotics or if the same rate then earlier onset. If there is no difference in percentage or age of onset then marijuana use is simply symptomatic. If they’d done that they might even find that the non-user group has the worse problem with subsequent psychosis and the self-medication is actually effective to some degree.

But no, the researchers in fact did nothing at all to discriminate between cause and symptom and it’s obvious in seconds to even a casual observer such as myself that the study and its conclusions are flawed. Where was the peer review that should have prevented this junk science from reaching the pages of the Journal of Clinical Psychology without correction of obvious flaws?

The answer here is that when something is politically correct, like blaming marijuana for early onset psychosis or blaming CO2 for global warming or blaming religion for Darwinian skepticism, it gets funded easily and flies past peer review easily. If something isn’t politically correct funding is denied and publication refused.

Is that how science works now? Amazing. Perhaps we shouldn’t be focusing so much energy on the crossroads of religion and science but rather on the crossroads between politics and science, money and science, fads and science, fashion and science, fame and science, and so forth.


A little preemptive preservation.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,03:57   

Quote (Badger3k @ Sep. 11 2008,05:44)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 10 2008,15:15)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 10 2008,19:39)
[SNIP]

Attacks on Palin, even if some turn out to be justified, have negative utility for Democrats.

Well I agree entirely.

Focus on the issues, rise above the personality politics, it is where the Republicans (and conservatives in general) are weakest. Playing to the mob might get you elected (if you are lucky, it's failed before), but it never keeps you there.

Louis

Funny - it's worked the last eight years.  All you have to do is get to power.  Don't commit any crimes on camera and make sure you stall any investigation - that's the secret of success.  

That and signing statements saying you are above the law (and maybe now and then a shotgun to the face).

LOL perhaps "never" was a little strong. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1268
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,04:07   

The Discovery Institute today unveiled a multi-million dollar PR apparatus known as the Logicless Harangue Collider (LHC). The LHC is described as “an infinite echo-chamber” in which super-dense articles are debated in a circular manner until being smashed together. Leading scientists, ranging from undistinguished statistical theologians to refrigerator maintenance engineers, will study the ejecta to confirm some of their most fundamental preconceptions.

One of the most highly anticipated results of the LHC is the so-called ‘Hick’s Bozon’. The project’s project’s leader leader, Dr Dr W. A. Dembski, explained: “The Hick’s Bozon is a particle of no scientific weight, I mean, mass. However, it does exhibit a very high quantity of what we call spin. It’s name is a tribute to the Southern Baptist Convention, which has been praying for it as a sciencey sounding thingie they can use to dazzle the red-state rubes. I should add that as I have predicted it theoretically, this experiment is a superfluous detail which is rather pathetic.” Asked whether the LHC will help confirm his Big Bank Theory, Dr Dr Dembski was non-committal. But he gave a sly wink.

There has been some public concern as to whether the LHC could generate a black hole of inanity such that all intelligence could be sucked out of the Earth. In response, the LHC’s engineering janitor Mr Dave Tard, was reassuring. Speaking through a loudspeaker in the ceiling, he confirmed that intelligence was “very very unlikely” to be attracted to anything generated by the LHC. “That would require a critical mass, and anyone critical is by definition out of here”. He later qualified his statement, adding “homo -ds”.

The LHC’s publicity spokes-entity is Densye O’Bleary. He, she, or it is the author of several leading academic and popular colouring books on scientific-sounding stuff. Asked to explain the technical working of the LHC, O’Bleary responded “Buy my book. They all say the same thing, so buy any of them. Or all of them. Please.”

During calibration, the LHC will initially run at a lower level of operation. It is expected the Vice-President-to-be Palin will have an important role in government oversight of the project, so increasing acceleration is expected in the period leading up to November, generating a froth of fundamentalist articles. These are expected to be published in peer-reviewed journals, or at least, to be published in journals and reviewed by people who pee.




Edit: Thought of a better last line



Edited by Lou FCD on Sep. 13 2008,07:51

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2008,04:10   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 11 2008,10:07)
The Discovery Institute today unveiled a multi-million dollar PR apparatus known as the Logicless Harangue Collider (LHC).

[SNIP]

POTW.

Indeed it's POTW for at least the next few hours.

Well done.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]