N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
This comment is worth preserving
| Quote | [From Gary at http://ncse.com/blog.......4302543 , with numbering of paragraphs added by me]
[1] The standards (nor anything else) allows a teacher the right to teach Aristotle's view as being correct then leave all that later happened in science history out of the story. In that case it would be obvious that they are (in at least that topic) scientifically incompetent. But where a past court trial in Dover ends the discussion in 2005 without giving credit where due to all viable models in that scientific arena they are doing the exact same thing and are (in at least that topic) scientifically incompetent. It might not seem like a big deal, but to those it indirectly discredits it's all very creepy, even life destroying.
[2] In this case the Discovery Institute has a premise that where tested by a relatively common computer model from cognitive science it tests true. And with the way science is as unforgiving as hell to those who go against its logic structure phrases like "intelligent cause" can do all sorts of damage, especially when it's simply a type of "reciprocal cause" as per standard scientific naming convention. Without even knowing it the kids of the future are later laughing at science history (we are now making) where such a phrase being taken so religiously (by mostly Atheists) is amazing. Needing to fudge the way science phrases are supposed to be phrased is a form of science denial that can look scientific at the time (now) but in hindsight can look rather ridiculous.
[3] What should be happening is that the best "theory of intelligent design" gets discussed, regardless of where it comes from even a Planet Source Code. Where someone demands a $5,000+ announcement in a major science journal then that's their problem and should help pay for that and help putting something real nice together, which I certainly cannot afford. Having to declare poverty to waive publishing fees of something that most journals already said they will even treat as science makes it either a waste of time or very humiliating experience.
[4] I have been coding science models since the first PC became available with the (Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 1) where you publish it at an appropriate software repository, not Nature or PNAS that's more for biology lab findings. Expecting such a model and theory to have to somehow be tested in science journals for publishing university lab results is from not considering other possibilities. Starting with a relatively easy to understand coded computer model takes care of many problems that come from starting with something else that later has to be coded anyhow just to show that it actually works. Having to provide something else is moving the goalposts to some clubhouse where starting off with useful code is not required, just all talk no action.
[5] There is a scientific way out of the ID controversy, where you can look at it as giving the Discovery Institute what they asked for. Since it is like they are already preparing to be the BioLogos of whatever results for science theory they will probably not care and maybe love it. In this case it is not teaching anything it's just giving fair credit where due when appropriate so that the DI ultimately gets what they deserve from other forces that be. It's much like the space-race that got humans on the moon. The hostilities between nations led to competition that brought scientific invention then they were soon riding in space together.
[6] There is controversy involved but it's not what it used to be, now that I have something that shows what "theory of intelligent design" looks like in light of current scientific evidence. It's then easy to explain what the DI has been missing for science. A time saver when in need of a way to show why it went the way it did in Dover that leads back into science.
[7] Just a mention of such a thing existing might be good enough. And where a student just needs to know more so they can try coding something too then they only need the link. They might be thrilled to have to report success coding their own (by at least machine intelligence standards) intelligent critter. Winning a science fair with it would maybe excite me as much as them. It's the sort of thing that starts by mentioning a guy named Gary you met at the NCSE blog who has theory to help confirm that what the DI brought to Dover were arguments against another theory, not a theory of their own. Where it goes from there depends on what happens next after mentioning. If that's all the students need to know then you're done. Otherwise it should be easy enough to answer questions and there is more info is in the ID Lab for those who want to experiment with it at home.
[8] I look for ways to make less a need for you to get into the history of the DI or ID. Whatever can be taken out is history that does not belong in the science classroom. With it being one of things I try to eliminate it's in a way normal for me to want to get rid of as much science by "history" as is reasonably possible. Class time should be spent explaining how things work, to students who all find what you have to be fascinating. Or at least that's the best case scenario that I work towards. |
First paragraph. Translation: Supposedly, by ignoring Gary, science educators are being scientifically incompetent, and are thereby destroying Gary's life. Response: Gary, you have yet to give anyone any reason at all to pay attention to your stuff. You haven't demonstrated that you have any likelihood of being correct, but you have demonstrated lots of instances of being horribly wrong, which doesn't bode well. At this point, it would be professionally incompetent to include your stuff.
Second paragraph: Your model does not appear to be an adequate test of anything. It isn't ground-truthed, or verified by checking against real-world data. You haven't demonstrated that it is realistic. It is not relevant to your major assertions. It appears to be you playing with semantics and labels. Secondly, intelligence is expected to be an emergent phenomenon, as we see different levels of intelligence in different animals, and emergent phenomena can be described by reciprocal causation (or better, positive feedback systems). However, none of that is described by "design", so your name contradicts your claim. Worse, your model at best shows learning in an individual, not emergence of intelligence, so it's not relevant to your claims. Your complaint about "needing to fudge the way science phrases are supposed to be phrased" shows how deeply your misunderstand your shortcomings: this has never been about tweaking the wording to get an acceptable phrasing (although your stuff surely needs rewriting), but about your wandering far from science by not following scientific procedures, like following established definitions or providing adequate new definitions and justifying the need to change them, so that everyone knows exactly what you are talking about, including you.
Third paragraph: Most science journals request author fees but make decisions about publishing without requiring them. Also, they don't require declarations of poverty to waive fees, just a statement that you don't have any grant money.
The world of science is not responsible for useless rubbish appearing in non-peer-reviewed, non-published obscure sources. If someone comes across it and finds it worthwhile, fine, they'll cite it and apply it and others will become aware of it and use it. Once it passes some tests and becomes taken seriously, THEN it becomes a theory, but until then, it's not.
Fourth paragraph: Your model requires a lot more ground-truthing before it becomes a test of anything, and it would need to actually show emergence of intelligence before it can be considered to be a model of the emergence of intelligence. Journals like Nature do not publish computer models per se (although people put increasingly huge amounts of stuff into electronic Supplementary appendices these days), but they do publish results of simulations, if the models are sufficiently verified and tested (e.g., global climate models). There are journals that publish computer programs and simulations, e.g. Computers and Geosciences.
Fifth paragraph: At this point, there isn't an ID controversy - it's a failed, dead issue. At its height it was a cultural controversy, not science, brought on by people who had lost their cultural battles under the banner of scientific creationism, and were trying to find new ways of smuggling their religion back into science. It is moreover telling that even they see no more value in your stuff than we do. No credit is owed to you, and you are not the equivalent of the space race.
Seventh paragraph: Yes, your coding is visually impressive enough that it might well interest kids in doing more coding, but not when you encase it in unsupported and unsupportable rubbish about the emergence of intelligence and intelligent design. If you reworked it as a simulation of foraging behaviors, exploring various constraints and behavioral responses and strategies, it could be a nice addition to a science class or a coding class that would stimulate student interest.
Eighth paragraph: If you knew more about the history and practice of science, you'd know that scientific procedures are set up in significant part to protect scientists against themselves. The history of science shows the problem of scientists falling in love with their own ideas ("the easiest person to fool is yourself"). A scientist's job is to not find an explanation that satisfies himself or herself, but to present a case that will convert all doubters. "The strength of science is that some ideas can be demonstrated to be worse than some other ideas": i.e., you must show conclusively why they are better or worse. Someone once described the essence of science as “how will you know that an idea is correct when you think it is?” An alternative that makes the same point is, “the scientific method is everything that makes science scientist-proof (that’s why it’s so successful)”. That is the whole point behind T.C. Chamberlain's method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, which you notably fail to apply. At present, you may well end up getting mentioned in science classes, but as a counter-example of how not to do science.
|
