The Paradox of Competence and Incompetence

Isn’t that what Darwin on Trial was supposed to do? And then Dembski’s work in CSI? Why do you think those efforts were ineffective?

@swamidass
Darwin on Trial was not a presentation of a theory. Dembski’s work is not enough in and of itself. The relationship between CSI and molecular biology is not straightforward, for example.
There is plenty of work to be done, in and out of the lab, @Timothy_Horton.

2 Likes

@Timothy_Horton
It is helpful here to speak in specifics, not generalities. All the sites in question ( I assume you include ID?) vary in their policies and their approaches. And to call them all pseudo science is unfortunate and inflammatory. As I said before, I have no control over AIG or other creationist sites. Not even Evolution News.

2 Likes

Reviewing wrong arguments is informative. It helps to learn WHY the argument is wrong.

The first job of the moderators is to enforce basic content, conduct and respect rules, not to take sides on who is right or wrong. But read on …

Perhaps some formalization of the debate. In this sort of deadlock, a moderator might call for both parties to summarize their arguments in a single comment (rebuttals?). One or both parties might call in a Mod for this purpose. The mod might lock the thread until the parties respond with their summaries, and open a topic for further chatter.

Not a bad idea, but we need to define some category specific rules for how to apply this. Suggestion: three categories of discourse: High, Moderate, Low, with corresponding standards for debate. We sort of have this structure already (Office Hours, Conversation, Chatter), but we can formalize it. We might remove access to higher levels for people that are disruptive. There should be a pathway to (re)gaining access to higher levels.

There are a few more issues to work out. I’ll think on it.

TEMPTING! :smile:

Darn.

1 Like

I don’t like this very much. I think it is necessary in practice for this forum, otherwise too much time and energy will be wasted in trying to evaluate every single statements.

That said, I’d rather that statements be evaluated by their own merits.

1 Like

A typical person on the low end of the D-K spectrum won’t be able to effectively summarize their argument, and may just give up. The same is likely for those being deliberately argumentative.

We already have a place to put thread summaries that seems unused.

1 Like

Don’t like what very much? That we have to filter somewhat by expertise?

Yeah, this in particular:

Let’s say we also have the goal of:

  1. Recognizing exceptions to the rule, that need to have their voices amplified.

  2. Keeping the differential as small as possible, to allow new voices to arise and learn from insight in all corners.

Does that help?

I am still uncomfortable with the idea that someone’s statement is not taken on its own merits. However, as I said in my previous post,

I am okay with this policy as long as it is understood that it is implemented due to practical reasons, and not because the inherent truthiness of a person’s comment is tied to their qualifications.

1 Like

@moderators

Will whoever put the darn Dr. under my name change it please? I hesitate to make another joke or it might end up under my name.if you want something descriptive it would be truth seeker.

1 Like

Just playing with you @Agauger. You are now a “Catholic Biologist”.

Speaking just for me, I sort of like steerage. I appreciate what Joshua is doing here, and understand the need to keep the wide range of discussion here on an even keel. But I like it when participants, foils do not treat me special just because of my background. The students and lay persons who are here to argue, debate, and learn are important, and I very much prefer that they treat me as they would each other.

On the other hand, if we are going to be doing honorifics, then King Arthur has a nice ring to it. I’m just sayin’ …

5 Likes

Perhaps the first step is pointing to the fallibility of human intuition. Very often, wisdom is mistaken for intuition. If something strikes the non-expert as being a flight of fancy or counter to their intuition they will think the expert lacks wisdom and discernment.

There also seems to be a conflation between the right of freedom of speech and the right to be correct. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

If we can start from a foundation of human fallibility and a trust in facts then perhaps the discussion could move forward.

1 Like

i agree with this thread.
It makes so much sense that accuracy is not a roll of the dice in populations.
If accuracy is tied to intelligence then why wouldn’t it be that intelligent people, relative to less so, would, on a curve, gets things right more? Where there is contentions?
An example is children verses adults.
If there was ten contentions between adults and children WHY wouldn’t it be that the adults get ten, or nine, right and the kids all, or one, right??
In short we are smarter then them(call me a ageist if you must) and its not a roll of the dice with a fifty/fifty result.

I think less accurate/less intelligent people would more likely not question their presumptions.
more accurate/more intelligent folks would be more careful especially in issues of contention.

I think this was shown in the political alignments of the 70’s, and 80’s.
Where all the great conservative conclusions defeated the liberal ones. On economics, international affairs, crime/law, etc. Then those who are conservatives/liberals does move through demographics unrelated to individuality and a roll of the dice.
It must be this way!
Can one predict, ass in origin matters, who will prevail?! I think you can.