Gauger: Aragorn in The Last Battle

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mung

This is how scientists should deal with critics, by engaging them to come to consensus.

I agree with this. But it should not just apply to the “ID scientists” here. We don’t want to have a double-standard where scientists such as Nathan Lents are granted immunity.

Of course. He certainly has not been granted immunity. I have pressed him on points I disagree with : Nathan Lents: Bad Design of the Eye?, and even publicly agreed with ENV on this: Common Ground on Bad Design. Notice, also that @NLENTS is not at odds with me over this. We are getting along just fine, even though we disagree.

The same, by the way, is true of @Agauger and me. We get along just fine, even though we disagree. That is how it should work in this domain. However, that is not the case by many.

@Mung

And being a “critic” should not apply to just those willing to be critical of what “ID scientists” write.

Of course it does not just apply that way. See above.

@Mung

The distinguishing feature ought to be when criticisms become personal, directed at the person rather than their argument.

I entirely agree.

@Mung

I see Nathan and Ann as cases that we could compare. Nathan felt uncomfortable here. Ann did as well. Did they feel that way for the same reason? Another reason the cases might be analogous is because you, Joshua, were critical of both. Perhaps a compare and contrast would be in order.

That is a good idea. I think there was a difference, traceable to this:

@swamidass

It will be always harder for minority positions here. As a rapidly growing forum, different people are minorities at different times. Right now there are a lot of secular scientists that dispute ID, and it is very easy for legitimate critique to slip into “science-thumping” and other aggressive behavior that ultimately undermines our goals.

That is also why we are taking this seriously. I expect there will be changes.