(Post a new comment)

	damien 2005-11-29 05:47 am UTC (link)
	I love Scott Adams on so many levels, and not just because his name makes me think of Douglas Adams, but I've never heard of his blog before. I'd read it, but I don't think that I need more idols knocked off their pedastals. mourns for Pratchett (Reply to this)(Thread)

	miss_padfoot 2005-11-29 11:30 am UTC (link)
	Wait, Pratchett... what? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	tourette 2005-11-29 12:58 pm UTC (link)
	Agreed...what? :( (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	alpheratz 2005-11-29 05:28 pm UTC (link)
	Well, he's often borderline wanky on AFP, but I don't know if that's what damienraptore was talking about. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	damien 2005-11-30 06:40 am UTC (link)
	Icon heroworship. And what's AFP? I was actually talking about a personal encounter that someone I know had with him. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	calluna 2005-12-01 06:33 am UTC (link)
	AFP = alt.fan.pratchett (Reply to this)(Parent)

	damien 2005-11-30 06:39 am UTC (link)
	A friend of mine, her mother runs a bookstore and Pratchett once did a signing there. Apparently he's a completely arrogant wanker in person, according to her mother. I still love his books, but a little of the sparkly has worn off his image. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	tourette 2005-11-30 07:31 pm UTC (link)
	Well, I might hear you say that, but I've also heard plenty of people claiming he's cool and alright. optimism (Reply to this)(Parent)

wankprophet
2005-11-29 06:03 am UTC (link)

I love it. What people are finding infuriating about him is that he's quite frankly right about the essential issues of credibility. And he almost, almost kicked that terrifying elephant in the corner of the evolutionary parlor -- the fact that macro-evolution is only as credible as the importance you attach to the string of deductive logic that underlies it, and only as inassailable in Intelligent Design terms as the strength of your conviction in the non-interference of a deity.

Me, I'm a bloody agnostic with a reasonable amount of faith in the likelihood that Darwinian evolution is a pretty good approximation of how life has developed. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to the very real fallacies and dynamics underlying both sides of the argument.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	the_wanlorn 2005-11-29 06:38 am UTC (link)
	YE GODS HE HAS A CHRISTMAS HAT (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ealusaid 2005-11-29 07:58 am UTC (link)
	I know! It's so beautiful I actually couldn't drag my eyes away to read his comment. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	wankprophet 2005-11-29 03:30 pm UTC (link)
	It's a screencap from "Lord of the Rings Book IV: How the Grinch Kidnapped Sam." (Reply to this)(Parent)

	beccastareyes 2005-11-29 12:51 pm UTC (link)
	Well, couldn't you say that's true for any scientific theory? Science is a system of thought that only works if you assume that the universe behaves in a logical and predictable fashion, and, as such, effects can be traced back to causes with enough study and caffinated-beverage-of-choice. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

wankprophet
2005-11-29 03:29 pm UTC (link)

Soitainly. But what frustrates scientists in certain areas (lots of astrophysics, for instance) is that the inability to create empirical experiments to test their theories. Darwinian evolution makes sense, and neatly explains so much about both the fossil record and the record we have of micro-evolution. But the fossil record is always going to be extremely fragmentary, and it's a bitch to prove macro-evolution under rigid laboratory condition, seeing as the typical "event" takes thousands and millions of years. So when someone comes spouting about a creator and all that rot, the average evolutionist ultimately has to concede -- usually without grace -- that refutation is problematic. With empirically-verifiable issues, you have the same problem, of course, but since you can observe for yourself what happens and confirm the cause/effect in a way that means any involvement of a deity would be superfluous unless the very existence of causality exist only at the continued whim of a creator, it's easier to swallow the essential ontological dilemma. So the continued strength of the Intelligent Design crowd comes from having picked one area where the intervention of the "divine" could still be argued to be anything other than superfluous.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

beccastareyes
2005-11-29 03:58 pm UTC (link)

I'm an astrophysicist (well, a graduate student in astrophsyics), so I have to admit that, yeah, some sciences (astrophysics, evolutionary biology, etc -- anything where there's not much way to take it in your lab because of time scales) are problematic in studying (there's jokes about astronomy: 'It's wihtin an order of magnetude -- that's good enough'). The thing is, macroevolution seems to be more of a useful theory in biology (aka it explains things and makes predictions -- for example, we were able to tell that DNA from different animals should roughly correspond to their evolutionary origins) than ID AND ID seems to be even harder to refute than macroevolution (an unspecified being or beings created by an unknown process created life on Earth at some time on the past -- it's really a poorly formualted theory).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

wankprophet
2005-11-29 04:24 pm UTC (link)

Precisely. You've hit the nail on the head. ID survives almost entirely on its irrefutability, but that is nowhere nearly good enough supplant evolutionary theory, which has a helluva lot of observation and solid logic going for it. I've yet to hear a good reason why current evolutionary theory can't be isn't the best model we have today, and quite a few reasons why it is. So, to that extent, I embrace evolutionary theory without qualm. I'm not saying I'd be shocked into incomprehension if ID played a part -- I wouldn't be a good agnostic if I didn't allow for that possibility -- but evolutionary theory is so solid that even the ID folks only argue that it should be offered as an alternative theory, not as a replacement one.

But I feel it's important to acknowledge the complexity of the structures and parameters of debate underlying this controversy -- a theory, even a compelling one like Darwinistic evolution, should never be simply accepted at face value without strenuous examination of the reasoning and evidence underlying it. To do otherwise is intellectual weakness...not only in cases of debate, but in cases of progress. As a practical matter, Newtonian physics is all most of us ever need...but Einsteinian and quantum physics are necessary to our understanding of the universe because of weaknesses in Newtonian physics that even Newton himself acknowledged frankly. If ID accomplishes one thing, I hope it makes casual evolutionists confront the underpinning structures of the theory, for that is the sort of thing that leads to even better and more rigorous scientific formulations.

Thank god this is fandom_lounge...we're allowed to be serious here. :-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

I need a science icon sometimes...

beccastareyes
2005-11-29 04:33 pm UTC (link)

Heck, I'd be happier if the macroevolution/ID controversy (or anything, really) was really used to hit at 'This is How Science Works' to people who aren't scientists. I remember seeing a study (an older one) that asked first 'do you think evolution is true' and then asked the question describing Darwin's theory but not naming it, and the sample gave widly different degrees of agreement.

Agreed on the seriousness thing. Otherwise, I'd have to break out a silly icon or mention boobies in a non-biological sense as a Humourous Interlude.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I need a science icon sometimes...

wankprophet
2005-11-29 04:53 pm UTC (link)

Mentioning boobies is always appropriate. For instance: "Let me show you my boobies as examples of evolutionary progress."

I quite agree about the potential for education. Evolution has been such a popular part of our consciousness lo these last 200 years that it seems everyone has an opinion...but few people quite understand the technical aspects. For instance, you could ask around about the Chandrasekhar limit and the role of iron in supernovae, and most people wouldn't be able to give you an accurate description of the process...but they wouldn't be able to give you an inaccurate one either, since they'd likely have no idea what you're talking about. (Hell, I could give you a rough description, but given that I have a Masters in English, not Science, my approximation would be accurate...but not detailed.) Evolution, on the other hand, is well-known, but I suspect a large percentage of people who "believe" it don't have a clear idea how it really works. If I had to guess, I'd guess most people are actually vaguely Lamarckian in their understanding. So any explication of the technicalities of Darwinian evolution is a good thing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Evolutionary Boobies beccastareyes 2005-11-29 04:58 pm UTC (link)
	Well, it worked for Darwin in the Galapagos. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Evolutionary Boobies wankprophet 2005-11-29 05:05 pm UTC (link)
	Heh! Gotta love those native boobies. And their courtship ritual sounds a lot like dating at my highschool. Right now, I'm fantasizing an issue of National Geographic with the blurb "Inside: Darwin's Boobies!" on the cover. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Evolutionary Boobies ianthefira 2005-11-29 05:38 pm UTC (link)
	That would be AWESOME. Also, totally nodding and wording at the whole arguement up there. That's more or less how I feel about it and in better words than I can say. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kadath 2005-11-29 05:57 pm UTC (link)
	The problem is that IDers (who are really just creationists dressed up in an attempt to sit at the the grownups' table) are like a bunch of golfers trying to be allowed to play in the Superbowl. They're not playing the same game, but they want the rules to be rewritten out of some misplaced appeal to "fairness." (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	littleshebear 2005-11-29 07:35 pm UTC (link)
	Exactly, their methodologies are completely different. Science is (or at least, should be) falsifiable. ID isn't. (Reply to this)(Parent)

wankprophet
2005-11-29 11:50 pm UTC (link)

Which is quite true, as far as it goes. I think the primary problem here is that no-one is trying to understand the motivations of the ID proponents. Narrowmindedness and religious conviction may (or may not, depending on the individual in question) characterize a given proponent's ideological base, but dismissing them on that basis isn't conducive to understanding why they object to evolutionary theory in its current form. If "fairness" were the only issue, then evolutionists wouldn't be so vociferous in their objections -- after all, what scientist would object in fairness to alternative theories? Superstring theory has as little evidence going for it as ID, but no-one objects to superstring theory being offered as a possible explanation. Essentially, dismissing the ID perspective is fine, perhaps even sensible...if the one dismissing acknowledges the good and bad underlying assumptions of hir own beliefs, and giving cogent reason why the alternative suggestions are sufficiently lacking in validity that they should be treated as nonviable possibilities. Viability, after all, is what it's all about. And the hostility put forth has, I suspect, less to do with viability and more to do with preconceptions and insecurity. Personally, seeing as I generally consider ID rather baseless, I'm all for rejecting ID as a topic for school science classes -- but only if the policy-makers do so for the right reasons.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kadath
2005-11-30 12:13 am UTC (link)

If "fairness" were the only issue, then evolutionists wouldn't be so vociferous in their objections -- after all, what scientist would object in fairness to alternative theories?

ID is not in any scientifically recognizable sense a "theory." Scientists are pissed that a rather empty philosophical idea is trying to co-opt the language of science in order to undermine real science. My sports analogy was calculated--there is not necessarily anything wrong with golf (a different discussion, that), but it ain't football. Evolution and ID play by two different sets of rules, and only one is science. ID makes no testable claims and has no predictive or explanatory power. It boils down to the fallacious argument from incredulity and is not logically parsimonious. In short, it fails every test a scientific theory has to withstand.

Superstring theory has as little evidence going for it as ID ...

It's not solely a matter of evidence. String theory is based on observation and makes testable predictions, and consequently goes in the "out there, but still science" box, whereas ID, as I mentioned above, is based on incredulity. Superstring theory has already been superseded by membrane theory, if I remember my abtruse theoretical physics correctly. On the other hand, Behe's clotting cascade, for years one of the ID movement's star examples of irreducible complexity, has been disproved, but there has been no alteration of the "theory" because it is as nebulous as interstellar hydrogen.

... if the one dismissing acknowledges the good and bad underlying assumptions of hir own beliefs, and giving cogent reason why the alternative suggestions are sufficiently lacking in validity that they should be treated as nonviable possibilities.

You're arguing for balance where none exists. No reputable biologists support ID. Its claim to being science has been demolished over and over again. The debate is a political one, and objecting to a scientific theory on political or moral grounds is as foolish as objecting to an economic theory on agricultural or architectural ones.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Ummm...

wankprophet
2005-11-30 12:41 am UTC (link)

Well, no, I'm not arguing for balance; I've been quite clear more than once that I support the one side, evolutionists. Which, as Adams alluded to in that last link, demonstrates one of the reasons these debates never get resolved -- simply defining the parameters and discussing frequently gets interpreted as taking a position against that of the observer/debater.

You've basically ignored my actual point in favor of arguing against ID. Since I wasn't arguing for it, we have no common ground for discussion. My point was simply that the debate exposes the foibles and fallabilities of the evolutionist side, and, if anything good can come out of it, I would hope it would be a more intellectually-rigorous examination of the assumptions and evidence underlying it. The nature of the debate resembles a culture war for a good reason -- the tensions have less to do with "good science" than one might expect. The reason for that is simple: virtually nobody is willing to concede any of the numerous valid issues that need addressing in their own positions. The population in general is being taught bad science simply by the omission of discussion of the very real issues that underlie any scientific credo, issues such as verifiability, empiricism, causality, et al. The debate could be used to educate, help people to think for themselves; instead, it has often degenerated into "omg, u oppress me, you hateful religious types!" Just to make my point explicit: I support Darwinian evolutionary theory as the most viable theory we have today. I do so in full knowledge of its weaknesses. But I don't believe that the current climate of debate has engendered similar knowledge in the average layman simply because any honest appraisal of evolutionary theory is avoided in the name of politics.

Many reputable scientists, incidentally, believe superstring theory will ultimately prove to be empirically unverifiable. Making predictions based on it is a good way to test its viability as a model, but, as Newton could have told you, predictive ability in a model does not equal verifiability. So the analogy wasn't inapt.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kadath
2005-11-30 12:50 am UTC (link)

My point, which I really only got to at the tail end, granted, is that science is not about motivations. It is solely about ideas and the evidence that supports or disproves them. The only valid position in science is methodological naturalism. That there is any debate on the matter of evolution is simply support of Twain's opinions on school boards.

(Shorter than I would like, because I have to run to an appointment.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Ummm... ladystarlight 2005-11-30 07:02 pm UTC (link)
	No idea what you're saying but I love those big sexy words you're using - plz to continue! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Ummm... wankprophet 2005-12-03 05:42 am UTC (link)
	Heh, we're done, I think. We've all explained our positions and now we -- or at least me -- are getting back to making fun of stoopid peepul. Which is yummy. (Reply to this)(Parent)

frequentmouse
2005-11-30 06:04 am UTC (link)

"Belief" in the scientific method is not like belief in a religious system- indeed, it's not really belief at all, it's willingness to accept experimental proof.

Scientific proof is not like legal proof, and even less like what most people mean when they say "proof". The more scientists try to convince people using scientific evidence and techniques, the more the non-scientists perceive them as being unsure of their material, or openly deceitful. That the reasoning behind evolutionary biology is subjected to the same standard of proof as the reasoning behind medical science (not medical practice: please note the difference) doean't seem to sink in.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

fuzzytowers
2005-12-02 05:20 am UTC (link)

I'm an Atheist who wants everyone to STFU, observe lab findings, keep digging up bones, listen to each other, and just keep an open mind. No one ever got anywhere in science by shutting off a source of inquiry.

Scientists know that. Reasonable religionists know that.

If we could make hard-core fundamentalists stop whining so loudly it would be so much better.

I dig the hat.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	qem_chibati 2005-11-29 06:43 am UTC (link)
	As I scroll down the answers grow longer and longer and I think. Why are you there. (Reply to this)

xero_sky
2005-11-29 07:07 am UTC (link)

My home town is Shrewsbury, the birthplace of Charles Darwin. A small market-town backwater, it’s only other distinguishing features are the invention of a small fruit-encrusted biscuit (the ‘Fruit Shrewsbury’), sheep farming and Friday night post-pub fighting.

So can’t we all just accept evolution with blind and unswerving loyalty? Don’t just leave us with the biscuits and the brawling. And the sheep.

*wipes a tear* Damn you, you heartless Kansas school board people! *shakes fist* Have you no sense of decency? How can you condemn the poor people of Shrewsbury to brawling, biscuits, and sheep ~~buggering~~??

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	kroki_refur 2005-11-29 01:55 pm UTC (link)
	They forgot the excellent Cadfael series... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	princessdot 2005-11-30 12:18 am UTC (link)
	~cries~ I loved that series on PBS! (Reply to this)(Parent)

eilan
2005-11-29 11:52 am UTC (link)

The people who purport to have evidence of evolution do a spectacular job of making themselves non-credible.

Like every one of my Biology professors? Or every one of my Biology teachers?

He has obviously been listening to the wrong people and read the wrong books. I recommend 'Evolutionary Genetics' by John Maynard Smith, but I don't know if that's what people who argue ID versus Evolution really are looking for. ..

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	fuzzytowers 2005-12-02 05:32 am UTC (link)
	I agree. I was amazed when I read that line. I can't imagine where he's been looking because I've found loads of wonderful information on Evolution that is clear even to me. I've yet to see a credible IDer. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	brick_me 2005-11-29 11:57 am UTC (link)
	I love Scott Adams. I used to pick up the Dilbert books at the bookshop just so I could read the introductions, where he always tried to piss everyone off. (I particularly liked the line about "I may be dumb, but I'm not dumb enough to express my true opinion on anything important." I wish I could find that book again.) And now, I find out he's moved on to blogging! Oh, love. (Reply to this)

kroki_refur
2005-11-29 02:00 pm UTC (link)

I don't really get the logic about the skeletons in a box. So the fact that you can fit all the evidence "that count" in a "small" box means it's not real evidence? Does that mean that there's no credible argument for the existence of mice, since although there are lots of mice, only one mouse counts as evidence, and I could fit it in a small box without even crushing it? Worse yet, does that mean that there's no compelling evidence for the existence of boobies?

What a bleak and grim world that man must live in...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	phosfate 2005-11-29 03:14 pm UTC (link)
	What a bleak and grim world that man must live in... If his books are anything to go by, yes. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	wankprophet 2005-11-29 05:06 pm UTC (link)
	Ratbert was, like, the final omen of madness, wasn't he. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2005-11-29 05:11 pm UTC (link)
	Who? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	wankprophet 2005-11-29 05:16 pm UTC (link)
	Ratbert, at the bottom. Madness, I tell you. Scott Adams just lost his grip on reality a while back. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2005-11-29 05:20 pm UTC (link)
	There's a Catbert? Jesus. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	nekoneko 2005-11-29 11:01 pm UTC (link)
	Catbert is fun. He's evil. Ratbert... is just stupid. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	dejla 2005-11-29 06:45 pm UTC (link)
	Well, I don't think he's stupid. Desperate for attention of any kind, yes, but not stupid. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	pariforma 2005-12-02 05:18 pm UTC (link)
	Your icon has hypnotized me. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kadath 2005-11-29 07:07 pm UTC (link)
	This popped up on the LJ atheism comm a while back, and much scorn was indulged in by all. Of course, there are a load of 16 year-old nihilists in that comm, so I don't know how good we came out looking. (Reply to this)