The difference being that you continue to insist on directing yours on me, ad nauseam.
Then why did you keep asking me questions:
&
It is exactly these sorts of absurd contradictions that lead to me being unable to take you in the least bit seriously, Eddie.
I don’t.
And I rather doubt if anybody else pays much attention to them either. You are largely talking to yourself on such occasions Eddie.
Oh dear, you are denigrating the fact that I, unlike yourself and the equally-execrable David Klinghoffer, actually know how Wikipedia works, before expressing an opinion about its inner workings. Also (as I believe I’ve mentioned before), I have not been a regular on Wikipedia in ten years, and so do not have occasion to read “Wikipedia Talk and AfD pages” except when needed to educate the ignorant.
Even if true, it’s irrelevant. It should never have been allowed to be posted until at least two experienced Wikipedia editors carefully reviewed the draft, and verified that it passed the tests for notability. That fact that this was not done is a sign of administrative incompetence at Wikipedia. So, as I said before, even if Wikipedia isn’t guilty of anti-ID bias for removing the article (though it’s certainly true that anti-ID bias played a role in causing the editors to revisit the article), it’s still guilty of incompetence. Which is not surprising, when you try to run a major encyclopedia with a volunteer staff of part-timers, amateurs, cranks, and culture warriors.
Because, for the first time I can remember, you provided me (even if your post was addressed to Roy, it pertained to my discussion) with information (about how disputes were settled) rather than biting invective, and I wanted to take advantage of your good mood by asking you for further clarification. But I see the good mood has passed, so no more questions.
But thanks for confirming for all of us that in the end, disputes among editors at Wikipedia are not always resolved by “consensus”, but by the authoritative ruling of an arbitrator.
But of course, that leaves out half the story, which I learned way back when I followed discussions on Wikipedia more closely, which is that in a huge number of cases where editors disagree, the dispute is never formally settled, either by consensus or by arbitration, but is resolved by attrition; in many cases, one group of editors just has more free time to constantly reverse all edits by the other group, and, frustrated, the other group just gives up and surrenders control of the article to the more aggressive group with the most free time. You don’t need to take a formal vote, or call in an arbitrator, or achieve consensus among all editors, when you can get your way by bullying, pushing, and shoving. This tactic often works in real life (as radical feminists found at universities), and it works in the pseudo-scholarly world of Wikipedia as well.
I wish the same could ever be said about your verbose rants.
Pot meet kettle, he’s also colored black.
It had nothing to do with a “good mood”. I try to inject a factual basis into discussions, regardless of my mood, or my opinion of some of the participants.
This would appear to be a false dichotomy. The “ruling” is made on the basis of the consensus, it is simply based on the evidence presented, rather than simple voting. In that aspect, (except for the need for a ruling), it rather resembles the Scientific Consensus – a consensus of evidence rather than simply of numbers.
The obvious difference between Wikipedia and the Scientific Consensus, is that Wikipedia needs to get to a definitive answer in order to move on. But that answer is itself subject to consensus, that of peer-review of other administrators (and particularly those likewise heavily involved in AfD closings) including on administrative noticeboards, Deletion Review, etc.
You seem to be determined to twist the evidence to fit your predetermined conclusion. This is another reason why I have little interest in your opinions.
You’re misusing the word “consensus”. The only reason an outside Administrator would ever have to be called in is because there isn’t a consensus. There was not a consensus about the Bechly article, as anyone can see from reading the strongly divergent opinions expressed.
No. While I didn’t know about the procedure for calling in an outside Admin (because I had never seen it), I know the other stuff I’m talking about from direct observation. I, like thousands of other ID proponents (and thousands of creationists, too, though that term doesn’t apply to me), used to read the ID articles, and other articles on origins (evolution, creationism, etc.), and I could see distortions, errors, and misleading by omission, etc., and I would watch as various ID proponents and sometimes creationists as well would try to put in edits to correct false or misleading statements about ID or creationism. They were reversed, sometimes within two minutes, almost always within a few hours – no matter what the time of day or night. The reasons given for reversal were usually arbitrary and unjustified, so they would re-edit, and again get a reversal. Eventually, each side would use up its quota of reversals for the day, and the war would begin again the next day. So my friends would take their grievance to the talk pages, and ask why their modest edits weren’t being accepted. They were answered very often in biting, snarling tones, and sometimes accused of dishonest motives. They would try to compromise on wording with their opponents, but no compromise was accepted. And since most of them had day jobs, families with kids to look after, and couldn’t be on the internet 24/7 to reverse changes, most of them gave up and left. It was also very plain from the comments that many of the people controlling the agenda were hostile to religion and sometimes detectably atheist and materialist. I saw this myself as an observer, and scores of my friends and colleagues (some Christian, some Jewish, some merely agnostic but sympathetic to ID), reported the same phenomena. Some of them even reported that they were the author being misrepresented, and that Wikipedia would not let them correct false statements made about themselves! (Because they themselves weren’t an allowed “reliable source”; by Wikipedia logic, an outright lie told about their supposed beliefs by a spiteful atheist biologist on a hostile website counted as a reliable source, but their own firsthand knowledge of what they believed didn’t.)
Because so many of us observed such things over so many years, and compared notes, we are completely confident that we aren’t misrepresenting what we saw, and that, as far as ID was concerned, “the fix was in” at Wikipedia. It was thus a great vindication for us all when the co-founder of Wikipedia, who created the neutral point of view document, said in 2017 that the article on ID was “appallingly biased” and not at all in line with the principles enunciated regarding the neutral point of view.
You should understand that I am not objecting to all-out intellectual attacks on ID, in the proper kind of forum. If people think ID is a pile of junk, they can say so, for example, on this site, or on Panda’s Thumb, or in Jerry Coyne’s books. That’s fine. But an encyclopedia is supposed to give neutral information, not to try to persuade people to a point of view on controversial issues. And the articles on Wikipedia were not neutral, but always subtly or not-so-subtly slanted to persuade. They sounded as if they were written, not by a neutral scholar trying to give a dispassionate view of the subject; they sounded as if they were written by P. Z. Myers, or Nick Matzke, or Eugenie Scott, or Barbara Forrest. And that’s not how an encyclopedia article should read.
No, an encyclopaedia is not meant to give all views equal weight even if there was a genuine controversy. Scientifically, ID is a non-issue. Not even a fringe view. And an encyclopedia should reflect that.
Indeed, an accurate account should be critical of ID and an encyclopaedia should not embrace inaccuracy in the pursuit of a so-called neutrality.
Since this is 100% in my wheelhouse, I thought I would comment. I am paid through federal research grants, and have been for over two decades. I have even been worked on federally funded COVID-19 research. Our indirect costs are closer to 30%, just for reference. We also have other institutional support outside of indirect costs.
My initial reaction to the article is that it was just a rant. I have also been critical of administrative and regulatory bloat, but I was hoping to see some specifics and practical solutions rather than just a “man shouts at clouds” rant and a “burn it all down” solution.
These are my thoughts on the subject broken down into segments. I won’t be responding to specific points in Turner’s article since it is mostly a vague and emotionally based venting session.
The administrative-regulatory feedback loop:
Why do we need more and more administrative support? Because there is an increasing amount of regulatory paperwork. Where does that regulatory compliance come from? Administrators further up the food chain. This isn’t just a science problem. This is a human societal problem that has plagued us for some time now. More than 20 years ago we were able to support 5 grants with 2 administrators, but that has ballooned to 5 administrators now. At the same time, we did take on additional program complexity over that time, but the amount of work that it takes to administer grants has increased greatly in that time. If we got rid of administrators and asked investigators to cover their tasks then the investigators would have no time to do research.
The cost of research:
As mentioned by others, indirect costs also cover additional research staff, building costs, and equipment costs. To be on the cutting edge of research you need the tools, and those tools have become much more expensive over the years. The initial equipment purchases can be covered by direct costs, but the research program is left with the bills for service contracts which can range from 10-20% of the purchase price. Given the complexity and expertise needed to run this equipment you also often need core technicians who have been trained. A 350k cell sorter will need a 50k annual service contract and at least part of a salary for a trained technician. This is even before we get into housing all of this equipment and the staff needed to maintain the building. Research has the same overhead than any business would have.
There is also something to be said for discretionary spending. Things like small pilot projects, financial support for researchers with a gap in funding, and equipment purchases can really help a research program. Researchers are motivated to do research. Their salaries are already defined in the grant, so it’s not like they get to take a big chunk out of the grant and put it in their bank accounts. Everyone I have worked with in the sciences is motivated to do good science, and get the most out of the research dollars they have been given. It is very disappointing to see Turner denigrate the character and honor of those who have worked so hard to get where they are and instead describe them as parasites on the taxpayer.
You may ask if all this additional cost is necessary, and that is reasonable. The answer is a big, huge, resounding yes. As stated earlier, the cutting edge of research requires cutting edge tools, and they cost big money and big know-how. We are well past the days of doing qPCR on a handful of genes in a handful of samples. We are now doing full transcriptome sequencing across many samples. We are no longer comparing a handful of alleles. We are now comparing tens of thousands of full genomes. This costs money. Small has already been done. The only direction left is big.
This is also supported by non-federal spending.
Pharmaceutical companies are in it for profits, not increasing how much they spend on research. Even they have seen their RnD costs skyrocket for many of the same reasons that federally funded research has ballooned. It just costs more to do science now than it did in the past. Going smaller will only stunt scientific discoveries, not reduce costs for the same research.
Concluding thoughts:
Could federally funded research be more fiscally responsible? Absolutely. This applies to nearly all federally funded activities. Can you find any real, practical solutions in Turner’s article? No. One suggestion I have is to allow more carryover of funds. There are times where researchers feel the need to spend money because if they don’t it will be sent back at the end of the year. Research has ebbs and flows, and there will be periods where there is less money need than at others, so it would make a lot more sense to be able to carryover funds for the life of the grant, and perhaps even past it. Many grants do have carryover, but not all. This same problem exists in all federal programs. The thought is if you don’t spend your budget then you will be given a smaller budget the next year, so there is a built-in incentive to spend as much of the budget as possible. We need to change that incentive. See? That’s a more constructive approach.
For those who think science is just the mouthpiece for woke left wingers, then I have one task for you: go read some research grants and show me the politics. At least in the field of infectious disease research that I work in, Turner’s rants sound like a complete fantasy. There’s no politics in trying to find the mechanisms that cause virulent respiratory infections. It’s just ridiculous. The only time politics is even mentioned is when we grab a few pints after a long week in the lab.
Turner might have a few nuggets of ideas that are worth discussing, but they are wrapped in a poop sandwich. I might be interested in sitting down and discussing ideas with Turner over a few pints, but his article is very disappointing.
Excellent response, aquaticus. Just the sort of discussion I was hoping for. Filled with actual information, a substantive response to Turner from someone who understands research grants, and completely avoiding irrelevant ad hominem speculations about the secret motives of Turner or the NAS.
A model reply. Well done!
I said nothing about giving all views equal weight. I spoke of giving neutral information.
E.g., defining ID the way the people who invented the term (in its modern form) define it, instead of imposing a polemically intended definition which its inventors have specifically disavowed.
Neutral: “ID is defined by its initiator and chief promoter, Discovery Institute, as: “[Discovery definition]” Some critics of ID, however, say that it is disguised creationism, or a form of creationism.”
Biased: “ID is a form of creationism.”
The first formulation is neutral, because it represents the meaning of the term as defined by its originators, and then represents the meaning of the term as its critics understand it, and it does not render a verdict regarding which characterization is correct.
The second formulation is biased, because it declares that one group’s usage of a term is wrong and another group’s usage is right. It thus takes a stand on a culture-war matter, instead of simply reporting what the participants in the culture war say.
This has nothing to do with whether or not ID is good science, or whether ID is science at all. The point is simply that when an organization invents a term to describe its position, and gives a definition of the term, that definition should be acknowledged. Acknowledging that this is what ID proponents mean by ID is not the same as endorsing ID, agreeing that it’s good science, etc. It’s simply fair, objective reporting of what the people who coined the term mean by it. To substitute a definition provided by its most polemical enemies, without indicating the substitution, is inaccurate reporting, and stating as fact what should be left open to debate, i.e., whether or not ID is creationism, a form of creationism, etc.
That’s my first response. My second is that the co-founder of Wikipedia disagrees with you about the need for neutrality, as I already explained above. I’ll take the side of the co-founder of Wikipedia against yours.
Neutral: “The Discovery Institute, perhaps the most prominent ID organizations, has as one of their governing goals " To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” They view Intelligent Design as a way to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” according to their own internal documents. (see Wedge Document: The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education ).
Actually, aquaticus, your formulation would not be neutral. To make it neutral, we would have to rewrite:
“The Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organization, at one time, 23 years ago, produced a working paper for internal discussion, since dubbed the “Wedge Document,” in which it identified as one of its governing goals, “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” etc.”
This is neutral, because it accurately describes a working document written 23 years ago, without commenting on the question whether the vision and the goals of the organization have been modified over the intervening years, and without claiming that the current vision and goals are identical with those of 23 years ago. This keeps open all possibilities from “the goals are identical today” to “the goals are very different today”, and encourages the reader to consult current documents to ascertain Discovery’s current aims and vision.
In short, the rewritten statement provides accurate historical information (as an encyclopedia should) without trying to steer the reader, by its choice of a present-tense verb, to a conclusion which the 1999 statement nowhere confirms.
Of course, if confirmation is found in a current document that the goals are exactly the same, then it would be legitimate for an encyclopedia article to add another paragraph, e.g.:
"It appears that the vision and goals of the institution have not changed, because in a 2022 document we read “…”
No problem with that; that would be objective, neutral reporting (if such a document existed).
In hopes of getting an intelligent, informed discussion about science research grants and university funding, free of gratuitous speculations about the motives of people and organizations – a discussion such as T. aquaticus has just provided.
Your complaints are similar to those every other other fringe theory, conspiracy theory, cult, etc, etc. I’m sorry but the scientific consensus is that ID is pseudoscience, lacking any scientific content or merit. Per its policy, Wikipedia description of ID, and topics like it, will reflect this scientific consensus. Wikipedia describes such topics as the world sees it, not as it would see itself. The same holds true of Günter Bechly. Wikipedia would only retain an article on him if sufficient independent information is available to create an article that shows him as the world sees him, not as he (and his friends) see him. That independent information is not available, so the consensus to delete was the correct one.
As to this thread’s original topic, it is clear to me that the Heritage Foundation wants Science that is small enough to fit into Big Business, and particularly Big Oil’s, pocket. It should not have been too much difficulty for them to find a scientist who was sufficient of a right-wing crank as to agree with them, and commission him to write a hatchet-job. None of this is remotely surprising, nor probative.
This thread has simply further proven to me how ill-informed, vacuous and blinkered your opinions are, and why I’m right to avoid you as much as possible.
I will therefore leave you to your ID echo chamber, and the company or such perennial charlatans as Stephen Meyer, and such perennial incompetents as Mike Behe.
Good day to you sir, any further comments from you will simply be shrugged at.
There was no consensus. The deletion was imposed by an arbitrator when the others couldn’t agree.
Wild, undemonstrated speculation. Much like the “conspiracy theory” thinking that you accuse me of.
No, Wikipedia describes such topics as its atheist, materialist, reductionist, boorish, philosophically illiterate, literature-ignorant, culturally ignorant, computer-nerd, dateless-on-a-Saturday-night, amateur hobbyists see it. In any case, I never asked Wikipedia writers to endorse or agree with ID. I never asked them to stop recording criticisms of ID. I never asked them to call ID science. I just would like them to stop lying about ID. And stop abusing their intra-institutional power to bully and intimidate dissenters from behind their protective pseudonyms. But when was the last time that liars and bullies stopped lying and bullying voluntarily?
Be that as it may, my money offer to Wikipedia still stands. The chances I will ever have to pay it out are close to nil, given that the whole structure of Wikipedia is based on collective cowardice, but nonetheless, the offer stands.
I will note that definition of ID in Of Pandas and People was definitely created by originators of the movement and identifies ID as creationism.
However it would be fairer to note that ID is an alliance of anti-evolutionists and that a very large majority are creationists. Equally that Young Earth Creationism is accepted as ID.
Identifying ID as creationism may not be strictly correct, but it is not that far from the truth.
To add to my point I will also note that if you meant your words to refer solely to the labelling of ID as creationism, your words were very unclear and did indeed suggest that ID should be put on the same level as science. And that is what a typical ID supporter would mean by them.
They might have been unclear to you, if you are new around here, but over the past few years here I’ve probably more than ten times gone over the differences between ID and creationism, and I don’t think most of the regular readers could misunderstand what I meant, given those long earlier debates. As for “ID should be put on the same level as science” I didn’t say anything one way or the other on that question. One of the problems here is that most people think tribally and label people according to their supposed tribe. I’m supposedly the ID proponent, and so, belonging to the tribe of ID, I supposedly have to believe, think, and mean what some idealized ID proponent believes, thinks, or means. This leads people here to constantly read into my posts things I haven’t said, and don’t mean.
It should not be difficult to stop regarding me as some kind of incarnation of ID and regard me simply as a individual with his own positions and opinions, some of which may depart from what many or most ID people would say or think. All people here have to do is read what I say, not what they think I probably really mean but am not saying. If I wanted to say something about whether or not ID is science, I would have said that. The word “science” would have appeared in my statement. But it didn’t. The only point I was making was about what ID wasn’t – creationism. I made no claim about what ID was – whether it was science or something else.
I was asked to give an example of a false statement on Wikipedia. I said “ID is creationism.” But to say “ID is creationism” is false is not to say that “ID is science” is true. For example, ID might be neither creationism nor science, but philosophy, i.e., a particular philosophical conclusion. But whatever ID is, it isn’t creationism, even if there is some overlap in ideas between the two. But it is politically convenient, given that Wikipedia “has it in” for ID, to call ID creationism. It sets up ID for all the abuse that has traditionally been heaped on creationists. Wikipedia isn’t scrupulous about exact theoretical truth. Its goal is to make sure no one the planet believes or accepts ID. And it will bend definitions, misrepresent ID people, whatever it takes to accomplish its ends. That’s why I find it revolting. Not because it does not accept ID – I respect all kinds of people who don’t accept ID. But because it is more concerned with culture-war politics than with truth.
I made my unwillingness to engage in extended conversation clear with Eddie when I first, reluctantly, consented to answer his question:
Given that this resulted in me being subjected to Eddie’s patented endless and fact-free diatribes, I now regret answering him.
I find Eddie’s not-infrequent and baseless derogatory comments against academics who have prominently opposed ID to be disgusting. I also find this commentary absurd given his lionisation of the rag-tag cavalcade of third-rate charlatans and incompetents that is the Discovery Institute.
If untrammeled by the restrictions of this forum, I would probably suggest that Eddie perform an act that is both lewd and anatomically impossible, but given these restrictions, I will simple think it.
