The ID Publication Record

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #41

I tend to agree with this. That might be why it has worked out easier to work with you. Though conversation with @Winston_Ewert went really well.

I think you are doing things that are recognizable as science, but this usually has nothing to do with showing design in nature. The new center on artificial intelligence might also be effective in that it might encourage helpful work that could help us all on several upcoming challenges in my field. Consciousness remains a very hard problem.

I hope ID continues to take more work like what you are doing. Which can at time qualify as scientific. There are other activities, as you know, I do not think are science.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #42

oh come on tell us. Science doesn’t go on in secret basement laboratories. Science is about collaboration. Someone get a surprising result, someone else confirms it, they are on to something. Consensus starts building. You don’t have to protect those doing the work unless it isn’t science. Who is funding it? Why so secretive? Are you working on driverless cars using AI? How about AI in general? What field is the science in? Information Theory and Complexity? Biological systems?

(Ann Gauger) #43

Do an internal attitude check and tell me you wouldn’t write off any work by someone with ID leanings. If you are objective and fair, good for you. But you no doubt know what other people would say and do.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #44

I don’t need an internal attitude check. I am questioning your motives. Are you active in scientific research or not. If so what’s it in? A very fair question. Don’t hide behind a cloak of secrecy that you have this army of scientists working on the next great thing.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #45

@Agauger is doing work in population genetics.

It is also true that ID funds people in secret, and we are gonna just have to decided if we believe her if this is equivalent work or not. Until it is revealed, we won’t know for sure.

@Patrick I agree with you that most public ID work is not science as I understand it. The fact that there is some population genetics work legitimately being done does not somehow make this other public ID work scientific. I think we agree there.

I suppose I’m in the strange middle ground of trying to acknowledge legitimate work when I see it, even when it comes from a source most of us do not expect it from. I honestly am caught in the middle.

On one hand, I don’t agree that DI has never done anything interesting or important. On the other hand, I can’t say it was all good scientific work either. In general, much more often than not, I end up disagreeing with the ID work I see.

I do not, however, want to make an absolute statement that closes my mind and prevents me from acknowledging things that are important that come out. In general, I think ID has some interesting questions they are after, though I often disagree with their claims of answers. That is what worked so well about the Buggs/@Agauger dialogue. They came in good faith with good questions, that no one was taking seriously in the scientific work. They were not coming with poorly baked answers for us to accept. That created space for us to look at the questions together.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #46

I am looking forward to reading their papers on population genetics.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #47

There are a few already. There is some unnecessary attacks on evolution. There is a lot of technical explanations of what will be done, and hypotheses to test. There is not much data yet.

However, the questions were really good. In some ways, the Buggs conversation ended up scooping them. They do however deserve credit for the questions they brought forward.

I think also now they may be ready to start producing some results. I think they will be able to map out some of the nuances we do not yet know. They might even have some larger surprises ahead.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #48

be careful you have much to lose in this . You are young, up and coming. Don’t get labeled as an ID sympathizer. They didn’t offer you a lifeline. They just reveled in the controversy. That is what they are about - selling the made up controversy between science and religion and science and science. Ann is fighting for a job there, any job of relevance. She needs something that this controversy can give her. That why I was asking her when she was retiring.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #49

You are right. I do have to be careful.

I’m not seeing how they can make the case for ID, or against common descent, or find positive evidence for a bottleneck. Nor do I, or will I, agree with political action to insert ID into science curriculums. Nor do I agree with the rhetorical attacks we often hear against science as a whole. I’m 100% for science neutrality.

As you’ve said @Patrick, the work on Adam population genetics has little (if anything) to do with any of that.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #50

DI is a political organization funded by those who oppose YOU. Be honest, is the white evangelical christian leadership ever going to accept YOU?

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #51

I agree with that, but @agauger is not DI. She is one person that works for DI, and I imagine does not even agree with everything DI does.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #52

When you work for an organization, you have to tout the party line. This not academia, this is blood and guts politics.

(Ann Gauger) #53

Hey, Patrick, thanks for being so concerned about my future employment. But your analysis is wrong in all respects. I don’t need controversy. In fact my continued interaction here is not encouraged. Like I said, both sides don’t trust each other.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #54

I undestand where you are comign from.

I also understand where you are coming from.

Maybe should just step away at this point, before there is some damage done.

(Ann Gauger) #55

Good idea

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #56

There is no both sides here. Dr. Swamidass is a working scientist do good work at a secular university. He has a great career ahead of him. Why he is jumping into the present day culture wars is beyond me.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #57

I am hoping we can end at least some of the conflict. Maybe I am wrong. Would it not be good if we can even be a little bit successful?

@patrick, maybe you are right too. Maybe I wont’ be successful. Is there harm in trying?

(Ann Gauger) #58

I am glad you are defending Joshua, Patrick. He does not have to associate with me, though I appreciate what he has done, and his honesty with the Science. If associating with me is too risky then one of us should go away.

I have not asked him to speak about our research. He knows this. I do not want to cause him harm. So I will write the panel piece and then step away for awhile.

This is academia—blood and guts politics. Thanks for trying, Joshua. But Patrick is right. People can turn against you on this subject, and you won’t know until it’s done. Just being Christian can be enough to make it happen.

Please don’t view this as a criticism of you. Maybe some day things will be different.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #59

Yes, to you. It can destroy you in the end. And nobody will care.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #60

That is possible.