Well, does that guy on the picture behind Ayatollah Jannati really deserve the black turban of a “seyed”, a descendant of the prophet?

Posted by: b | Aug 27 2005 15:45 utc | 3

“We must congratulate the Iraqi people and authorities for this victory,” he said.
By “authorities,” is he referring to Bush and the neocons?

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 27 2005 16:11 utc | 5

Love this MoDo sentence from her piece today:

Iraq, it turns out, is the one branch of American government that the Republicans don’t control.

Also choicy:

W. had a barbecue for the press on Thursday night. (If only the press had grilled him instead.)

Posted by: b | Aug 27 2005 16:49 utc | 7

Billmon omitted the best part of the article:
Jannati said the rising oil prices had placed Iran on a sound financial footing

Posted by: jj | Aug 27 2005 18:11 utc | 9

Hey, Democracy is a messy!

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 27 2005 22:08 utc | 11

tante aime said: “Saddam is in leg-irons…”
He is no such thing tante. Reminds me of the too-often-repeated “alQaida did it” bullshit meme. As long as you (we) are scammed into repeating the propaganda we will lose the war against the reptiles.
Now I’ve made the challenge and I have to back it up. Saddam has certain ear shape and other characterisrics that can’t be altered by surgery or photoshop. The present inmate doesn’t have them. He is a substitute. For instance he, the present inmate, has fired his team of lawyers more than once, or at least Saddam’s daughter has. Don’t you get the feeling that it just could be that if too much is known, if too many questions are asked, that the scam will collapse? (I have been waiting for an accidental death of the present inmate, to shut it all down, but so far they have decided to keep him alive.)
Saddam the real one was ferried out of Iraq well before the shit hit the fan during the invasion, because he has been a player from the beginning. With Bush Sr. He is being taken care of. That is my opinion based on available evidence.

Posted by: rapt | Aug 27 2005 22:34 utc | 13

According to Idiot-in-Chief’s “speech” this am, sounds like it’s Onward Christian Soldiers, Onward to Iran.
“Our efforts in Iraq and the broader Middle Eastwill require more time, more sacrifice and continued resolve,” he said in his weekly radio address.
link

Posted by: jj | Aug 27 2005 23:27 utc | 15

If someone knows, these are my questions and their bases:
Bases:
1. Somewhere in the posts about the new Iraqi constitution, I came across the factoid that Bremmer’s illegal “liberalization” of the Iraqi economy will be preserved in the new constitution.
2. The second factoid is that there’s plenty of evidence that the US government has spent a lot of money creating permanent military bases in Iraq. Arguably, securing those bases was among the premiere unstated causes of the war.
Questions:
1. Why do so many people assume that W’s premiere goal is to secure a pretext for declaring vistory and withdrawing? (I assume the White House clique would be happy to have the Shi’ites and Kurds eliminate whatever anti-constitutional faction arises in a no holds barred, US assisted civil war. After all, once there’s a constitution, there’s a legitimate government of Iraq. While this appears to beg the question of why the US would try to put together as much support for the constitution as possible, for this to work, that document does have to have a semblance of legitimacy.)
2. Could the reactionaries being willing to cut almost any deal on a seemingly legitimate constitution as long as the two provisions I cited as the bases for these questions are preserved?
3. Could this be the ring by which the pro-Iranian Shi’ites have been leading the neo cons by the nose? The upshot of this would be that parties like SCIRI would assure the Bush clique that the provisions they want in the constitution will be there until they no longer US support.

Posted by: optional | Aug 28 2005 0:27 utc | 17

Rather long, and I apologise, but it needs to be said, and I’m interested.
From somewhere on randi.org

SCIENCE & PSEUDOSCIENCE: THE DIFFERENCES.
I’m often asked for my personal definition of “science,” and I usually limit it to this: Science is an organized, disciplined, unbiased search for knowledge of the world around us. Given the opportunity, I hasten to add to this my observations that science does not discover “facts,” but rather it finds statements (theories, formulae, descriptions) as a result of having examined the real world, statements that describe what may be expected to be found under stated conditions. And, just as importantly, science is always prepared to adjust, reverse, abandon, and/or add/subtract to/from its statements, in order to more closely approach “the truth.” Obviously, we can always go on from there to define “truth,” which I regard as an unreachable goal (truth, not the definition) — though in spite of Zeno’s Paradox, we do eventually and essentially get there. But let’s not examine that can of worms….
Science and pseudoscience are exact opposites, as are rationality and religion. Science, as a working method, employs basic principles such as objectivity and accuracy to establish a finding. It often also uses certain admitted assumptions about reality, assumptions that must eventually support themselves and be proven, or the resulting finding fails verification. Pseudoscience, however, uses invented modes of analysis which it pretends or professes meet the requirements of scientific method, but which in fact violate its essential attributes. Many obvious examples of pseudoscience are easy to identify, but the more subtle and therefore more insidious and convincing cases, require better definitions of the attributes involved.
Religion is based on blind faith; it is not evidence-based. It rests on basic beliefs — dogma — that are not derived nor supported by observation or by performance, but by need. It is wishful thinking used to simplify everything; it requires no real thinking. It survives on the need for an uncomplicated and easily explained world, and prides itself on its rejection of rationality. Its mascot/saint is Pollyanna. Religion eschews reason, investigation, and logic, as disturbing and unwanted elements of life. Religion is comforting, but also sophistic and — to me — soporific. I’ll have none of it.
For a better understanding of science, it is of primary importance to realize that knowledge is advancing rapidly, in the accelerating mode referred to as “geometric progression.” Many times, what was once regarded as legitimate science has later come to be viewed, and shown to be, pseudoscience. I was recently asked by the ABC-TV 20/20 people for examples of science having apparently “proven” something, and then having been forced to admit that it had been wrong. This proved to be a very interesting inquiry; while we still have some demonstrably erroneous ideas such as “cold fusion” with us, certain other just-as-powerful notions in the past rose and fell rather quickly. Phrenology is a good example of that class, one that I offered to ABC. This was a once-science that involved deducing character, abilities, and proclivities by interpreting the bumps and depressions generally found on the skull. It was at one time actually regarded as a legitimate type of psychology, and at the JREF we have a collection of more than forty books dealing with this subject. I must explain that the only reason we have this extensive a section in our library is that it arrived as part of a large shipment from an auction purchase which contained much more valuable material. Those who examine this part of our collection often join me in speculating about the colossal expenditure of time and talent that was squandered in creating such volumes as those shown here in our illustration; books expounding on this delusion can be found on our shelves in five different languages. Today, phrenology is looked upon as just another device invented by naïve scientists, then used by others for duping ignorant laymen. Although its originators (Gall, Spurzheim, Combe) might have actually believed it to be valid, certainly the subsequent practitioners had to have discovered that it was nonsense.
Other once-sciences would include astrology — predicting the future by the stars, palmistry — predicting a person’s future and character by “reading the life lines” on the palm, or numerology — predicting one’s future by interpreting the order of numbers in the birth date, or the numbered-order of the letters in the name. These were all at one time regarded as fairly reputable sciences, and millions of words were written about them. Courses in some universities were offered in these “ologies,” and degrees were awarded. Today they are clearly defined as quackery, though such bed-companions as homeopathy and chiropractic have yet to fully make this transition. I’ll add that astrology is still actually offered as a course at the Kepler College of Astrological Arts & Sciences in Lynnwood, Washington, and as part of the standard curriculum at certain Indian Universities. Incredible, but true….
It’s comforting to know that some curious and dedicated scientists have actually troubled to look into such strange “discoveries” as “polywater” and “N-rays,” and have relegated these to the trash bin — though these phenomena were both thought, at one time, to be glowing examples of progress in chemistry and in physics, respectively. The first was thought to be water with super-wet characteristics; the evidence offered for this conclusion was found to have been the result of laboratory glassware with unnoticed traces of detergent present; that would certainly increase the “wetting ability” of the contents. “N-rays” were a finding of the French at the beginning of the last century — considered by them to be a parallel discovery to the Germans’ Röntgen Rays which we now call “X-rays.” N-rays were “found” and investigated by a very prominent and much-awarded Gallic scientist (René Blondlot) who claimed that they were emitted by an amazing variety of substances. They were, he said, invisible and very difficult to detect and to evaluate. Indeed they were: they didn’t exist at all. Though some 30 scientific papers reporting additional validation and characteristics of the supposed rays had been issued by academics all over the world during the first few months after the announcement of their birth, those reports were all quietly withdrawn when the subject was found to be imaginary. In both polywater and N-rays, science nicely corrected itself, as it was designed to do.
Ah, but don’t think that we are presently free of wrong-headed notions originated by trained and accredited scientists. For example, though N-rays are long gone, we now have “E-rays” to deal with. These, discovered recently by German science, are said to originate from unknown sources deep within the Earth, and cannot be detected by any known scientific means — except by dowsing rods and certain hand-held “secret technology” devices. In Europe, special blankets, amulets, and other shielding devices, as well as detecting “meters,” are sold widely to protect people from the cancer-inducing effects of this mysterious radiation, and an entire industry has sprung up based upon this totally spurious claim. Here in the United States, we can take great pseudo-pride in the discovery of “cold fusion,” a notion that is still prevalent in some circles, joining the free-energy and perpetual-motion claims that have cost countless millions of research dollars that could have been usefully spent.
One problem in identifying pseudoscience is that some loosely-accepted methodological approaches to important questions are partly scientific and partly pseudoscientific, combining legitimate with illegitimate methods, inferences, and/or assumptions. Two examples of this are, first, what’s known as naturopathy — a notion which rests partly on verified physiological principles and partly on scientifically unsound ideas of how the human body works, and second, what’s called “religious science” — which rests partly on objectively verified psychological principles of suggestibility such as “mind-over-matter” and partly on scientifically unconfirmed notions of bodily processes such as that all illness is “mental” and can be cured by thought alone.
The general features of a pseudoscientific approach to phenomena are those which ignore, deny or violate the essential attributes of valid science. Among the outstanding hallmarks of a pseudoscience are that:
It is illogical, violating one or more of the basic rules of inference, definition, argument, or proof; think of homeopathy and extreme dilution.
Pseudoscience is unsystematic in that its various parts do not necessarily relate to and support each other. It has no consistency; think of astrology vs. astronomy.
It begs for suspension of some basic rules of reason and established modes of examining theories and ideas, claiming exemption from those “outmoded” procedures because of its own far-reaching assumptions; think cold fusion and basic physics.
It is usually subjective rather than objective, often relying on unique personal interpretations of phenomena made by a particular authority — a dogma, a Bible or its equivalent, some sort of oracle, or a charismatic leader, one perceived by his or her followers as having god-like qualities; think of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, and of Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science.
Pseudoscience is “fixed” or “closed” rather than accumulative and progressive; its statements are not changed to agree with new evidence. The Church taught that the Sun was perfect and unblemished, and condemned a real scientist such as Galileo when he found it was marked with spots. They could not incorporate this discovery into their view of their God’s creation.
One sure test of any truly scientific statement is its ability to predict the future — to say what will happen under given circumstances. When subjected to valid and objective measures of prediction, pseudoscience performs no better in this respect than does random guesswork alone, in contrast to real science; think of history as predicted by astrology, compared to gravity and s = ut + ½at2.
Since the layman is untrained in the basic intellectual aspects of science, he often cannot distinguish between legitimate scientists and their imitators. All around him, every day, he hears or sees apparent authorities — often with titles, genuine or assumed — who exhort him to believe their assertions. The resolution of this quandary is an overwhelming task for the layman, for who and what is reputable — and therefore reliable — in science, is a question demanding knowledge both of science in general and of the particular field involved. Therefore, the non-specialist is very often confused by conflicting claims made in the name of science. The legitimate scientist himself, at times, can be thus misled when faced with seemingly cogent arguments that lie outside of his field of special knowledge. In parapsychology, this is frequently found: parapsychologists — in common with other scientists — are often unwilling to call in specialists such as conjurers, who may very well have the specialized expertise required to explain factors that would otherwise not be understood — or even noticed — by the observer untrained in that respect.
(Currently, my local PBS-TV stations are featuring both Dr. Wayne Dyer and Dr. Gary Null in their pledging period, to take advantage of the public’s taste for quackery. Both these men flaunt degrees, both deal in nonsense. Dyer makes incredibly naïve statements such as that if you just summon up enough determination, “anything is possible,” and Null prescribes magnets and other medieval tools to prevent aging. He preaches eternal youth. Now, Null is less than 60 years old, but I recognize dyed hair and make-up, and he looks much older even than I, a man who has 15 years on him. How could that be? My guess is that PBS’s most favored peddler of magic, King of Quacks Deepak Chopra, is busy elsewhere selling his nostrums and isn’t available to PBS this season.)
There is another false notion commonly held by the layman, that major scientific discoveries are often the products of amateur minds, and therefore that the authority of the scientist is sometimes to be critically suspected. The philosophical assumption of this is that the discovery of some new fact or idea is usually a matter of accident, and therefore that discovery in science is essentially no different than, say, the finding of a buried treasure, and anyone might stumble onto a chest of doubloons without having any education. While there was a time when big discoveries were made by gifted individuals — think of Alexander Fleming and penicillin, Marconi and radio — most developments are now brought about by organized teams or committees; think of the transistor and of Lunar exploration.
Of course, as we have often seen, a few trained scientists are simply charlatans, and a larger percentage are honestly self-deluded. For any scientist to assume that because he is highly educated he cannot therefore be deluded nor deceived, is a grave error. The layman has much greater difficulty differentiating between the real scientists and the scientists who are simply — innocently — wrong and have chosen to take up residence in that fabled — and increasingly crowded — Ivory Tower. While a scientist in a free society has the same right as any other citizen to speak out on any topic he wishes, many reputable scientists choose to speak or write publicly on subjects outside their established fields of accomplishment or expertise. When a scientist purports to speak authoritatively outside his field of knowledge, he may then be exploiting his reputation — accomplishments and attributes — and playing on that reputation to extend his authority in a possibly unrelated field. An academic who has achieved credibility in the field of statistics cannot legitimately claim that he therefore speaks authoritatively on politics, nor that he is able to detect trickery. In today’s society, we are very accustomed to see celebrities — all too often people in science — endorsing various products and services that have no relationship whatsoever to their professional lives, and motion picture stars sell soap and mortgage plans freely without arousing very much wonder from the public about why they are found on our TV screens and in our magazines performing this task. We are easily blinded by glamour and reputation, which often do not lend any validation whatsoever to such endorsements. This applies both to movie stars and to Ph.D.s.
Then, too, popular views of science are often colored by a variation of Rousseau’s “noble savage” theme — many believe that modern discoveries simply had to have existed in ancient times, and the further back in time, the better. They point to such things as the very early — and successful — use of various plant-derived substances by witchdoctors, and the very early recognition by Chinese scholars of the fundamentals of integral calculus — they discovered how to calculate the area of the circle, but then apparently went no further with this wonderful idea. While it’s true that early thinkers often came upon very important discoveries, it was often by accident; digitalis would be an excellent example of an accidental discovery, though its effects needed to be observed and then carefully recorded in order to enter primitive pharmacopoeias. However, determining the area of a shape that could not be simply divided into a set of triangles, took a determined application of intellect and curiosity. That discovery was not stumbled upon; it was purposely sought out.
How often I hear that gleeful cry, “Science doesn’t know everything!” or “Science isn’t sure of anything!” thrown up to me as evidence of my abysmal naivety. The exultation and jeers increase when I freely admit that both those statements are very true, since that admission seems to establish the imperfection of science, while it does exactly the opposite. Science has never claimed to “know” everything, or for that matter, anything, to any absolute certainty.
That is its glory, not its shame. It expresses statements, relationships, and measurements, it predicts outcomes of given circumstances, and it provides information — all of which are tentative though well-founded and dependable to definable degrees. We learn from what science reveals, how to handle and grow within the limitations of our world, how to survive, and how to convey to other generations what we have learned.
And that is beautiful.

Posted by: gmac | Aug 28 2005 2:43 utc | 19

gmac:
“That is its (science’s) glory, not its shame. We learn from what science reveals, how to handle and grow within the limitations of our world, how to survive, and how to convey to other generations what we have learned.”
You forgot, alas, to address the impact of “science” on the public sector, a corporate-
socialist-Tower-of-Babel, as you know. This
great ganesh of Lord Science and His 100,000 Demi-gods, each with their four hands out for
the public dole, one hand holding the lash,
one hand holding the hook, one hand holding
the permit of delusion, one firmly grasping.
Bugger the limitation of our wallets.
And that is decidely *not* beautiful.

Posted by: Larry Ellison | Aug 28 2005 5:04 utc | 21

fauxreak gas poekn

Posted by: jonku | Aug 28 2005 8:30 utc | 23

optional,
This is whats been bugin’ me all along, the privitization provision (#39 I think) and the bases — and we can only wonder what a-priori havoc these “demands” are having on the constitutional process. They do represent the long term “interests” of the US, as the overt hegemony of both the Iraqi economy and control of military assets both within and without Iraqs sphere. This may account for the fracture within the Shia community, in that Sadr, always against ocupation and being the representative of the (economically) marginalized, has again lost faith in the official Shia position of playing along with the US in some degree — and has brought forth again the spector of a Shia/Sunni alliance against occupation. I would imagine these issues,in spite of receiving no press, are at the heart of the failed negotiations — that the new constitution would include provisions that preserve open ended backdoor control of both the Iraqi economy and the military (& intellegence) would be acceptable — is a bridge way to far. The fact that it never comes up as the bone of contention, probably means that it is.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 28 2005 8:42 utc | 25

fauxreal,
What i dont get is this insistance that the great designer, the designer of the universe both as we know it, and as we learn everyday, we dont know it — that this great designer would do all this in the same manner as some person sitting there constructing something as mundane as say a watch. Personally, I find it just a little bit absurd to consider God as I would a person — with an intention, an idea, a few tools, what the fuck, design a universe. I mean really, this is simply an attempt at elevating a posture (human) as made of the same stuff as a God, which in the end is an insult to God (however you want to conceive it).

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 28 2005 9:06 utc | 27

Shorter Mike L.: Nobody can know anything for sure; so therefore, trust in God.
P.S. I’m a liberal.

Posted by: shpx.ohfu | Aug 28 2005 10:16 utc | 29

“so why not show up, give us all a collective cuff to the head and set us on the right path?”
You don’t get it, do you? We ARE on the right path. Man is an ontological hoax.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 28 2005 13:50 utc | 31

MikeL- My “therefore” is there for the reasons I stated in the second paragraph- scientific method is about reproduceable results, either via mathematical theory, in some subjects, or observation in others.
Physics and astronomy do look at “first causes.” I also said that above. Biology describes life as we know it from the fossil record and from current observation, from the level of cells to the level of biospheres.
Even tho you say you are not religious, intelligent design does not come from science. It comes from people who first tried to insert Biblical inerrancy and literalism into the science curriculum who then modified their claims because their first were so ridiculous. Modification over time in order to fit into the existing environment. hmmmm.
What science is and how it should be done come from years of trial and error in the western tradition.
The issue of ID has much more to do with the Hopi claims than with science. To not see that, imo, is to be blinded by an ideological stance that equates, as anna missed said, human agency at the level of the infinite, but only as you know it in your culture. Anthropomorphizing the idea of god (or, in such terms, the goddess, since the egg made the sperm viable, it seems at this time, afaik) is a very egotistical way to see god, imo.
How can intelligent design be more viable than Hopi belief? Please explain this to me because I do not understand. Intelligent design implies an intelligence as it exists in the human realm of reproduceable results. But if those results can not be reproduced at this time, then it’s not science, but religious belief, and as such, the Hopi tradition has as much validity as the Christian one, or any other one that contains a creation story…and every religion I can think of contains a creation story because humans used religion to understand and explain their existence before they had the means to understand in other ways.
And you are wrong and you have been flummoxed by the religious right to claim that no one would accept ID if that were the case. Of course it would take time to overcome a way of looking at the world, just as it did when The Enlightenment showed that religion as the explanation for everything was wrong as it was understood….just as Einstein scared people…just as Einstein had a hard time accepting quantum theory…because of his belief that “god doesn’t play dice.”
..and on and on in so many instances…the world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, males deposit fully formed mini-me human beings into females who gestate them…all of these ideas were based upon intelligent design too, as applied to science as the world was known at the time. Religion made it harder for people to see the world clearly, not science.
So tell me, if you do not accept the way science is practiced now, with tests that can be reproduced, with technology that can date fossils, with peer reviewed papers from people who have spent their lives on a certain discipline…tell me how science ought to be done, if what is done now is so much bullshit.
Should we sacrifice a virgin to make it rain? Should we cut off the foreskins of baby boys to show humility before god (ooops)…or cut off the clitoris of a female and sew her vagina together to insure that she’s safely her husband’s sexual property…since ancient abd current religion intelligently noted that god designed the female for the male?
To state that science should leave room for non-naturalistic issues is to deny or misunderstand the reason for science. Science is based upon observation of the natural world in order to understand its processes based upon natural causes.
Sure, scientists can leave room for non-natural causes, but they can’t teach them because they are not part of the evidence that has accumulated from the natural world.
Yet there are scientists who believe in god…their work does not stop them from that belief…but their work doesn’t revolve around whether or not they believe in god.
Again, your questions go into the areas of physics and philosophy, not the little lab where Mendel was messing with peas and creating a future where we all had to learn to draw punnet squares.
I don’t deny that ideology colors every part of human life…how can we stand apart from the world in which we are in the midst of with absolute objectivity? It’s impossible.
But to start from a pov that has no proof in the history of science and then claim that makes more sense than the current method seems irrational to me.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 28 2005 18:39 utc | 33

I trust all understand none of the above precludes realizing that while religion likes to pretend that it is above & beyond history such is not actually the case. While science, at least at the level of the “how”, the part that pertains to answering questions about the mechanism, does exist outside of time.
That is to say, that often a culture will add something to religious lore, thereby rendering it sacred – ie. unchallengeable & certain to be obeyed & passed down thru the ages in a pre-literate time – because it is knowledge that is essential to survival at that time. (That may have been the case w/marriage & homosexuality earlier in history. There was a time when everyone had to reproduce to survive. Single people may flourish in urban settings, but they don’t do well running a farm, making clothes, etc.)
To take a simpler example, that is certainly the explanation for why Jews developed their standards of eating kosher. It always seemed bizarre to me that you were not supposed to eat meat & dairy on the same plate w/other foods. Well, of course it is ridiculous in this age of garbage disposals, weekly garbage service, dish soap & grocery stores. However, take those away, and it was extremely important to treat those wastes separately. A veterinary toxicologist @Cornell published a paper discussing the dangerous microbes that emerge if any meat – including juices – or dairy are mixed w/yr. compost & put in the garden. It can sicken or even kill dogs. Since author a Vet., no comment about the effects upon humans. If dogs were how you protected your home & garden, you certainly could not endanger them – not to mention endangering today’s loved ones. link

Posted by: jj | Aug 28 2005 19:18 utc | 35

“Physics and astronomy do look at “first causes.” I also said that above. Biology describes life as we know it from the fossil record and from current observation, from the level of cells to the level of biospheres.”
Again, my main points have nothing to do with “first causes,” technically speaking. But once you had brought it up and said that biology doesn’t deal in first causes, I didn’t see any reason it shouldn’t. And, indeed, evolutionary theory does dabble in first causes in the sense that it theorizes about how the first living organism came into being.
“Even tho you say you are not religious, intelligent design does not come from science. It comes from people who first tried to insert Biblical inerrancy and literalism into the science curriculum who then modified their claims because their first were so ridiculous. Modification over time in order to fit into the existing environment. hmmmm.”
Where or how a theory originates has no logical bearing on its validity; if I remember my history of science class correctly, scientific theories have historically come from a wide range of places, including a dream some scientist had about two intertwined snakes which led to the theory of the shape of the DNA molecule.
“What science is and how it should be done come from years of trial and error in the western tradition.”
Right, which is to admit that it has gone through many adjustments, and yet you seem to think it should now no longer be adjusted.
“The issue of ID has much more to do with the Hopi claims than with science. To not see that, imo, is to be blinded by an ideological stance that equates, as anna missed said, human agency at the level of the infinite, but only as you know it in your culture. Anthropomorphizing the idea of god (or, in such terms, the goddess, since the egg made the sperm viable, it seems at this time, afaik) is a very egotistical way to see god, imo.”
None of this has any real bearing on the questions involved, especially placing arbitrary limitations on scientific explanation.
“How can intelligent design be more viable than Hopi belief? Please explain this to me because I do not understand.” Forget I.D. for a second, and focus on my main point which is this: ANY theory about ANY phenomenon should be judged on its strengths, not by defining the word “science” (or “nature”) in such a way that it simply refuses to even consider certain types of theories.
“Intelligent design implies an intelligence as it exists in the human realm of reproduceable results. But if those results can not be reproduced at this time, then it’s not science, but religious belief, and as such, the Hopi tradition has as much validity as the Christian one, or any other one that contains a creation story…and every religion I can think of contains a creation story because humans used religion to understand and explain their existence before they had the means to understand in other ways.”
This is just silly. The Big Bang and evolution itself cannot be reproduced. Even if the creation of life and its development into human beings could be done in a laboratory by scientists, that doesn’t mean that’s actually how it actually occurred naturally and “historically” (for lack of a better term). Evolution, if it occurred, is a singular, past event, that is not reproducible. History is not reproducible; does that make it religion? There is a wide range of knowledge that is not based on reproducibility; that doesn’t somehow make that knowledge religion.
“And you are wrong and you have been flummoxed by the religious right to claim that no one would accept ID if that were the case. Of course it would take time to overcome a way of looking at the world, just as it did when The Enlightenment showed that religion as the explanation for everything was wrong as it was understood….just as Einstein scared people…just as Einstein had a hard time accepting quantum theory…because of his belief that “god doesn’t play dice.””
So you would recommend keeping an ideological road-block in place simply because there have previously been similar road blocks that have dragged the process out but have eventually been overcome?
“..and on and on in so many instances…the world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, males deposit fully formed mini-me human beings into females who gestate them…all of these ideas were based upon intelligent design too, as applied to science as the world was known at the time. Religion made it harder for people to see the world clearly, not science.”
I’m not promoting religion.
“So tell me, if you do not accept the way science is practiced now, with tests that can be reproduced, with technology that can date fossils, with peer reviewed papers from people who have spent their lives on a certain discipline…tell me how science ought to be done, if what is done now is so much bullshit.”
Reproducibility I covered above; as for “technology that can date fossils, with peer reviewed papers…,” I haven’t mentioned any of that. My only criticism is with people who, instead of arguing against I.D. on its merits/flaws, try to define the word “science” in such a way that they don’t even have to consider any such theory that doesn’t conform to their ideology.
“Should we sacrifice a virgin to make it rain? Should we cut off the foreskins of baby boys to show humility before god (ooops)…or cut off the clitoris of a female and sew her vagina together to insure that she’s safely her husband’s sexual property…since ancient abd current religion intelligently noted that god designed the female for the male?”
Yeah, that’s an accurate characterization of my views, sure.
On and on and on we could go. But neither one is going to budge. So…it’s been a pleasure.

Posted by: Mike L. | Aug 28 2005 21:53 utc | 37

Mr L,

evolutionary theory does dabble in first causes in the sense that it theorizes about how the first living organism came into being.

No it doesn’t. It apeaks to how life adapts to ecological niches and changes over time to survive. This results in more complex life and its structures forming from simpler origins. It does not postulate how life came into being, but describes a process that life follows.
You say you’re not promoting religion, fine. You ARE however espousing a flawed theory that originated from religion as a reaction to the dicrediting, or lack of general interest, in creationism. Saying you’re not on about religion does not make the ‘theory’ any more valid.

Evolution, if it occurred, is a singular, past event, that is not reproducible. History is not reproducible; does that make it religion?

No. The fossil record supports evolution as does DNA evidence. We share a lot of DNA with worms. Evolution is not a singular, past event. It occurs as we speak and will continue long after we and then earth are gone. That you dismiss the fossil record is not much of a surprise as it certainly does not support your cause.
The Big Bang apparently IS a singular past event (one theory, now discarded, was a BANG/Contraction cycle), but is also based on observed universal behaviour. The galaxies ARE flying apart we have SEEN this. How do we know? The same reason a train whistle sounds different when approaching you than when it has passed you. The doppler effect. Light shifts to the blue end of the spectrum as galaxies approach and to the red as they move away and red it is. Since galaxies fly apart (actually accelerating – some future Van Gogh won’t have much to paint), then they were once packed into a singularity. Did you know that as our devices improved and we were able to look deeper into the universe (and into the past, don’t forget), we found that galaxies are much denser (closer together)?The math of Einsten, Penrose, Hawking et al supports this.
Science by definition is not dogmatic, nor ideological. There were plenty of ideas before Darwin, such as Lamarckism. This is also true within other areas of science. ID is discarded because the evidence that supports it does not hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method. The thing that has put us on the moon and rovers on Mars, and….
E equals emcee squared, is (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). ID, is bullshit (an as yet discovered particle, signed by Her Nibs). Gravity, is. Intelligent Falling, is bullshit.

The long article gmac posted is exactly the sort of imprecise, philosophical, and largely normative pontificating I was referring to in my original post. The author gives an extremely vague definition of science, and then discusses instances of “pseudoscience” without really explaining in detail how those instances fail to be science. And the article doesn’t really address the points I made

You obviously didn’t read the article and are simply restating your ideological shtick. As a few have stated, if ANYTHING about ID survived scrutiny, then we’d accept it.
You make broad, erroneous generalizations about science and its seemingly irrational dismissal of a ‘theory’ that fails to meet the stringent requirements of the tool used to test the validity of any theory – the Scientific Method. The very same tool that examines an arguments merits or flaws. You’re not arguing for ID on its merits or flaws either, BTW, for you have supplied none. Your argument is about a supposed road-block to a dearly held belief being better accepted than a tangible theory which does pass scientific muster. Your hinge is some notion of knowing ‘reality’ which hints of misunderstanding quantum physics.
My knowledge of reality comes from my mind interpreting what my five senses send it.
As for me having to use a dictionary, your arguments prove that knowing the meaning of a word does not imply that you comprehend its use.

Posted by: gmac | Aug 29 2005 2:15 utc | 39

Goddamn, this is insane. This is like a scab I can’t stop picking. Fauxreal, gmac, I literally could show how each of your statements is either wrong, misinterprets what I said, makes baseless assumptions about me or my beliefs, or simply does not address the points I have made repeatedly. So, I’m opting out of further discussion. It’s been fun.

Posted by: Mike L. | Aug 29 2005 4:56 utc | 41

Hi Mike L,
Excuse me for just tending to my own argument here, but there seem to be lots of words in defense of the others.
‘ As for the claim that a theory must be falsifiable, this may be a good test…or it may not. Who can possibly know that reality is always going to be of such a nature that any accurate hypothesis about it will be falsifiable? ‘
I think I see your difficulty. Science can only deal with falsifiable issues. So all the “good” questions are out of the scientific realm. And your answers are to good questions.
But what you would like is the “science stick” to beat other people over the head with to make them admit that you have the “right” answers.
So you cannot accept that science is of no worth when it comes to the questions whose answers you already have.
If you do that you lose that multi-trillion dollar, nuclear, genetic science stick with which to smote your enemies.
Chill out. Read some Richard Rorty. Lose your metaphysical ball and chain.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Aug 29 2005 10:02 utc | 43

@optional

Well, if you reject the scientific worldview, that doesn’t necessarily preclude the use of logic and the scientific method. Any logical system has, at its root, one or more unproveable statements. (Look up “axiom” in a logic textbook.) There is no way around this; logic without axioms proves nothing. One could, in theory, come up with a worldview which was functionally identical to the scientific one, but with fundamentally different assumptions.

The scientific worldview’s axioms boil down to “any real phenomenon can be measured,” “the universe is logically consistent with itself,” and “the universe obeys rules which can be expressed in mathematical language.” A logical construction of Intelligent Design would presumably reject axioms 1 and 3, substituting something like “the actions of God cannot necessarily be measured but all other phenomena can” and “the universe obeys the will of God which is usually, but not always, in favor of mathematical behavior,” respectively. (Axiom #2 is not really necessary one way or the other—once you admit that “because God said so” is logical, then logical consistency becomes something of a moot point.) Whether such a worldview (as opposed to the universe) is internally logically consistent I don’t know. Probably, because it has loopholes you could drive a truck through.

The problem is, though, that once you start admitting “because God says so” into your worldview, any conclusion becomes suspect, no matter how trivial or obvious. I mean, maybe the lights go on when I flip the switch because the switch closes a circuit which allows current to flow through wires in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. But maybe I’m mistaken and the light shines because God wills it. (Deus le volt, watt, and amp, presumably.)

It’s not unlike the whole “brain in a jar” idea. It is possible that I am a brain in a jar, and that the entire world is merely a story I make up as I go along to explain the stimuli fed to me by unknown (and presumably unknowable) forces. As long as I stick to my assumptions, you cannot produce a logical argument which can convince me that I am not just a brain in a jar, because all your arguments will be rooted in stimuli which are already explained by my assumptions. But just because, in this example, I am deliberately acting like an idiot, that doesn’t mean that I will necessarily give up, sit back, and let the world roll over me. I may also assume that the stimuli fed into the jar will react to my decisions, and therefore decide to play along with the imaginary world to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Aug 29 2005 17:10 utc | 45

OK, I can’t stop picking this scab. You all have sucked me back into the vortex. But I got something else I gotta take care of before I can start my narcissistic opining again. For anyone who’s still interested, check this thread later for responses to the last few comments. Maybe we can hash out a robust philosophy of science right here in the blogosphere.

Posted by: Mike L. | Aug 29 2005 22:45 utc | 47

Here comes some more b.s. from Mike L. By the way, can someone tell me how to make text italicized in a “comments” section like this?
Fauxreal writes:
“You still do not understand science. The big bang is “observable” by the speed with which things move away from one another in the universe. According to what is known, the big bang is the best explanation for the existence of matter.”
Not that this has anything to do with the substance of the discussion, but I can’t help but comment on the tone of Fauxreal’s first sentence. It’s like she’s one of Zeppelin’s “elders of a gentle race,” and I am merely her grasshopper who has failed to reach enlightenment, despite studying diligently at her feet lo these many years. “Oh, grasshopper, you still have much to learn.” “Yes, master, be patient. Please, teach me the knowledge only the few possess, oh omniscient gatekeeper of the truth.”
Yes, certain effects of the Big Bang are still observable. Do you really think the current, observable aftermath of the Big Bang was what I was talking about when I said the Big Bang is an example of a scientific hypothesis that is not reproducible? Or are you deliberately giving a debate opponent’s words a patently asinine interpretation so as not to concede his point?
“Evolution is not a one time thing. Evolution continues to this day and is observable in species with very short life spans in the laboratory. Evolution continues apace in mammals, too.”
Again, are you serious? You honestly think that the part of evolutionary theory I was referring to when refuting your point about reproducibility was the part that is currently ongoing and can be observed? Or do you think maybe — just maybe — I was talking about that other enormous chunk of evolutionary theory that deals with singular events that occurred in the distant past — events such as the evolution of dinosaurs from earlier life forms?
“So, no, you did not cover reproducibility. You demonstrated that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Ah, I see, Enlightened One. Please, then, teach me more about the hidden ways of giving one’s fellow interlocutor’s statements asinine interpretations, so as to set up easily destroyed straw men.
“In the story about the structure of DNA, that, again, was something that could be reproduced, that made sense. This scientist had spent much time and energy working on this issue before he ever dreamed it. Your example does not support your wish to include your beliefs in biology.”
I didn’t bring this example up in the context of a discussion about reproducibility. I brought it up as an example of how a theory’s origins have nothing to do with its strength or weakness. Which is true. And which is clearly demonstrated by the example I gave.
“Your argument that you aren’t talking about how science is done (i.e. peer review, experiments, etc.) also demonstrates that you don’t really want to talk about science. Instead you want to talk about belief systems.”
I never said I wasn’t talking about how science is done. My statement that you’re referring to here simply said that I was not taking issue with these specific elements of the scientific method (i.e. peer review, experiments, etc.). Master, your ability to read my mind and discover what it is I REALLY want to talk about is remarkable. Please, teach me this mysterious and most useful of skills, master.
“Whatever. Your argument is laughable. You do not present an alternative that is based upon anything other than wishful thinking, and, yes, it is the same as the Hopi ID story.”
Once again, master, you have peered into the recesses of your humble subject’s soul, and discovered that my many words stem merely from wishful thinking and not from a legitimate contention with what appears to be a baseless ideological dogma of current scientific thought. I am embarrassed and humbled. I am truly an open book before your all seeing eyes.
“So let’s pose the question…is there an intelligence behind millions and millions and million of years of formless and void existence?”
AH-HA!! Now you’ve begun to do the very thing I’ve been proposing scientists do with I.D. Instead of dismissing I.D. (or any other so-called “non-naturalistic” explanation of a given set of phenomena) by defining science in such a way as to preclude certain types of explanations, scientists should do what you’ve started doing here. That is, they should point to facts or errors in reasoning that are problematic for the theory. Bravo. They should also, of course, compare I.D.’s strengths and weaknesses to the theory of evolution’s strenths and weaknesses, vis-a-vis fact and logic, not ideology or baseless presupposition. And by the way, as I thought I made clear by now, I haven’t been arguing for I.D. I have been arguing against a very specific way of arguing against I.D. The way Ed Larson, for example, argues against it in the quote I included in my original post.
gmac writes:
“‘evolutionary theory does dabble in first causes in the sense that it theorizes about how the first living organism came into being.’
No it doesn’t. It speaks to how life adapts to ecological niches and changes over time to survive. This results in more complex life and its structures forming from simpler origins. It does not postulate how life came into being, but describes a process that life follows.”
Again, I just want to emphasize that I didn’t bring up the issue of first causes. This is simply a side road that I went down with Fauxreal. It’s not essential to my main points. But since it’s been brought up, I could have sworn that one of the tenets of evolutionary theory is that life arose from the “primordial soup.” But if I’m wrong, it has no relevance to my main points.
“You say you’re not promoting religion, fine. You ARE however espousing a flawed theory that originated from religion as a reaction to the dicrediting, or lack of general interest, in creationism. Saying you’re not on about religion does not make the ‘theory’ any more valid.”
I haven’t been espousing I.D. I have been espousing a philosophy of science that would not automatically dismiss a theory like I.D. simply because it is a so-called “non-naturalistic” explanation. I.D. may be bogus, but you’d never find that out if the current scientific dogma held sway. It would simply be automatically dismissed.
“‘Evolution, if it occurred, is a singular, past event, that is not reproducible. History is not reproducible; does that make it religion?’
No. The fossil record supports evolution as does DNA evidence. We share a lot of DNA with worms. Evolution is not a singular, past event. It occurs as we speak and will continue long after we and then earth are gone. That you dismiss the fossil record is not much of a surprise as it certainly does not support your cause.”
See my remarks above to Fauxreal about which part of evolutionary theory I was obviously referring to here.
“The Big Bang apparently IS a singular past event (one theory, now discarded, was a BANG/Contraction cycle), but is also based on observed universal behaviour. The galaxies ARE flying apart we have SEEN this. How do we know? The same reason a train whistle sounds different when approaching you than when it has passed you. The doppler effect. Light shifts to the blue end of the spectrum as galaxies approach and to the red as they move away and red it is. Since galaxies fly apart (actually accelerating – some future Van Gogh won’t have much to paint), then they were once packed into a singularity. Did you know that as our devices improved and we were able to look deeper into the universe (and into the past, don’t forget), we found that galaxies are much denser (closer together)?The math of Einsten, Penrose, Hawking et al supports this.”
Again, my only point about the Big Bang was that it showed that non-reproducibility does not show a theory to be false. Period. That was my only point about it.
“Science by definition is not dogmatic, nor ideological. There were plenty of ideas before Darwin, such as Lamarckism. This is also true within other areas of science. ID is discarded because the evidence that supports it does not hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method.”
Science as it is defined currently by certain fierce opponents of I.D. is precisely dogmatic and ideological — as I’ve tried to show. It states that so-called “naturalistic” explanations are the only ones science will allow. And it simply refuses to even consider the possibility that there could be a so-called “non-naturalistic” explanation for a given phenomenon.
The thing that has put us on the moon and rovers on Mars, and….
“In other words, what Fauxreal said. And if you provide a clear, concise and convincing argument in favour of ID, rather than just deriding science, we WOULD budge.
You would, however, be the first person to ever do this.”
Up to this point, I have not argued for or against the truth or validity of I.D. I have simply been arguing against opponents of I.D. who say it shouldn’t even be considered because it’s not a so-called “naturalistic” explanation. But just for the sake of argument, I’ll change topics, and try to present one of the arguments that proponents of I.D. use. They claim that there are certain features of biological organisms that are irreducibly complex. By this they mean that these features cannot function unless all of their many, various, and intricate parts are in place at the same time and fully developed and functional. Therefore, those features that happen to be irreducibly complex and at the same time essential to a given organism’s survival, could not have evolved bit by bit by bit. In order for the organism to have survived, all of the various parts of these types of features would have had to come about all at the same time and fit together perfectly and functioned perfectly. This is a problem for evolution, they say, because evolution has traditionally explained such complex, intricate features by saying that they came about little bit by little bit over unimaginably long periods of time.
Now, I don’t know enough about science to judge whether this is a decent argument or not. But I think it demonstrates perfectly what I have been saying. If science is simply not allowed to ever offer up a so-called “non-naturalistic” theory, then if — IF! I’M ONLY SAYING IF! — there ever were something in nature like irreducible complexity that suggested design or intelligence, scientists would be forbidden to propose that maybe in fact it IS the product of design or intelligence.
PeeDee writes:
“I’m with Mike L., except that the bit of this so-called “science” that I object to is the part that would deny the everlasting truth of the great Arkleseizure.”
I assume the joke here is two-fold: 1. that I’m simply trying to force science to make room for a pet belief of mine; and 2. that my pet belief is no less make-believe or irrational as a belief in the great Arkleseizure. With regard to #1. piss off. With regard to #2. lick me. (No, seriously, please lick me. I like it. It feels nice.). Neither presumption is true.
John Francis Lee writes:
“I think I see your difficulty. Science can only deal with falsifiable issues.”
Says who? And why?
“So all the “good” questions are out of the scientific realm. And your answers are to good questions.
But what you would like is the “science stick” to beat other people over the head with to make them admit that you have the “right” answers.
So you cannot accept that science is of no worth when it comes to the questions whose answers you already have.
If you do that you lose that multi-trillion dollar, nuclear, genetic science stick with which to smote your enemies.”
Ah, I see I have another Master. Master, you also have the great gift of mind-reading, as does her highness, Fauxreal. You have penetrated my mind as adeptly as she, and have seen what therein lies. I want nothing more than to “use” Science’s authority to lend credence to my own views. I am not secure enough with logic, facts, and reasoning. I must co-opt the great and almighty Science to bolster my cherished “answers.”
John, here’s an idea for you. Instead of engaging in ad hominen attacks, try confronting the actual arguments/issues.
optional writes:
“1. If we’re going to go with ID instead of evolution, how will we account for analogous structures? Particulatly, why did the designer find it necessary to design such seemingly redundant features as structurally distinct wing types for birds and bats (I leave out insects because of the difference in scale)? or, the tail shapes and fin arrangements of sea mammals and fishes?
2. If we’re going to toss the scientific method, how will we adjudicate between ideas that seem equally plausible?”
#1. Where in any of my posts, prior to this one, did I recommend going with I.D. instead of evolution? Where, prior to this post, did I argue in support of I.D.’s validity? I didn’t. Also, as I mentioned above when Fauxreal asked why a designer would allow millions of years of nothingness to pass with no activity, your criticisms of I.D. are exactly the type I have been saying should be discussed, instead of relying on defining “science” in such a way as to simply not allow any discussion to take place. I don’t have answers to those questions. Maybe they constitute a death-knell for the theory. Fine. That would not touch my argument about science allowing for so-called “non-naturalistic” explanations.
#2. I never advocated tossing the entire scientific method. (I don’t think I did, anyway; I’ve posted too much at this point to remember and I’m running too low on steam to go back and check.) So, retain most of it. Just don’t place seemingly arbitrary limitations on what types of theories are put to the test. Actually, on second thought, other posters’ comments have led me to think about various other tenets of scientific dogma, namely, reproducibility and falsifiability, and I don’t see why they should necessarily be assumed to be beyond question either, really. Especially reproducibility, since there are countless past events like the Big Bang, PAST evolutionary developments, geological occurrences, etc., that can’t be reproduced. Who knows? I don’t care enough about it, to be honest with you to, try to think through it all. I just got pissed about the dogmatic way certain people were talking about what science is and is not when this whole I.D. issue started making the rounds in the media and blogosphere.
The Truth Gets Vicious writes the following, with my own comments inserted within brackets:
“Well, if you reject the scientific worldview, [I NEVER ADVOCATED DOING SO] that doesn’t necessarily preclude the use of logic and the scientific method. Any logical system has, at its root, one or more unproveable statements. [NOT NECESSARILY: IT DEPENDS ON THE PERSON JUDGING WHAT IS PROVEABLE AND UNPROVEABLE; “PROVEABLE” AND “UNPROVEABLE” ARE IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. FOR EXAMPLE, MOST NORMAL PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY JUDGE PLENTY OF STATEMENTS TO BE PROVEABLE THAT PHILOSOPHY STUDENT JACK-OFFS WOULD WILLFULLY QUESTION IN ORDER TO MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK SMART AND SUPERIOR. AND, ANYWAY, YOU DON’T NEED TO PROVE SOMETHING THAT’S SELF-EVIDENT. “A IS A” WOULD FIT THIS CATEGORY FOR MOST SANE PEOPLE.] (Look up “axiom” in a logic textbook.) There is no way around this; logic without axioms proves nothing. [IT’S INTERESTING THAT YOU SAY ALL THIS WITH SUCH CERTAINTY, AS THOUGH YOU’VE “PROVEN” IT, WHEN AS WE ALL NO AT LEAST ONE OF YOUR STATEMENTS OR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS MUST BE “UNPROVEABLE,” RIGHT?] One could, in theory, come up with a worldview which was functionally identical to the scientific one, but with fundamentally different assumptions.
The scientific worldview’s axioms boil down to “any real phenomenon can be measured,” “the universe is logically consistent with itself,” and “the universe obeys rules which can be expressed in mathematical language.” [THOUGHTS, FEELINGS, INTENTIONS, THE ENTIRE REALM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY DON’T READILY ADMIT TO MEASUREMENT. SCIENCE NONETHELESS CONSIDERS SUCH PHENOMENA REAL. AS FOR RULES AND MATHEMATICAL LANGUAGE, HOW WOULD THE RULES OF EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT (NAMELY, RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION) BE EXPRESSED IN MATHEMATICAL LANGUAGE?] A logical construction of Intelligent Design would presumably reject axioms 1 and 3, [NO IT WOULDN’T. YOU’RE CONFLATING THE CONCEPT OF A BARE-BONES INTELLIGENT AGENT WITH THE FULL-BLOWN CONCEPT OF TRADITIONAL THEISM.] substituting something like “the actions of God cannot necessarily be measured but all other phenomena can” and “the universe obeys the will of God which is usually, but not always, in favor of mathematical behavior,” respectively. (Axiom #2 is not really necessary one way or the other—once you admit that “because God said so” is logical, then logical consistency becomes something of a moot point.) Whether such a worldview (as opposed to the universe) is internally logically consistent I don’t know. Probably, because it has loopholes you could drive a truck through. [BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH…………….LOOK, EVERYONE, I’M SO VERY CLEVER!!!!!!!!]
The problem is, though, that once you start admitting “because God says so” into your worldview, any conclusion becomes suspect, no matter how trivial or obvious. I mean, maybe the lights go on when I flip the switch because the switch closes a circuit which allows current to flow through wires in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. But maybe I’m mistaken and the light shines because God wills it. (Deus le volt, watt, and amp, presumably.)
It’s not unlike the whole “brain in a jar” idea. It is possible that I am a brain in a jar, and that the entire world is merely a story I make up as I go along to explain the stimuli fed to me by unknown (and presumably unknowable) forces. As long as I stick to my assumptions, you cannot produce a logical argument which can convince me that I am not just a brain in a jar, because all your arguments will be rooted in stimuli which are already explained by my assumptions. But just because, in this example, I am deliberately acting like an idiot, that doesn’t mean that I will necessarily give up, sit back, and let the world roll over me. I may also assume that the stimuli fed into the jar will react to my decisions, and therefore decide to play along with the imaginary world to avoid unnecessary suffering.
[GOOD FOR YOU. NOW, PUT THE LOGIC TEXT DOWN AND GO GET A GIRLFRIEND, LOSER]
gmac writes:
“I’ve re-read all your posts and you’ve convinced me that science should be abandoned for it’s rigidness and dogmatism.
Upon reflection, your arguments are quite convincing regarding the shortcomings of science and the quicksilver nature of reality, but you haven’t outlined any alternative(s).
What do we do now? How do we determine what is and what is bullshit?
If you can’t tell me, where do I look?”
Look deep into your own heart, grasshopper. For therein lies the answer.

Posted by: Mike L. | Aug 30 2005 3:00 utc | 49

Shorter L
“I’m a wanker”
“look deep into your heart grasshopper?” WTF is that? I asked a valid question deserving a considered answer, not a piss poor imitation of eastern philosophy and David Carradine.
You say science is a roadblock to accepting ideas like ID. How do you, wanker, unblock the road and normalize ID without science and the method? Did you accept Christ into your heart?
According to you, let’s not abandon the method entirely. Just the inconvenient bits used to confirm the validity of hypotheses, so as to allow legitimacy to any crackpot idea like remote viewing and PentaWater. Or dogmatic ideas like ID.

Posted by: gmac | Aug 30 2005 3:36 utc | 51

Interesting blog and op-ed by Dennett (good read). I think we are seeing a variation on the argument of ID here. Attack “science” to distract from the fact that ID has absolutely nothing to offer. Link to Brayton
Also as an aside, the scientist dreaming about the circling snakes was not about the discovery of DNA, but the discovery of the shape of benzene.

Posted by: aw | Aug 30 2005 12:15 utc | 53

To the (sarcastic but he didn’t know it?) question:
What do we do now? How do we determine what is and what is bullshit? If you can’t tell me, where do I look?”
MikeL replies:
Look deep into your own heart, grasshopper. For therein lies the answer.
And thus reveals his agenda. MikeL, I didn’t address you as a grasshopper…I addressed you as someone who doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. And, frankly, you are now tiresome to me because you don’t care about how stupid you are; you are brainwashed and want to vomit your bullshit into education. No thank you.
Your response reveals that, contrary to what you may claim here, you are addressing this issue as a non-rational person…look into your heart…sacrifice that virgin cause you know in your heart it’s the true answer to scientific questions.
You offer “faith-based” science as an answer…yeah, that’s certainly a better model for science…
In other words, your argument has nothing to recommend it except that you want to believe it. goodbye.
The complexity argument has been refuted many times.
But here, if anyone wants to read some remarks,
here you go
< href="http://www.pcts.org/journal/young2002a.html">How to evolve complexity
There are many scientific articles to refute your bullshit, but what does it matter when Pat Boone agrees with you about intelligent design (bom bom aloo bomp alomp bam boom)

Posted by: fauxreal | Aug 30 2005 12:46 utc | 55

fauxreal, i just luuuv the way you tell it like it is. do you talk like that too???

Posted by: annie | Aug 30 2005 14:27 utc | 57

Is there any *scientific* research into humans having more than five senses?
I’m thinking of birds’ sense of direction using magnetism.

Posted by: Argh | Aug 30 2005 15:30 utc | 59

“I’m thinking of birds’ sense of direction using magnetism.”
I believe they are now shown to follow landmarks using memory and not some ‘magnetic field receptor’.
“New technologies are making it easier to use satellites to track bird movements. They are solving avian mysteries such as how homing pigeons follow roads, rivers and smells to find their way home.”
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/thematerialworld_20050120.shtml

Posted by: gmac | Aug 30 2005 17:39 utc | 61

annie- in real life I’m a pussycat. meow.
I apologize for my rudeness and the longness of my posts…fundie stuff has that effect on me…rocked and raised in the cradled in of the southern baptists. AFAIK, only religions that are so literally based have an issue with science, and only because, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they cannot accept that what they were taught in Sunday school is wrong.
optional- the beauty of science is that it doesn’t claim to be absolute. It deals with what is known thus far based upon where we are. So an axiom, in math, is what has been proven, theoretically, thus far, and is the basis for other questions and problems. if these axioms didn’t hold at this point, computers wouldn’t exist, for instance.
gravity is the axiom that explains why apples don’t fall upward.
…so far so good, at this level of reality.

Posted by: fauxreal | Aug 30 2005 23:09 utc | 63

Okay… I’ve been staying clear so far, but we do seem to be getting a little unproductive (and the “loser”, “wanker”, “grasshopper” end of the debate is downright unproductive). I’m not taking sides on this issue, because I think that after a certain level of uncertainty you are talking about articles of faith, anyway. From where I’m standing, the Fundies and the adherents of Scientism (confusingly, the correct word for them is “Scientists” with a capital “S”) are all pretty much quibbling over their own dogmatic points of view. Granted, most Fundies have given up the pursuit of an ontological proof in favor of the less intellectual Pascal’s Wager, but at the end of the day they are still making a case for rationalising phenomena (articles of faith or belief) which are by their nature irrational.
This is not to say that irrational phenomena do not exist. It is simply outside of the scope of any tools we possess to quantify those phenomena. Science (and I am talking about science per se and not the irrational faith in science that Scientism promotes)accepts the limits of its purview. Does love exist? Is it an actual, real phenomenon? No genuine scientist (lower case “s”) would tell me that I do not love someone. They would simply tell me that it is not the purview of science to answer questions dealing with the immeasurable. The reductio ad absurdum of Scientism (majiscule “S”),however, would be to say that since science can answer everything, no measurable phenomena exist, and nobody, therefore, loves their children. Q.E.D.
From that perspective, the irrational defense of science is a matter of faith… which relegates it to the purview of religious pursuits. Incidentally, that is precisely why Ludwig Wittgenstein had to abandon the doctrine that only scientific claims are meaningful (the doctrine itself was not a scientific claim and, if true, is therefore not meaningful). Wittgenstein had to concede, finally, that there are some things which cannot be known as objective certainties. This does not make these things “unreal”, it simply makes our discussion of them unproductive (“What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”)
I disagree that we cannot (or should not) speak about these things since it leads to an unproductive nihilism regarding the immeasurable and irrational (which, to my mind, are some of the most important “things” for us to discuss). But we do have to recognise the limitations of our own positions before being too harsh about the position of our opponents. I doubt, for example, that MikeL is simply a troll; a troll tends to stir the pot and bolt. I do think, however, that he is playing Devil’s Advocate a bit too hard. I am not critising his efforts or the efforts of others to refute him, however except in terms of approach (“Wanker”…? Come on. Ad hominem wins elections, not debates.)
I agree with Kurt Gödel that no axiomatic system can be both complete and consistent simultaneously. I also believe that certain levels of reality are inherently immeasurable and unproveable. But I believe a case can and must be made for them for us to have any argument at all. Harry G. Frankfurt, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Princeton University puts this problem more succinctly than I am able to: “Someone who ceases to believe in the possibility of identifying certain statements as true and others as false can have only two alternatives. The first is to desist from efforts to tell the truth and from efforts to deceive. This would mean refraining from making any assertion whatever about the facts. The second alternative is to continue making assertions that purport to describe the way things are, but that cannot be anything except bullshit.”
Unfortunately, when we are dealing with irrational subjects such as these (unquantifiables such as whether there is a God or gods and whether that God or gods have taken an active rôle in our development as a species) we must rely more heavily upon the weight of rhetorical argument (bullshit) than empiricism. In this sense, the Fundies come to the battle better armed than the scientists since they abandoned ontological proof about five hundred years ago. If someone can make a better case for the irrational, they will win the day whether they are talking about divine intervention in human development or whether Saddam Hussein represented an immediate and imminent threat to world peace. If we believe anything at all, it is encumbent upon us to express that thought in a cogent, though technically unscientific, way or we are simply handing the world over to the Sophists and Fundamentalists. If we truly understand science and its limitations and wish to protect it, then we need to become more adept bullshitters in order to do so.

Posted by: Monolycus | Aug 31 2005 1:02 utc | 65

Oh, man, my mind has been revolving around that last ugly post of mine all day, and I gotta say I feel awful about it. The anonymity of the blogosphere tempts you to say stuff you’d never say otherwise. So, apologies to everyone, particularly “The Truth Gets Vicious…”; my comments were just completely uncalled-for. Not that you seemed too ruffled by them but, nonetheless, they were completely out of line. Peace.

Posted by: Mike L. | Aug 31 2005 2:14 utc | 67

Cornered Truth: On reflection, I can see where the presuppositions governing science’s method could be applied to a set of possible outcomes governed by a different set of presuppositions. It does, however, seem to me that, the greater the distinction between the two sets of axioms, the sooner the practitioners of this study will arrive at logically irreconcilable differences between the evidence and the inferences they are supposed to support. If either of us were to take a ‘Strong Culture’ position at this juncture, then I would appeal to Monocylus’s quotation from Prof. Frankfurt in saying that there is really nothing else to discuss.
fauxreal: My post arose from the resentment I felt at Cornered Truth’s condescension. I understand what an axiom is. For various reasons, including that I never became comfortable with the term, I prefer the synonym, ‘presuppositon:’ ‘things that are taken to be true.’ Thank you, nonetheless, for providing me with the definition.

Posted by: optional | Aug 31 2005 4:22 utc | 69

@ optiona, i meant a great distinction between them. i thought axioms were ‘real’. can’t they stand alone? do they contradict eachother?

Posted by: annie | Aug 31 2005 5:43 utc | 71

@annie

No, an axiom is not the same as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a statement about the world which can be investigated by experiment or examination of evidence. An axiom is a statement about anything (whether real or imaginary) from which other things are then deduced; its truth is assumed, and does not require evidence.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Aug 31 2005 6:40 utc | 73

@Argh:

Even if you restrict yourself strictly to observable, measurable phenomena, there are at least seven senses. The usual five are sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste—but balance is definitely a physical sense, mostly operated by your inner ear, although it is usually augmented by vision and can be trained to rely almost entirely on vision when the inner ear is faulty or unable to work. There is a also an extra sense posited by neurologists. It goes by the unwieldy name of “proprioception” and it definitely exists—it is the thing that lets you know, without looking at or feeling your limbs, what position your body is in. Read Oliver Sacks’ book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat and Other Clinical Tales for an account of a woman who lost her sense of proprioception. (Summary: you really, really do not want to lose your sense of proprioception.)

@Monolycus:

Actually, your professor is, if we take him literally, just plain wrong. There are internally consistent, productive, rigorous logical systems in which not all statements are either true or false, and also systems (and I mean that in the strict, non-philosophical sense) in which truth is a relative value (usually represented as a value between 0 and 1). We don’t use them, for the most part, because the universe as we experience it does not conform to their rules. I have read suggestions that quantum physics (which does not act like the universe as we experience it, either) may actually obey one of these systems, but I haven’t studied enough quantum physics to be able to say whether that is a crackpot idea or not. If it were true, it would have some rather unsettling implications for ordinary, two-valued logic.

Three posts in a row… definitely time for bed… ironically, the copy of The End of Faith which I requested through interlibrary loan at the local library is myy bedtime book tonight. 😉 (Memo to those thinking of reading it: as far as I can tell from the part I have already read, the author is definitely anti-Islam more than he is generally anti-Faith, although he is definitely anti-Faith as well.)

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Aug 31 2005 7:21 utc | 75

I think it would be okay to teach ID in the public school system, if they would also teach, say, string- theory as the limits of how to quantify, in objective terms, how the intellegent design (if thats what to really call it) might actually be structured conceptually. This should, for them, open the door to an extrodinary explanation of things, and at the same time, give due service to the scientific method. My guess is that just such an elucidation into the full implications of the time- space continuium as outlined in string -theory would send the fundies running for the quaint old days of Charles Darwin as if it were an open bar at the Medici’s.
But then again, maybe thats what they’re really afraid of.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 31 2005 8:50 utc | 77

The senses most tied to our conscious “self” are, I think, taste, sound and, most importantly–for the conscious mind–sight. Maybe sight developed for hunting food, but then we saw ourselves, in a puddle, or a stream, and, like narcissus, we fell in love with our selves?
Smell is more primal, and touch, and balance, proprioception…
This is how I’m seeing it: we have over-developed a useful tool (the conscious self), which is in the process of pretending “it” (he/she) is the whole deal. In the process of pumping itself up, it is merrily destroying all “unnecessary senses”. There’s that great human idea: we are “better” because we have “consciousness”. On magic mushrooms, which are now illegal in England, classified Class A, like crack cocaine, I watched birds, saw how the Self will always be unhappy becuase it has to die. The self watching… The birds, free of this, were involved in activities as complex as mine, if not more complex. They seemed bored, actually. City life is too easy for them. Where I live, seagulls eat kebabs. Pigeons don’t bother flying. At least the seagulls keep swooping about. I wouldn’t want other animals to develop more “self”. I think it would make them more unhappy.
It’s the “self” that wishes to survive death. It is the death of “self” that religious leaders preach. “You must die to yourself, and then you will be free.”
My personal beef is pollution from car exhausts. Surely our nose, if it were in charge, would destroy all cars tomorrow?
And supermarket chiller cabinets:
Conscious mind: “this is a very good idea; my food will not be rotten”
nose: “I can’t smell anything, I’m outa here! Hey, Self, why not use me to check your food?”
Conscious mind: shut up nose. I’m looking at food.
I’m rambling now, but, like I said, seriously, World Peace, our next great project. What is going to be the overarching “theory” or “project” that will link us all together?
Can’t be one of the current religions. They’ve had thousand(s) of years. Can’t be science. Science, after 500 years, is still poisoning our planet. Ain’t capitalism.
We are one monkey on a planet of animals. We are clever. We can create resources out of resources (dead wood + friction = steak medium as well as rare). But this Self. I mean, I like my self (so should we all, it’s the only one we’ll get), don’t get me wrong.
I believe in co-operatives, myself. I’ll shut up.
Argh!

Posted by: Argh | Aug 31 2005 9:15 utc | 79

oh, and one other thing…
although love and other things cannot be fully understood via science, the chemical substance of love has been and is examined, and the way someone smells, for instance, may determine if you love them…as in…the incest taboo may relate to having a negative experience if you mate with someone who smells too much like you because it compromises an offspring’s immune system.
then there’s this one about females in their most fertile cycle who are in relationships with other men and their attraction to dominant males.
…and people can have olfactory hallucinations, too, noticed esp. among people with a particular type (temporal lobe, I think) of epilepsy.
and as to all this discussion, my favorite Pope said it best:
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
He hangs between, in doubt to act or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas’ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little or too much;
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled;
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world.
— Alexander Pope

Posted by: fauxreal | Aug 31 2005 19:07 utc | 81

annie:
After reading over the thread, it seems to me that …When You Corner It answers the question you asked me. Therefore, I’m not to avoid unnecessary repetition.
…When You Corner It:
Thanks for the answer to my question about the kinds of axioms that could be used to reconcile the scientific method and an alternate world view.
Since our statements and conclusions are only as true as the axioms that govern them, and their truth is problematic, to be rigorously honest, we should all say something to the effect of, “I imagine that …” One of the interesting aspects of actual systems of presuppositions is that this critical distance is lost and they are taken to be true. That, however, is a completely different topic of discussion.
I’m going to drop the line I started in my most recent post: the issue it deals with is tangential to the discussion here.
Animist: There are a number of reasons for my disagreement with your suggestion that ID could be taught in a public school along with such ideas as string theory, ideas that would make an even greater mess out of the Biblical worldview.
1. By the standards that are now used to determine what does, and does not, belong in biology, ID does not pass muster.
2. For different reasons, neither subject truly belongs in a contemporary high school science curriculum. ID is really best contextualized in that part of biology that deals with the history or the philosophy of the science; while, string theory belongs in that section of physics dealing with ‘contemporary developments.’ High school science focusses on giving its students a grounding in the basic principles of the subject. The breadth of the material is necessarily sacrificed as the emphasis is put on those things a student needs to get an apprentice’s apprehension. A student who wants a more in depth understanding of the subject will, then, ideally be equipped to get it on their own or in college.
3. ID is part of a political program. Basically, the moral authority of the Bible, and its interpreters, derives from the story of the special creation of Adam and Eve. ‘Creationism’ sought to get the state to directly endorse this source of a preacher’s power (moral authority does equal power within a community of believers). ID only takes a small step back from that position by making any story of an original creator possible. Thus, it still validates the special creation and the authority of the ‘Christian’ clergy. As I understand it, this is a constitutional issue; because, the US government is forbidden to endorse any religion.

Posted by: optional | Sep 1 2005 0:07 utc | 83

anna mist.. i haven’t ever really acknowledged you. sometimes you just blow me away, leaving me wordless. i love the way you incapsulate reason. thank you.

Posted by: annie | Sep 1 2005 7:30 utc | 85