Expertise in psychiatry would seem to be the most relevant qualification, yes.
I second that question.
In my personal favorite example of foolishness in ID, William Dembski (in Dembski 2005) presents a calculation based on a probability greater than one (1.0). How does a person with an MS in Statistics not know that probabilities cannot be greater than one?
There is much more foolishness in that paper, but itâs rather technical foolishness that most people wouldnât catch on a casual read.
2 Likes
Thatâs good. Thanks for pointing it out. Although I didnât mention Demski, I would have included him in that list.
It didnât quite address my thought, although admittedly my thought was obscured by my sloppy writing.
You may or may not have noticed that the preceding sentence. I was there, as I have throughout, merely been pointed out how kangaroo court like it is to condemn anyone (not to mention an entire group) as a total imbecile without giving them a hearing.
So, even a guy like myself can pretty much get what you are driving at with your example of Demski presenting âa calculation based on a probability greater than one (1.0).â
But to follow what I said I was suggesting and, giving the accused a hearing, the tell would be to see him respond. I have no idea what heâd say? Have you seen him challenged on it? He may give a surprisingly cogent defense of what he had written, he may dig in and attempt a defense of the indefensible or he may acknowledge he was in error. I echo your,
and therefore doubt that he doesnât know it.
How is this principle of allowing the accused a defense seemingly so foreign to those here? Admittedly they arenât here to defend themselves. But I think it should give one pause when (those in my list above) do engage in one on one formats with their opponents and the ones in the list perform well. This Behe/Swamidass debate is a great example. As Iâve suggested I didnât find an area of actual science where it is clear that Behe disagrees with any science Swamidass asserts. Iâve been challenged on that in a very general way by @AllenWitmerMiller with,
I did take a bunch of screenshots as I watch c/w timestamps so I will go back and make some notes and report back but to make note of things that at least I claim donât exist reminds me of the judgeâs word in this clip from this classic movie,
Seriously. Canât you guys say anything outside the partisan groupthink?
So if he accused you without evidence of feigned authority youâd genuflect?
Does the propensity to gaslight confirm oneâs expertise?
Ability to identify paranoia certainly would seem to be relevant. 
Nothing is stopping them, of course. Nor is anything stopping someone like you who would like to defend them from doing that.
But youâve already admitted that you cannot judge the scientific questions at all, so how would you know whether someone performs well? You can only go on rhetorical skill, which is no guide to the merits. Whether someone does well in a debate substantively, as opposed to merely being good at debate, depends on the same thing the value of his books does: whether the points he makes are well supported by the evidence. And so scientists watch clowns like Axe say things, and they roll their eyes, while someone who judges purely on the rhetorical skill of the participants doesnât know enough to roll his eyes.
Nobody is saying that these fellows donât know how to do advocacy. The point is that they are unable to make a credible scientific case, and that they say things that are screamingly false, like Axeâs statement about biologists claiming that evolution has stopped. You seem to think that if Axe can do a good job of standing around and saying something that seems vaguely like a defense of that, without turning purple or having his head explode on the way, then, well, who knows whether what he says is true or not, so itâs all up in the air, ainât it? But thatâs not how questions of fact work. Biologists donât believe what Axe says they believe. Itâs a false claim made to a gullible audience. And if he can stand there and fib in a credible tone of voice, it doesnât do the least bit of good for the truth of the claim.
Nor, of course, does tone-trolling help. If the cdesign proponentsists had a good case on the evidence, thereâd be no need for tone trolling. But they donât, and so things like that are all theyâve got.
Certainly paranoia should not be ruled out, out of hand.
On the other hand one should not overlook the evidence to the contrary.
Why do you give a pass to,
Ah, but did I do that? If so, could you provide the evidence that I did? Or does that just go one way in your books?
I am compelled to point out that you have a habit of providing quotations that have no apparent relevance to the point you are trying to make, nor to the remark with which you preface them.
1 Like
I donât think youâd recognise evidence if it cracked you over the head with a two-by-four.
I donât âgive a pass toâ it â I largely agree to it. I find you to be confused, ill-informed, and a purveyor of conspiracy theories and other rabbit-holes. This makes you a thoroughly-less-than-desirable conversational partner in my opinion.
Whether these are âcharacter or capabilitiesâ or âmeritsâ that suit you to the niche that @Faizal_Ali suggested for you is something Iâll leave others to speculate on.
1 Like
I should state that any opinions I might state regarding another personâs motivations, behaviours, etc. should be taken as nothing more than my personal opinions. I am not making a professional assessment of any sort, as that would be unethical, not to say very difficult to do, in a setting such as this and with someone with whom I do not have an ongoing professional relationship.
We are actually a very diverse group, scattered all across the theological and non-theological spectra and representing a great variety of academic fields and professional occupations. I would suggest that the only âgroupthinkâ you are detecting among us is a shared respect for evidence and the Scientific Method.
We react without hesitation to poorly presented philosophy (as in Intelligent Design) being promoted as if it were science.
Do I personally believe that God designed the universe to operate just as we observe itâand that he did so intelligently? Yes. But that doesnât mean that I think I can formulate a testable and comprehensive scientific Theory of Intelligent Design and publish something that would pass peer review. So my position is a philosophical/theological stance. I donât pretend that I have an institute in Seattle which has âdiscoveredâ a new scientific theory.
6 Likes
Given that the mind would boggle at the idea of somebody being called upon to make a professional assessment of somebodyâs suitability-for-the-Eddie-niche, I was under no illusion as to this.
(That is not to say that it doesnât occur to me that somebody who was sufficiently confused might think otherwise.)
Certainly. It is, âDid you discuss it with Axe when you met him on Dr. Sean McDowellâs podcast?â For context, the question was posed in the following comment,
And to give a bit of context for that, I have found/find abundant slagging of DI, their members, and their memberâs positions. But it is rather easy to criticize anyone when the person you criticize is not around to defend themselves. All of the science is over my head, but Iâd still like to know if DI is as incompetent as represented in the comments here or not. It seems to me that the persons being slagged should have opportunity to defend themselves. When Iâve looked to see some of the DI folk in debate with their opponents, they seem to me at least to perform very well. Not what you would expect if you listened to the comments about them on Peaceful Science.
Iâve watched interactions between you and Behe on at least 3 occasions, you and Douglas Axe, you and you and Gunter Bechly. I watched Meyer and Michael Shermer, and David Berlinski and Christopher Hitchens. In each case the DI guy seems to perform well.
I watched the video of you and Behe at Texas A&M again the other day. It was at least the second time I watched it. I recall that after the first watching a year or more ago doubting that youâd made it clear at all what actual science you disagree with Behe on. So I gave it a second listen paying particular attention for those disagreements. That is not to say that I donât think you arrive at different conclusions, although even those arenât clear, but on scientific facts that can be demonstrated.
In the debate you mention C.S. Lewis. Let me use Lewisâs description,
âScience works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, âI pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,â or, âI put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.â Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is.
So, if this is what science is, I feel confident that you, maybe nearly everyone will find it hard to hold the position that Behe, Meyer et al donât believe in the science, or the data. If anyone is sceptical of actual claims about the data, you merely rerun the experiment with them in attendance. I they fall asleep or look away at a critical moment, no problem, run the experiment again. It is almost beyond the need to discuss that Behe doesnât believe the data. As I recall, from reading some of his books, he often references Lenskiâs E. coli experiment.
I made the comment about your Texas A&M debate with Behe that,
I thought it was sufficiently clear that I was speaking about the instance and content of the debate. Again, Iâm interested in having criticisms made where Behe has an immediate opportunity to rebut or clarify. When this happens I think that Behe rebuts successfully. And in some instances, my scientific ignorance is no obstacle. For example, in the debate you ask of James Tour at 1:03:49, âCan you grant me that there are things in science that are not intuitive?â Tour nodds his head that he does grant this. At 1:08:45, you rhetorically ask, âWe already know that science is non-intuitive so why would we make an intuitive argument?â
At 1:20:02, Behe also clearly grants your point in your question to James Tour that indeed, âthere are things in science that are not intuitiveâ when he says, âSo the point is that, well science might as Josh says discover some counterintuitive things, but some things arenât counterintuitive and so you canât just say, oh thatâs intuitive so itâs wrong.â
But apparently my point, âthat I was speaking about the instance and content of the debateâ was insufficiently made or missed as at least one response directed away from the debate to,
Iâm certainly open to the idea that Behe has grossly misrepresented the data, but it would seem fair to put the charge to Behe and give him the chance to respond.
Even the moderator seems to have been unaware of what exactly about science you disagree with Behe on. The event is over 80% over and the moderator says at, 1:17:15 âI think weâre kind of getting closer to the heart of the disagreement. It sounds like youâre saying that intuitive properly basic, I see that those gears are amazing and I think that God designed it but thatâs not science.â
Is that the extent of it? And would Behe not agree with that?
I can imagine him conceding that. Certainly it coincides with the quote from Lewis above, And similar to what Dr. Henry said here, https://youtu.be/ahcDBTaR3FM?t=245
If science is test tube, and scales, and thermometers, and microscopes, then data (science), "never tells you what to doâ nor do I think it will tell you what happened historically.
Anyway if youâve made it this far that is great, but a yes or no to the original question, (âDid you discuss it with Axe when you met him on Dr. Sean McDowellâs podcast?â) is all I was asking for. And only to give him the opportunity, as I said about Behe, it would seem fair to put the charge to Axe and give him the chance to respond.
I donât see the slightest hint of openness.
Why do you appear obsessed with turning everything into a debate? Anyone who can look at a table can see this for himself. You are anything but open on this.
Beheâs not going to respond in any substantive way because he clearly misrepresented the polar bear data, he objectively misrepresented the fact that HIV evolved a new, multifunctional protein in real time (he has conceded this online in his most substantive response to date after obfuscating for weeks, but predictably has not corrected the book), and he objectively misrepresented the literature on evolution of the immune system (see the Dover transcripts).
Itâs basically what he does for a living.
1 Like
It is absolutely astounding that Iâm offered such piffle to respond to.
Of course, it is possible to see no hint of openness when you clip the comment as you have.
In context it looks quite different. Do you eschew all of everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
Do you eschew all of everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
I am utterly without words.
You havenât bothered to look at the thread in this forum that documents it in detail. Why not do that first?
Sam, this is science. We go by the data, not public hearings. Do you think that we have debates at scientific meetings or something? In this case, the data are perfectly clear. Thatâs why you are avoiding them with this endless tapdancing.
It looks the same in context.
Yes. We just look at the data. Itâs perfectly clear.
No, you wrote a lot of them, not saying anything of significance.