Some Comments from YouTube Watchers of the Tour-Farina Debate

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@paulm12

If I had to pick a side, it would be with Dr Tour, because there seems to be much more we do not know than we do, but I think the whole thing of “picking sides” is unhelpful for scholarship.

Pick a side on what question? If the statement is merely that we haven’t figured out the origin of life, nobody is against that proposition. There are no reasonable people on the other side of that. Everyone agrees that question is unsolved and that is why the field even exists and why it is an increasingly active area of research.

Consider that the whole idea that you have to pick a side (either you agree the problem is unsolved, or you believe scientists have created frogs from simple chemicals or such similar nonsense) because there’s this huge block of people who claim we’ve already got it figured out (and that this huge block of people is a huge societal problem) is a false picture in the first place.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems is people have reading comprehension issues. The popular press sure is full of a lot of hype, but as egregious as some university press releases can be, I have to say I haven’t ever come across one that genuinely claimed scientists have created frogs (or “slithering creatures”) from simple chemicals. Much less have I encountered an actual science textbook that said that.

@paulm12

@Rumraket

Earlier in the video you state that you think that because there are many people who attack ID-proponents in a way similar to how Dave Farina has attacked Tour, that makes you think or suspect there’s actually something to ID in the first place, and that they attack it like this because there are no valid criticisms of ID.

First of all I hope we can agree this is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that there is “something to ID” just because there are people attacking it with presumptive bad-faith attacks that it is religiously motivated. ID must stand on it’s own merits regardless of however many bad-faith attacks it is subjected to.

Not exactly. If someone thinks the methodology or epistemology of a viewpoint is flawed, then this serves to undermine any subsequent criticisms based on this. In the same way that sone people here criticize Dr Tour’s views because of his religion, it is also fair to criticize anti-ID people for failing to listen or understand such viewpoints. Since I do not condemn Dr Tour for his religious views, I wouldn’t apply this logic for Anti-ID rhetoric either. But those who criticize creationists or ID people due to their religious views open themselves up to criticism for their metaphysical presuppositions. In my view, such criticism is self-defeating, because it also comes from a postitivist attitude which has come under serious fire in philosophical circles.

Sure, I don’t disagree with that. The ability to attack people’s underlying motives cuts both ways, and people on either side can be motivated by their biases and preconceptions in ways that make them prone to poor reasoning and uncharitable interpretations of their opponents. Agreed.

But I’m not sure how that fits as a response to what I wrote.

You literally stated in your video what I was responding to. Perhaps you meant to say something else like what you just did here, but what you stated in the video is a non-sequitur. It really doesn’t, actually, follow that because there are people making presumptive bad-faith attacks on ID, that there must therefore be something to ID. ID must stand on it’s own merits regardless of how some people attack it (or not.)

Are there bad faith arguments against ID? Sure. Does that mean there’s something to ID? Well, no. If there’s something to ID it is not because it is attacked by some people with badly motivated arguments.
And if you think there’s something to ID, I’d be happy to discuss those things with you. You also stated in your video you haven’t been able to find any substantive criticisms of ID and I must again repeat my question: Where did you look? I highly recommend you look where I suggested in my previous post.

@paulm12

Perhaps Professor Dave has offered substantive critiques of Tour’s views on Chemistry. But many of the things he brought up in the debate were entirely uncharitable and seemed to misunderstand the claim Tour was making, at least for the things I did understand.

I agree Dave did not seem very open to considering Tour’s criticisms in much depth in their debate, and generally seems to have a hard time steelmanning Tour at all, despite their disagreement. And this probably also had the effect of both men talking past each other at times. But that doesn’t mean Dave did not have any substantive criticisms of Tour’s points.