RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >   
  Topic: Synthese: Evolution..., And Its Rivals, Special Issue< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
utidjian



Posts: 185
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2011,11:43   

Quote (Kristine @ April 24 2011,18:55)
Posted! On an English-language site.

Quote
Did you actually say that Barbara Forrest "needs Haldol or something"? Is that civility? Is that a rational response to what you have termed "incivility"?
I call for more civility in this debate. You should apologize!

I "Like"d it.

About 1:12:00 in (the "discussion") the part where the camera turns to the audience reminds me of the "the Committee" in A Boy and His Dog (arguably Don Johnson's best part evar.)

But yeah... trying to listen to that Giem is like trying to read the GEM. Perhaps they are related?

-DU-

--------------
Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2011,14:39   

Quote (utidjian @ April 26 2011,11:43)
 
Quote (Kristine @ April 24 2011,18:55)
Posted! On an English-language site.

   
Quote
Did you actually say that Barbara Forrest "needs Haldol or something"? Is that civility? Is that a rational response to what you have termed "incivility"?
I call for more civility in this debate. You should apologize!

I "Like"d it.

About 1:12:00 in (the "discussion") the part where the camera turns to the audience reminds me of the "the Committee" in A Boy and His Dog (arguably Don Johnson's best part evar.)

But yeah... trying to listen to that Giem is like trying to read the GEM. Perhaps they are related?

-DU-

They look almost identical, except that GEM is missing an i.



--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4231
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2011,17:07   

Quote (Badger3k @ April 26 2011,01:37)
Quote (noncarborundum @ April 25 2011,20:10)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 25 2011,18:49)
   
Quote (noncarborundum @ April 25 2011,15:40)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2011,09:58)
       
Quote (clamboy @ April 24 2011,19:06)
You are all brave, brave people to sit through that. Less than ten minutes into Mr. Brimley's horrible delivery and I had to walk away.

I had to skip through. Not only was the talk without substance, but the delivery was stultifying.

This is what I imagine it would be like to attend a college class taught by kairosfocus.  Except that you couldn't just click the "pause" button before you dozed off entirely.

Pause button? I'd want it to be closer to over by the time I awoke, I think.

I was sort of assuming one didn't actually want to doze off in class if one could avoid it.  Your mileage may vary.

That also assumes that you had a choice of dozing off.  With some people, staying awake is not an option.  Try it - have somebody read one of his posts - see if you can stay awake!

What one needs for a GEM lecture is a scroll wheel. Works wonders on his posts!

--------------
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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2011,22:32   

I have been a bit thick witted today, and consequently did some useful plumbing, and gardening work. While clearing a drain, I had the inspiration that the solution to the Synthese fandango was obvious; the current editors should either resign, or be fired.

That taken care of, I think I'll go fishing tomorrow.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2011,23:42   

Quote (utidjian @ April 26 2011,09:43)
Quote (Kristine @ April 24 2011,18:55)
Posted! On an English-language site.

 
Quote
Did you actually say that Barbara Forrest "needs Haldol or something"? Is that civility? Is that a rational response to what you have termed "incivility"?
I call for more civility in this debate. You should apologize!

I "Like"d it.

About 1:12:00 in (the "discussion") the part where the camera turns to the audience reminds me of the "the Committee" in A Boy and His Dog (arguably Don Johnson's best part evar.)

But yeah... trying to listen to that Giem is like trying to read the GEM. Perhaps they are related?

-DU-

"Lack of respect, wrong attitude, failure to obey authority. The farm, immediately."

And no "arguably" about it. :-)

"Another helpful hint from... The Committee."

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,06:23   

Quote (Dr.GH @ April 26 2011,22:32)
I have been a bit thick witted today, and consequently did some useful plumbing, and gardening work. While clearing a drain, I had the inspiration that the solution to the Synthese fandango was obvious; the current editors should either resign, or be fired.

That taken care of, I think I'll go fishing tomorrow.

I'd settle for them to fix the mess with a retraction of the disclaimer and actually learn from the experience.

It doesn't look promising that way, though.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,06:46   

Is it just me, or does this Synthese business kinda cross with the fully blown Matzke/NCSE/BCSE controversy? Where can accomodationism lead us?

Wes, I'm raising this with due respect to your faith and beliefs, of course (which you have the grace not to flaunt except when really needed. I really appreciate this side of yourself :))

ETA: Typo

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,07:01   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 27 2011,06:46)
Is it just me, or does this Synthese business kinda cross with the fully blown Matzke/NCSE/BCSE controversy? Where can accomodationism lead us?

Wes, I'm raising this with due respect to your faith and beliefs, of course (which you have the grace not to flaunt except when really needed. I really appreciate this side of yourself :))

ETA: Typo

I'm not sure that the Synthese flap has anything to do with accommodation. Even if one goes with the idea of IDC pressure as the motivation for the Editors-in-Chief to publish a disclaimer, that's a bit different from implying that accommodation in the sense deployed by Coyne and others is going on. There is no issue raised in the Synthese disclaimer affair about a formal description of whether religion and science are compatible in some sense or any assertion that they are. Could you explain how you see the connection?

Back in 2006, I debated DI Fellow Ray Bohlin at Southern Methodist University. I didn't mention anything about my stance on faith until the question period, when an obviously agitated student got up and accused me of being there simply to advance the atheist agenda. I said that was news to me, since I was a member of the United Methodist church. He sat down.

I think it was really needed at that point.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,07:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2011,13:01)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 27 2011,06:46)
Is it just me, or does this Synthese business kinda cross with the fully blown Matzke/NCSE/BCSE controversy? Where can accomodationism lead us?

Wes, I'm raising this with due respect to your faith and beliefs, of course (which you have the grace not to flaunt except when really needed. I really appreciate this side of yourself :))

ETA: Typo

I'm not sure that the Synthese flap has anything to do with accommodation. Even if one goes with the idea of IDC pressure as the motivation for the Editors-in-Chief to publish a disclaimer, that's a bit different from implying that accommodation in the sense deployed by Coyne and others is going on. There is no issue raised in the Synthese disclaimer affair about a formal description of whether religion and science are compatible in some sense or any assertion that they are. Could you explain how you see the connection?

Back in 2006, I debated DI Fellow Ray Bohlin at Southern Methodist University. I didn't mention anything about my stance on faith until the question period, when an obviously agitated student got up and accused me of being there simply to advance the atheist agenda. I said that was news to me, since I was a member of the United Methodist church. He sat down.

I think it was really needed at that point.

Well, the way I see it, if there was indeed pressure from the IDC crowd and the Synthese editorial team bent to their demands, I will perceive it as accomodationism, and I'm quite positive some others will, although I'm only engaging my own views on the matter at hand. I think once a secular, scientific, or philosophical institution jumps through hoops to not obfuscate religious sensibilities, accomodationism is "en route".

Then again, maybe I'm a bit too extreme in my views. I don't know. To me, it seems that publishing the disclaimer is tantamount to saying "some of those papers are too harsh towards religious views", which shouldn't even appear in a seculare venture. Now, not being really familiar with Synthese, I might be wrong in assuming they are a secular venture. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And again, your line-drawing between religious and scientific matters does you credit, and should be the way to go for both the NCSE and the BCSE. But that's another debate altogether...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,07:29   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 27 2011,07:12)
Well, the way I see it, if there was indeed pressure from the IDC crowd and the Synthese editorial team bent to their demands, I will perceive it as accomodationism, and I'm quite positive some others will, although I'm only engaging my own views on the matter at hand. I think once a secular, scientific, or philosophical institution jumps through hoops to not obfuscate religious sensibilities, accomodationism is "en route".

Part of the problem I see here, SD, is conflation between accommodating the demands of creationists (of any stripe) with accommodating the religious sensibilities of the vast majority of people in order to better convey to them the message of sound science and science education.  The two are not the same thing, but seem to be treated as such by certain noisy cohorts.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,08:20   

Quote (carlsonjok @ April 27 2011,13:29)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 27 2011,07:12)
Well, the way I see it, if there was indeed pressure from the IDC crowd and the Synthese editorial team bent to their demands, I will perceive it as accomodationism, and I'm quite positive some others will, although I'm only engaging my own views on the matter at hand. I think once a secular, scientific, or philosophical institution jumps through hoops to not obfuscate religious sensibilities, accomodationism is "en route".

Part of the problem I see here, SD, is conflation between accommodating the demands of creationists (of any stripe) with accommodating the religious sensibilities of the vast majority of people in order to better convey to them the message of sound science and science education.  The two are not the same thing, but seem to be treated as such by certain noisy cohorts.

I wouldn't say these two views are being conflated. I would say that they are basically the same. NCSE and BCSE shouldn't publicly endorse theological views on science. They should focus on science, and most of all not allienate the "noisy cohorts" of die-hard atheists who are vocal on this subject. In fine, they should be silent on these issues. that's my opinion.

As for Synthese, what's the difference between Matzke accusing Dawkins of "ridiculously pulling the Nazi Card" towards the religious, and the editorial team implicitly accusing Dr Forrest of being too harsh to the religious (I know it's not specificaly implied, since they don't say which paper(s) is concerned by the disclaimer, but it seems everybody understands it's related to Dr Forrest's paper)?

Religious evolutionists? Good! Just don't compromise yourself by giving undue weight to their beliefs.

Butthurt creationists? Even better! Just don't compromise yourself by appologizing for justified attacks towards their beliefs.

Sorry for the disgression, back to topic...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,08:58   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2011,06:23)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 26 2011,22:32)
I have been a bit thick witted today, and consequently did some useful plumbing, and gardening work. While clearing a drain, I had the inspiration that the solution to the Synthese fandango was obvious; the current editors should either resign, or be fired.

That taken care of, I think I'll go fishing tomorrow.

I'd settle for them to fix the mess with a retraction of the disclaimer and actually learn from the experience.

It doesn't look promising that way, though.

I suspect that what is going on here is not accommodationism, but an attempt to avoid any criticism, whereas now we see certain members of the ID crowd crowing about the so-called "retraction." The editors need to respond to that, as well as to explain themselves.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,09:04   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 27 2011,08:20)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 27 2011,13:29)
 
Part of the problem I see here, SD, is conflation between accommodating the demands of creationists (of any stripe) with accommodating the religious sensibilities of the vast majority of people in order to better convey to them the message of sound science and science education.  The two are not the same thing, but seem to be treated as such by certain noisy cohorts.

I wouldn't say these two views are being conflated. I would say that they are basically the same.

I don't agree.  You don't treat the Presbyterian that lives next door, who isn't immersed in the controversy but has questions about it,  the same way you treat Casey Luskin.  Luskin deserves every bit of the derision directed at him.  Pull that with Bob at the neighborhood block party and you can be sure that he won't listen to another word you say, no matter how scientifically correct it is.

True story: I was once at a horse show with my wife and another couple.  A young lady arrived with her boyfriend in tow, and parked her trailer next to ours.  This was during football (real football, not that pansy shit they play in Yurrup) season, and the boyfriend was clearly not happy about being there and was generally rude to the young lady.  One of my friends went over and gave him the following advice:  Don't make her choose between you and her horses, because she isn't going to choose you.  I think that is advice that fits many situations.

For better or worse (YMMV), religion isn't going away.  If you wish to moot the influence of the creationists on science education, you need to bring religious believers into the pro-science camp.  You aren't going to do that by mocking their beliefs, no matter how worthy of mocking those beliefs may be.  To even get them to the place where they are open to information regarding sound science, they need to understand that they don't have to choose between science and their religion.  Their lives have been immersed in religion. Science was something they did for 45 minutes a day in school.  Ask them to choose one or the other, and I can pretty much guarantee you won't like their choice.

   
Quote
NCSE and BCSE shouldn't publicly endorse theological views on science.

To note the fact that certain Christian denominations are cool with evolution isn't the same as endorsing those particular sects.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,09:15   

Quote (carlsonjok @ April 27 2011,15:04)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 27 2011,08:20)
       
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 27 2011,13:29)
 
Part of the problem I see here, SD, is conflation between accommodating the demands of creationists (of any stripe) with accommodating the religious sensibilities of the vast majority of people in order to better convey to them the message of sound science and science education.  The two are not the same thing, but seem to be treated as such by certain noisy cohorts.

I wouldn't say these two views are being conflated. I would say that they are basically the same.

I don't agree.  You don't treat the Presbyterian that lives next door, who isn't immersed in the controversy but has questions about it,  the same way you treat Casey Luskin.  Luskin deserves every bit of the derision directed at him.  Pull that with Bob at the neighborhood block party and you can be sure that he won't listen to another word you say, no matter how scientifically correct it is.

True story: I was once at a horse show with my wife and another couple.  A young lady arrived with her boyfriend in tow, and parked her trailer next to ours.  This was during football (real football, not that pansy shit they play in Yurrup) season, and the boyfriend was clearly not happy about being there and was generally rude to the young lady.  One of my friends went over and gave him the following advice:  Don't make her choose between you and her horses, because she isn't going to choose you.  I think that is advice that fits many situations.

For better or worse (YMMV), religion isn't going away.  If you wish to moot the influence of the creationists on science education, you need to bring religious believers into the pro-science camp.  You aren't going to do that by mocking their beliefs, no matter how worthy of mocking those beliefs may be.  To even get them to the place where they are open to information regarding sound science, they need to understand that they don't have to choose between science and their religion.  Their lives have been immersed in religion. Science was something they did for 45 minutes a day in school.  Ask them to choose one or the other, and I can pretty much guarantee you won't like their choice.

       
Quote
NCSE and BCSE shouldn't publicly endorse theological views on science.

To note the fact that certain Christian denominations are cool with evolution isn't the same as endorsing those particular sects.

I never said the religious should be mocked (that would be utterly stupid and counter-productive). I just said their religious beliefs should not be encouraged or endorsed by organizations such as the NCSE or the BCSE. That's all, no more, no less. And these organizations shouldn't attack out-spoken atheists.

And the BCSE doesn't just note that "certain Christian nominations are cool with evolution". They actualy endorse these religious views.

From the BCSE site:

 
Quote
Properly understood, there is no conflict between religion and science…

Scientists will respect these beliefs of their religious colleagues, realizing they may very well provide those colleagues with the moral guidance which makes them better scientists

Religion properly provides the individual with the moral courage to act despite the possibility of failure.

Religion is responsible for humanity’s moral and spiritual guidance.


What do we make of that?

And again, it's a disgression on the main topic here. Sorry, it's my fault. Maybe we can take this somewhere else?

ETA: Linky

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,10:34   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 27 2011,09:15)

If this gets moved, please move this with the diversion - I've never seen this before (hadn't gone to the site yet):

Quote
Properly understood, there is no conflict between religion and science…

Ok, so I and many others are wrong.  We feel the same about you (Stanyard et al).  We'll bring our evidence, you bring yours.
Quote
Scientists will respect these beliefs of their religious colleagues, realizing they may very well provide those colleagues with the moral guidance which makes them better scientists

Wrong.  We criticize beliefs we consider misguided (ignorant, delusional, stupid, etc) all the time.  Do I have to respect my colleagues belief in homeopathy?  Why not?  Why the special exclusion?  That's what the debate is about.  I can respect the individual for other things, but if they hold a stupid belief, I have no requirement to respect that.  Period. Full stop.  Beyond that, the argument is a different one on tactics, which is situational anyway.
Quote
Religion properly provides the individual with the moral courage to act despite the possibility of failure.
and the moral courage to fly planes into buildings, or attack artists in their own homes with an axe, or kill them altogether, threaten them with fatwas, deprive millions of people with the right to marry or choose what to do with their own bodies or in their own homes...and many more.  A lot of other beliefs can provide the same things.  Irrelevant to if the belief is true or backed by reason and evidence.
Quote
Religion is responsible for humanity’s moral and spiritual guidance.
Bullshit.  Many things, including a long line of evolutionary development and civilization provide moral guidance.  Religion is not necessary for that.  As for "spiritual", since spiritual is a made up and useless word, the term is meaningless.  In this sense, spiritual guidance means following the religious beliefs, which is a...tautology?  Religion provides religious guidance?  I wonder what the BCSE says to those religions that do not find agreement between evolution and religion?  Aren't they saying the theological judgement that they are wrong, as the NCSE says?  Shouldn't they just not say that?

Sorry to add to the diversion.  Feel free to ignore this or move it to a separate thread with the other comments, please.

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,15:25   

Well, you should all stop complaining about UD and "silent banning." I am apparently not allowed to post on John Wilkin's blog.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,16:25   

I agree with Schroedinger's Dog's stance on the NCSE, the BCSE, and religion, but here is why I do not believe that that issue ("accommodation"), and the issue of ID, are the same here:

Scientists who uphold the standards of research, the scientific method, transparency, and peer review, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, while maintaining certain religious/spiritual beliefs, are not going to get an argument from me on the science.

If they want to argue with me about religion, then it's a separate argument, a tennis match about philosophy that I do not want to bring into the area of research or teaching.

My being an atheist is the least important to and least interesting thing about me. For this and many other reasons, it is not a "religion," and I do not find my lack of belief as fascinating to talk about as religious believers find their beliefs to be.

However, anyone claiming to be a scientist who does not uphold the standards of research, the scientific method, transparency (as the editors-in-chief of Synthese did not), and peer review, and instead skew the evidence toward their foregone conclusion (namely, their certain religious/spiritual beliefs), are going to get a big-ass argument from me on their religion masquerading as science.

Once I was attracted to the idea that "the universe comes to know itself through us." I have put that away, but it did not affect my understanding of evolution. I am not saying that such beliefs without evidence never touch upon evidence; what I am saying is that, when we focus on teaching and communicating the science, we are on much more solid ground than when we quibble about "but you think that Zeus caused the Big Bang!"

I think people have a right to mock or parody whatever they want. I would be the first to laugh if anyone at UD ever came up with anything funny. DaveScot showed the most potential, unfortunately. But this does not belong in science class.

Scholarly publishing, academia, and advocates for science (such as the NCSE) should not be getting into the area of trying to convince people to accept evolution once it is taught. They should not go there. They are not the thought police; their job is to make sure that creationism is not taught. Let's focus on the science. I have not read Forrest's paper yet, but if the editors-in-chief thought her too strident, they should have acted like editors, or stood by what was accepted and said, "This is how scholarly publishing works."

I want to win this fight for science first. I get tired of quibbling about religion because frankly, it does not interest me.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Henry J



Posts: 4012
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,16:29   

Quote
I am not saying that such beliefs without evidence never touch upon evidence; what I am saying is that, when we focus on teaching and communicating the science, we are on much more solid ground than when we quibble about "but you think that Zeus caused the Big Bang!"

Oh, that wasn't Zeus, it was Thor - a side effect of throwing around that big hammer of his.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,16:36   

Quote (Henry J @ April 27 2011,22:29)
Quote
I am not saying that such beliefs without evidence never touch upon evidence; what I am saying is that, when we focus on teaching and communicating the science, we are on much more solid ground than when we quibble about "but you think that Zeus caused the Big Bang!"

Oh, that wasn't Zeus, it was Thor - a side effect of throwing around that big hammer of his.

Went to the moving pictures today, have you?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2011,17:15   

Also, continuing with the disgression (we really have to open a new thred, methinks), here is an excellent short essai by Jerry Coyne about science and religion.

Seeing and believing

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2011,05:43   

I'll fix up later to trim the redundancies from this thread, but there's an accommodation thread now.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2011,05:53   

Thanks a lot Wes. And again, I want to appologize for the disgression.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2011,11:47   

A New York Times article on the Synthese flap:

Debate Over Intelligent Design Ensnares a Journal

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2011,11:54   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 26 2011,15:07)
What one needs for a GEM lecture is a scroll wheel. Works wonders on his posts!

Sort of like a prayer wheel.  All of the benefits (that is to say, none whatsoever) for very little effort.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2011,12:01   

The more they go after her, the more they push Barbara Forrest's name (and photograph) to the fore. The ID guys are going to end up the answer to a trivia question.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4231
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2011,14:17   

Quote (keiths @ May 14 2011,12:47)
A New York Times article on the Synthese flap:

Debate Over Intelligent Design Ensnares a Journal

This is the Mark Oppenheimer Dembski earlier characterized as "vile" and "despicable."

Now we like him, apparently.

--------------
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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2011,15:00   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 14 2011,14:17)
Quote (keiths @ May 14 2011,12:47)
A New York Times article on the Synthese flap:

Debate Over Intelligent Design Ensnares a Journal

This is the Mark Oppenheimer Dembski earlier characterized as "vile" and "despicable."

Now we like him, apparently.

Well, we all know how gallant Dembski has been in the past:
Quote
Dembski, who was himself to have been an expert witness for the defense, sat in on the early stages of her deposition. He was brooding presence, Forrest recalls, and extremely hostile.

“I just did my Southern magnolia routine on him,” says Forrest, “and made him shake my hand.”


--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2011,15:34   

Quote (Kristine @ May 14 2011,13:00)
Well, we all know how gallant Dembski has been in the past:
   
Quote
Dembski, who was himself to have been an expert witness for the defense, sat in on the early stages of her deposition. He was brooding presence, Forrest recalls, and extremely hostile.

“I just did my Southern magnolia routine on him,” says Forrest, “and made him shake my hand.”

Ah, yes, "Brave Sir Robin" Dembski.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2011,04:15   

The Synthese Editors-in-Chief have responded to the main petition. They created a domain for their response, whose single page presents exactly one image of text.

I have transcribed it.

Basically, they don't see that they got anything wrong in applying the disclaimer and keeping everybody with a direct interest in that decision in the dark.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2011,09:18   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 15 2011,04:15)
The Synthese Editors-in-Chief have responded to the main petition. They created a domain for their response, whose single page presents exactly one image of text.

I have transcribed it.

Basically, they don't see that they got anything wrong in applying the disclaimer and keeping everybody with a direct interest in that decision in the dark.

That was a crappy thing.

It's like the newspaper that prints one thing and then buries the retraction in the sports section underneath the hockey results.

No one notices and the original work keeps spewing forth.

They might as well have not done it and at least been consistent.  This just smacks of pandering.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  69 replies since April 19 2011,22:02 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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