…and this is a 
Massimo Pigliucci has written a book, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), that actually sounds very interesting — it takes a strong skeptic's approach to truth claims. What really makes it sound worth reading, though, is a review by Carlin Romano that pans it, Pigliucci, and a whole great legion of scientists irritated with the public endorsement of nonsense: Romano complains that we're on "ego trips." Why? Because Pigliucci expresses such strong certainty about the conclusions of science.
Here's the heart of the review. It's a lot of aggravating piss-pottery about tone.
Pigliucci offers more hero sandwiches spiced with derision and certainty. Media coverage of science is "characterized by allegedly serious journalists who behave like comedians." Commenting on the highly publicized Dover, Pa., court case in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent-design theory is not science, Pigliucci labels the need for that judgment a "bizarre" consequence of the local school board's "inane" resolution. Noting the complaint of intelligent-design advocate William Buckingham that an approved science textbook didn't give creationism a fair shake, Pigliucci writes, "This is like complaining that a textbook in astronomy is too focused on the Copernican theory of the structure of the solar system and unfairly neglects the possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really pulling each planet's strings, unseen by the deluded scientists."
Is it really? Or is it possible that the alternate view unfairly neglected could be more like that of Harvard scientist Owen Gingerich, who contends in God's Universe (Harvard University Press, 2006) that it is partly statistical arguments--the extraordinary unlikelihood eons ago of the physical conditions necessary for self-conscious life--that support his belief in a universe "congenially designed for the existence of intelligent, self-reflective life"? Even if we agree that capital "I" and "D" intelligent-design of the scriptural sort--what Gingerich himself calls "primitive scriptural literalism"--is not scientifically credible, does that make Gingerich's assertion, "I believe in intelligent design, lowercase i and lowercase d," equivalent to Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterism?
Tone matters. And sarcasm is not science.
Romano is oblivious to the actual facts of the Dover case. William Buckingham was not some thoughtful theist who wanted a philosophical discussion in the science classroom; he wasn't even an ID proponent. He was a born-again jesus freak befuddled on hillbilly heroin who was more of a young earth creationist. He wanted to get the Christian Bible into the public school classrooms, was willing to lie on the witness stand to do it, and saw intelligent design only as a tool to smuggle Jesus into the science classes.
Yes, really.
"Inane" is also how Judge Jones described the school board's actions: to be precise, he called it "breathtaking inanity". The view they were trying to push on children, that the there is a magic man in the sky who poofed us all into existence, is actually entirely as silly as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Pigliucci was right. Romano is wrong.
But what if Buckingham had been a genteel, considerate, ruminative Owen-Gingerich-style Pennsylvania populist? Would that make any difference? No. Gingerich is a religious cosmologist who believes that "a common-sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence." There is absolutely no evidence for this, despite his claims that that bogus 'fine-tuning' argument supports the notion. It's a fabulous fantasy of a grand cosmic super-brain hovering about at the beginning of the Big Bang that is just as ludicrously unfounded as the claim that Jesus did it, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster flapped a few noodly appendages to conjure a home for pirates into existence. Leaving the word "Jesus" out of your explanation does not turn it into science.
The only thing I agreed with in Romano's cranky review was the second to the last sentence above: "Tone matters." It certainly does, but not in the way he imagines. Romano has written a kvetching review in which he reserves all of his bile for the fellow promoting an evidence-based view of reality, and provides nothing but gentle strokes for people who favor fantasies over hard truths…and his complaint is that scientists are insufficiently conciliatory to those deceitful purveyors of faith and fables. Tone does matter when you use that brand of argument to beg special treatment for liars, and to justify chastising those who deliver a blunt truth — it means one is pandering to faith-based folly.
Tone matters, because too many have been insufficiently fierce in their criticism of pious excuses for sloppy thinking. Tone matters because we haven't been rude enough in the face of special claims of privilege for religious inanity. We need to flip that tone argument around 180°—the problem isn't that our tone is so harsh, it's that yours is so inappropriately soft towards people who lie to children, who want to gut our educational system, and who want to taint science with a bias for magic.
Comments
Posted by: csreid
|
May 3, 2010 11:57 AM
Yes No. (Teach him to ask rhetorical questions...)Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 3, 2010 12:00 PM
What a prat! Damn right tone matters, and a moron who doesn't even understand that the Dover ruling wasn't about cosmological ID, but (almost) only about biological creationism, ought to adopt a less whiny and certain tone in which to kvetch stupidly and ignorantly.
As for "fine-tuning," it is only an observation. It's not so "unreasonable" to a mind predisposed to believe in magical explanations (it's not so stupid as apologetics, it's apologetics that's stupid), but "God" provides absolutely no causal explanation for it.
That said, cosmological ID isn't as pathetically anti-science as biological ID, which was what was banished at Dover. Romano's pontificating without even understanding that fact shows what a mindless jerk he really is.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Mystyk
|
May 3, 2010 12:03 PM
I've been listening to Massimo Pigliucci for some time now through his podcast, and I have always been impressed with the thorough, consistent approach he takes to every topic, especially those with which he admits he would be prone to bias. That is utter scientific integrity, and he doesn't care how uncomfortable it makes others (although he also doesn't want to deliberately antagonize just to be contrarian). Richard Feynman would be proud.
For those interested, his podcast is "Rationally Speaking: Exploring the Borderlands between Reason and Nonsense." It is the official podcast of the NYC Skeptics, and is well worth a listen. It is available free on iTunes, or you can head here: http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/
Posted by: raven
|
May 3, 2010 12:03 PM
The usual. Carlin Romano is a serial killer.
He created a few poorly made strawpeople. And then set them on fire in an act of premediated murder. Won't someone think of the poor strawpeople?
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
May 3, 2010 12:07 PM
This is even funnier since Pigliucci just last month ranted at PZ for not being nice enough to people he disagreed with - essentially saying "tone matters."
Posted by: kinem
|
May 3, 2010 12:08 PM
PZ, I like that last paragraph. Very quotable.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 3, 2010 12:13 PM
Sure, but not to the substance of the claims. And how it matters is a purely subjective thing... something obviously lost on a reviewer deciding to tell everyone how the tone matters to him and that it should matter the same way to everyone.
Go piss your pants in your own private corner along with the rest of the tone-concerned accomodationists, Romano. The rest of us will spend more time concerned with the substance of the material.
Meaningless drivel masquerading as a clever quip.
Politeness isn't science either.
Science is fucking science. And there's plenty of it in this book, whether presented sarcastically or otherwise.
Address the substance or continue to sound like a fool. It's a damn good thing cases like Dover aren't decided based on who presents their argument in a nicer way.
And sarcasm is not science.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 3, 2010 12:16 PM
damn... that last line in my #7 is a copy-paste remnant I didn't see till after I hit submit. Disregard.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
May 3, 2010 12:16 PM
You know what i think? I think that the fact that Carlin Romano is astounded that the bottoms of his shits are the exact same shape as the insides of his diapers means he’s a poopyhead.
How’s that for tone?
Magical thinking is fantastic for fantastic storytelling. Harry Potter would be a dull tale indeed without all the magic wands and incantations and monsters and what-not.
But people who are foolish enough to believe that a particular faery tale is actually true, contrary to all evidence, merely because they find the faery tale pleasing? Well, they’re fools and deserve to be laughed as such.
Except for the ones with genuine mental illnesses, of course. They deserve compassion and the best treatment modern science has to offer.
Basing your decision as to what is true on what you wish were true? You know, “faith”? That’s deserving of scorn, shame, and humiliation. Those people are poopyheads, and they should be publicly and loudly called such.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: Teh Merkin
|
May 3, 2010 12:17 PM
Wait, we live in a universe "congenially designed for the existence of intelligent, self-reflective life"?
Silly me, I thought that the universe was almost entirely a cold, dangerous place for life. I'll remember that the next time I am standing on the surface of the moon in my undies.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
May 3, 2010 12:20 PM
yawn
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
May 3, 2010 12:25 PM
Exactly!! I was about to point that out when I saw your post, KOPD.
I wonder if it will occur to Pigliucci now that this is the problem when you decide to attack tone.
Arguments concerning proper tone are entirely subjective, and has no place is rational discourse. Who is the arbiter of proper tone? Pigliucci? He claimed to be in his rant against PZ, but clearly according to Romano he's not...
Trying to decide who's striking the proper tone is like trying to decide if the music at a concert is good based on how loud it is... it's purely subjective and says nothing, ultimately, about the actual music.
My hope is that Pigliucci learns a valuable lesson about making "tone" and issue when it comes to debating matters of science vs. pseudo-science or religion. Substance is all that matters.
Unfortunately, having read his blog, my guess is that he will not.
Posted by: Orson Zedd
|
May 3, 2010 12:31 PM
What? He doesn't think my pasta based religion is analogous to his?
Posted by: massimo.pigliucci
|
May 3, 2010 12:31 PM
Well, Sir, thanks for the kind words, despite our recent inter-blog sparring.
cheers,
Massimo Pigliucci
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 3, 2010 12:40 PM
As a resident of Canada's most willfully ignorant province, screeds like Romano's boils down to a theme that hits too close to home: "There is a simple wisdom in the views and opinions of the simple and uneducated, and we must not only respect it, but it should trump the views of those who've dedicated their lives to studying a particular subject." 'Round these parts, being described as "folksy" confers more gravitas than completing high school. Spent forty years farming a dirt patch forty clicks from the nearest single-classroom school? Why, that's practically a PhD in every field from climate science to public health.
If Romano is so concerned over tone—and shouldn't he really be more concerned with content?—he would do well to read up on the Dover trial and the antics of those honesty-challenged sacks of dogshit Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell. Integrity matters too, Dr. Romano, especially among those who would set themselves up as the arbiters of our education and our morality. Scientists, like the religious, are as honest and as dishonest as the rest of us. However science, as a process, is self-correcting. Religion on the other hand, has demonstrated it's as concerned with image as the most cold-blooded Hollywood PR agent. Would you have us spend our time polishing science's image at the expense of its integrity so it becomes as shiny a turd?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
May 3, 2010 12:47 PM
My question is this:
When people go out of their way to ignore or deny evidence and take ridiculous positions, what tone is appropriate other than ridicule?
To simply pretend that they have not emitted a massive brainfart is not simply disingenuous, it is condescending.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
May 3, 2010 12:49 PM
Maybe, just maybe, the universe was designed for something. But whatever that might be, it's pretty clear that intelligent self-reflective life is just the accidental by-product. The creator was careless, muffed his figures, and here we are.
And here on earth at least, the "self-reflective" part is only just barely passing muster.
Posted by: Thorne
|
May 3, 2010 12:50 PM
It occurs to me that perhaps the reason religious groups are so opposed to Harry Potter and movies like Avatar is because they know the kids will see the parallels between these fantasy worlds and the fantasy worlds of religion. After all, if you can believe in one fairy godfather, why not all of them? And if praying to the shrubbery doesn't get you what you want, well hey, neither does praying to Jesus!
Posted by: eshamlin
|
May 3, 2010 12:51 PM
PZ, that last paragraph is a great distillation of the situation.
It will be hereby quothed.
Enough with the automatic deference to mythology.
Posted by: Roestigraben
|
May 3, 2010 12:55 PM
He's put off by words like "bizarre" and "inane"? That's about the kindest, yet still accurate description one can come up with to describe what happened in Dover. And then he goes on to call science advocates "Ayn Rand protagonists"! If that's not rude, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 3, 2010 12:55 PM
Ah, there's that scala naturae again. Those who would make claims for fine-tuning would do well to put down the mirror and instead focus their gaze upon the actual biota of the planet Earth. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything, it's for single-celled organisms lacking a nucleus and organelles. We exist by their grace, and none other.
Posted by: AdamK
|
May 3, 2010 12:55 PM
I kinda liked it. I read it in a very sarcastic tone of voice, and it sounded like an elegant little fuckyou at the end of an apt rant.Posted by: blf
|
May 3, 2010 1:00 PM
Is it just me, or has confusing the tone of the message with the content of the message become more common recently?
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
May 3, 2010 1:08 PM
I think what has become more common is deliberately focusing on tone so that you can ignore the content.
Posted by: chaseacross
|
May 3, 2010 1:14 PM
I think magic ought to be taught in public schools. I'm dead serious: have spells, incantations, invocations of deities, prayers for intercession, and so on be taught right alongside science. Then when it comes time for the test, present several problems for the students to solve (for example, the classic egg drop, or explaining some natural phenomenon, or predicting the outcome of an experiment). The students can then work out for themselves which perspective yields concrete results and which does not.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327
|
May 3, 2010 1:17 PM
You let Buckingham off far to easily.
He was the one who brought up his Oxycontin addiction as an excuse for his behavior.
Worse than being a young-earth creationist, he was a simple-minded bully who perjured himself, as the judge noted.
He is an ex-cop. Most cops are decent people doing a tough job for crummy pay. But the opportunity to wear a badge and a gun obviously appeals to bullies and authority freaks. We've all run into them (Skip Gates comes to mind).
Buckingham lied about everything, including the source of the book "Pandas and People." He should have spent a year in jail. After all, every cop takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.
(Yes, as you may have guessed, I worked briefly as a cop in small South Carolina town. I know Buckingham's type all too well.)
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
May 3, 2010 1:25 PM
You don't need to go to the Moon. How about hat nice warm cozy womb that aborts 1/3 or more of all fertilized ova? How about death rates (before modern science) that had over half of all children dying before their 5th birthday? Jebesus, Owen G. How nice that you live in a time and placed that that has cared, cosseted and cuddled you all your life. Try being born poor and hopeless in a Calcutta slum, Dickens' England or an orphan in a Ireland where Mother Church will take over your care! Most of the billions of humans that have ever lived on this world suffered mean, short lives with no time for "self-reflection".This weekend, I listened to PZ debate Dr Angus Menuge (from April 19, 2008 at the University of Minnesota: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1982636607986913603#) and I don't know what stops PZ from taking a pick-axe to the head of these bozos. The debate he had with Simmons was the same - I was shaking with rage while I listened.
The irony is that PZ is very soft-spoken and polite - very much the American Dawkins - when he in public. Even his posts here, while blunt, never stoop to profanity or cheap insults.
It is us, his minions, who indulge in sins lewdness and rudeness of which PZ stands accused....
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
May 3, 2010 1:33 PM
True dat, P-Zed. Keep exposing the stupid!
Posted by: bullofthewoods
|
May 3, 2010 1:35 PM
The tone of so-called new atheists is mild compared to the tone of the fundy church of christ pastors that I was forced to endure throughout my youth. The hell fire and brimstone screeds I had to hear every time the doors of that church was open especially during those week long prayer meetings make the criticism put forth by our side absolutely tame by comparison.Posted by: blf
|
May 3, 2010 1:37 PM
Yeah, that could be it. Or just coincidence, or my noticing/awareness of the confusion (deliberate or not) has improved. Or, since I have no actual data, my impression could be entirely mistaken.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
May 3, 2010 1:53 PM
You know I would be concerned about the tone if the those who do believe were not trying to force me to believe what they tell me to. If they wanted to engage in rational debate or discussion I would gladly join in but they do not want to engage in any such thing. They show every indication of being willing to use "what ever means necessary" to have their views forced on every one else. It is simply amazing that in this day and age we are still having to argue issues that are this old instead of just finding out together what is real and what is not.
Are those who are so worried about tone really just afraid Daddy and Mommy will get mad and come and punish them like maybe washing their mouth out with soap or bring the belt and whip them?
It looks to me like life has fine tuned itself to this little corner of the Cosmos more than the cosmos is fine tuned for life. which sounds like getting the cart before the horse
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
May 3, 2010 1:56 PM
Sure. A superintelligence who faked fossils to test our fate. :)
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 3, 2010 1:59 PM
Exactly. And this is why all the whining and complaining about "tone" is going to go on forever, and be a constantly shifting goalpost. You will never be considered polite enough, as long as you're going to be judgmental.
I recently got into a coffee shop argument over whether or not therapeutic touch (energy medicine) was supported by science. They hated my tone. I was being too sure of myself. I needed to admit that my view was just an opinion. Science itself was just a bunch of people's opinions. Nobody was right or wrong.
This, of course, was not the original thrust of the argument. The original thrust of their argument was that I was wrong, and that chi energy was today an accepted part of the scientific mainstream. When they start to lose the argument, that's when they whine about tone, style -- and the rudeness and philosophical foolishness of expressing strong certainty about anything.
You can't be nice enough, until you admit that your view is no better than theirs, really. It isn't really about tone. It's about content.
Posted by: Tulse
|
May 3, 2010 1:59 PM
Given its prevalence, it presumably was designed for a near vacuum at 3K. All the other bits (stars, gases, people and the like) are just trace impurities.
With regards to tone, what's worse: telling someone they're stupid, or telling someone they will be tortured for all eternity?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
May 3, 2010 2:01 PM
mmm... hero sandwiches... kinkiness...Posted by: tommorris
|
May 3, 2010 2:03 PM
Carlin Romano manages to be wrong about most things. He's often egregiously wrong about philosophy. Now he's being egregiously wrong about science. This is something of a theme in his writings...
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
May 3, 2010 2:08 PM
Well, that's rich, considering Pigliucci has lambasted PZ and others for their tone. One would hope this would cause him to reconsider his views, and realize that:
1. No matter how gently you phrase your criticism, someone will be angry that the content of their claim is being attacked, but they will disingenuously complain about your tone.
2. The complaint is almost never really about tone, it's about being wrong and called to account for it publicly.
3. One cannot reasonably complain about the tone other people take when one uses words (correctly) like "inane" to describe, well, inanity.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 3, 2010 2:12 PM
The Fine-Tuning Argument contradicts itself.
Is God supposed to be intelligent?
Yes.
Is God supposed to be self-reflective?
Yes.
Is God supposed to be alive?
Yes.
Are we made in God's image?
Yes.
Does God need the constants of the universe fine-tuned in order for his intelligent, self-reflective, living self to exist?
No.
Then neither would we. Disembodied minds and spiritual souls can exist under any damn conditions. God didn't create the universe so that He could have little intelligences to love Him. He wanted a particular version of carbon-based flesh to attach the spirits to, out of all the possible things to attach it to, despite the fact that it obviously doesn't need to be attached to anything material at all.
On whim, presumably.
Posted by: yar.natasha
|
May 3, 2010 2:16 PM
I fucking hate the 'tone' argument. It is constantly used against we queers, we aren't being polite enough. If only we weren't so shrill people would listen to us. Bunk.
In a fight for truth or your rights politeness just gets you ignored. We are never going to reach the faith blind but if we are loud enough we may very well reach the ignorant and hopefully educate them.
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz
|
May 3, 2010 2:23 PM
Delightful the bit about tone.
And Sastra's Fine Tuning "argument" demolition too.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
May 3, 2010 2:44 PM
And just because you can never have too many H. L. Mencken quotes, here's Mencken on "tone":
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
May 3, 2010 3:00 PM
The way I see it, current evidence is leaning towards a three-horse race between hard vaccuum, black holes, and dark energy. As for intelligent life? It tripped on the starting gun, broke a foreleg, and was shot.
Of course, in Avatar, praying to the shrubbery actually worked! Them evil invading aliens and their fancy-schmancy technology proved as vulnerable to Gaia-ex-machina as H.G. Wells' Martians.
Posted by: dashukta
|
May 3, 2010 3:01 PM
"Nonsense on stilts!" is one of my favorite quotes! I remember watching Bill Moyer's Journal and the one guest (I think it was actually Pigliucci) in response to some statement busts out with "That is nonsense on stilts!"
I loved it! I wrote it down. But for the life of me,I can't remember what they were discussing...
Posted by: jack.rawlinson
|
May 3, 2010 3:33 PM
Did Pigliucci, or anyone else, suggest that it was?
One of the many signs of the innate lack of intelligence of these apologists is their fondness for logical fallacy and their apparent inability to understand that it doesn't pass unnoticed.
Posted by: Paul W., OM
|
May 3, 2010 3:40 PM
Massimo Pigliucci @ 14
I hope you'll take Sastra's comment #33 seriously.
I was thinking that during the tone sparring, and lo and behold, Romano comes along and illustrates it beautifully.
(Her #38 was very good too.)
Posted by: Flex
|
May 3, 2010 4:19 PM
blf at #23 wrote,
I don't think so. Maybe we are all simply learning to recognize it more clearly.
Also, as history moves on, most 'tone' arguments are expunged from the public consciousness. The contemporaries of Johnathan Swift complained about his tone, but unless you search them out, you'll never hear them.
Of course, most censorship is a form of 'tone' argument, only with a little more teeth. Who remembers the names of the reviewers who thought 'Tropic of Cancer' was obscene?
Hear that Carlin? Your review is far more ephemeral than Pigliucci's book.
Posted by: Wholly Cymbal
|
May 3, 2010 4:23 PM
That's exactly what bothers me about these tone-trolls. They remind me very much of the "moderate Muslims" who, whenever the monstrous acts of some Muslims are pointed out, stand up and whine "we'll we're not like that!" That's fine, but it also means we're not talking about them! It doesn't matter anyway, because certain Muslims are like that! In this case, it's the toners standing up and saying "well not all Christians are like that! You should respect their beliefs!" They seem to think that if we criticize a Christian who spreads lies about reality, then we must be criticizing all Christians everywhere about everything they believe (which at times I and others like me are, but now is not one of those times).I agree with them: tone is important. However, if these people are actually suggesting that a tone that shows anything but contemptuous indignation for the lies of deliberately deceitful snakes like Buckingham is the best tone to take, then it is their tone we should be worried about. To adopt a tone that even hints at the possibility that maybe ID isn't complete bullshit that twists science and disseminates confusion among the public is to be complicit in that deceit, and is completely irresponsible. Romano fails to understand that the tone he advocates is one which strongly implies that everyone's opinion is equally valid, no matter how baseless and arbitrary those opinions may be. That's a tone that tells people they don't have to think and they don't have to study something to know everything about it. His TONE is LYING.
The tone writers like PZ and Dawkins take isn't even sarcastic; it's polemical, sure, but sarcasm is much to simple a term for this sort of rhetoric. Talking about the FSM and the like isn't simple ridicule, it's an illustration of the illogic behind any concrete claims as to the nature and existence of a god or gods, or anything else that one cannot detect or measure in any meaningful way. The whole point of all this is that is one doesn't think critically, one is bound to believe anything.
It's like they want to make friends more than they want to educate.
...And I wrote this before reading the last three paragraphs... D'oh...
Posted by: cafeeine
|
May 3, 2010 4:40 PM
@Sastra
Excellent unravelling of the fine-tuning argument.
Even if we ignore the 'made in god's image' as too christocentric for the supposed scientific ID proponents, the fine-tuned argument makers presuppose a naturalistic universe in order to make their fine-tuning claim, and then propose a supernatural solution. It is inherently contradictory no matter what the proposed supernatural solution is.
Posted by: Jordan
|
May 3, 2010 5:08 PM
Pharyngula: Proving time and time again that creationists aren't the only arrogant morons in the world.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 3, 2010 5:16 PM
Right: there are YouTube proselytizers as well.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 3, 2010 5:17 PM
I wouldn't buy a Pigliucci book though since he's a shrill, strident, even militant accommodationist. Science and religion are not incompatible he says. We must respect other peoples' beliefs. I'm sure there are many good books out there dealing with the same subject and whose royalties won't flow to someone who sometimes doesn't seem to know whether he's coming or going.
Posted by: Travis
|
May 3, 2010 5:17 PM
Jordan,
So, do you have any specific reason to call the people here morons? A disagreement with some of the points made? Your comment does not have any more information than calling someone a poopyhead.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
May 3, 2010 5:20 PM
Yes, there are drive by morons like yourself as well.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 3, 2010 5:25 PM
One more point on Gingerich - OOoo! Harvard! Ooo! Well, Harvard Press anyway, but still - Harvard! Don't you just love pretentious claims to authority by citing well-known names? I think I can sense the ghost of J. Kwok ...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
May 3, 2010 5:48 PM
Hypatia's Daughter @ # 27: ... his posts here, while blunt, never stoop to profanity or cheap insults.
For a rather low value of "never" - sfaict, our esteemed host hasn't called anyone a demented fuckwit since July of '08.
I blame the local coffee shop.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
May 3, 2010 6:02 PM
I just mosied over this chap's YouTube channel. I really really hope that he's Poe-ing. The "witnessing to the lost" clip had me in stitches. Unfortuantely the more I think about it the more I'm sure that he is serious.
Stop the world I want to get off. :-/
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
May 3, 2010 6:21 PM
Science has been leaving common sense behind ever since Stevin and Benedetti started dropping balls from towers and found that the heavy ones hit the ground at the same time as the light ones. "Common sense" is just another term for "your first, uneducated guess".
Posted by: katharos
|
May 3, 2010 6:47 PM
You know that argument for god has -got- to be right. It was founded on -statistics-.
Gah. One of the things I try very very hard to instill in my students is that statistics are only as good as the data you put into them. They don't speak on their own.
Posted by: tutone21
|
May 3, 2010 6:59 PM
Oh man!! What a fucking tool!!! HE had a guy on a boat looking for the Loch Ness Monster representing the science community. That's why I became a Chemist. To find out the truth about "Nessy."
What kind of asshat does that?
Posted by: co
|
May 3, 2010 7:34 PM
I love the "nonsense on stilts!" phrase, too. Apparently it originated with Bentham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham).
Posted by: co
|
May 3, 2010 7:42 PM
Not sure about "Jordan". He could have just been a little drunk when he drove by here -- his YouTube subscriptions include ZomGitsCriss and MrDiety, with Thunderfoot thrown in for good measure. And I don't see any immediate creotard links. Besides which, his taste in music (if I can believe him) is almost unbelievably good. I choose to believe, for the moment anyway, that he's not a Babble thumper.
Posted by: Mal Adapted
|
May 3, 2010 7:45 PM
What's most risible about statements like this is that they are so transparently self-aggrandizing. Don't theists realize how infantile they sound, so proud of how intelligent and self-reflective humans are, we must be the crown of creation, surely it all exists for our benefit!
The supreme irony in such statements by "people of the Book" is that their book plainly says pride is "the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and indeed the ultimate source from which the others arise."
If pride is the deadliest of sins, then humility is the most exalted virtue, and humility lies in acknowledging (with Dawkins) that "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" -- no matter how good it might feel to believe otherwise.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 3, 2010 7:59 PM
@Jordan: Yep, we just had a libertarian-heavy thread, and I don't think a single one of them was a creationist.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
May 3, 2010 8:44 PM
Naked Bunny with a Whip #63
They did qualify as arrogant morons.
Posted by: Kirk
|
May 3, 2010 8:54 PM
Obsequious.
I agree with (my interpretation of) your intent, PZ, but I don't think the issue is that the apologists are wrong in tone.
It's not tone. It's obeisance.
What pisses the religious people off is that real atheists aren't first willing to bend the knee before they state "I humbly beg to differ, acknowledging that your divine will guides me in all things."
Posted by: jemand
|
May 3, 2010 9:08 PM
I am consistently amazed at the creativity of this group in insults, and yet the first comment which is actually problematic, as "moron" is somewhat of a slur against mentally ill people, (if not completely recognized today it probably will be some time) is by someone who is *criticizing* the people here!
PZ pulls no punches with inanity, bullshit, and willful ignorance, but it is very difficult to find any language attacking a person or group for physical characteristics, or using physical characteristics as shorthand for bad arguments. However, this seems to be somewhat more common among those who tremble before the judicious application of "bullshit" or "fuckwad."
Anyone have a theory why?
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky
|
May 3, 2010 9:10 PM
The most fascinating thing about Romano's review is that this is despite the fact that Pigliucci is a strong accomodationist (indeed, he actually says explicitly in the book t"consider biologist Richard Dawkins, who goes so far as to (mistakenly, as it turns out) claim that science can refute what he calls “the God hypothesis.”" (part of a larger excerpt at http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/05/03/massimo-pigliucci-criticizes-scientism/ ). So even given Pigliucci's views he's still too rude for the theists like Romano. Apparently, no matter how accomodationist one is, the theists will still be unhappy.
The only other interpretation of the data I can think of is that Romano didn't actually read the book. In which case the lesson is that no matter how accomodationist one is, the theists won't actually read your book.
End result seems the same.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
May 3, 2010 9:39 PM
#55 Pierce R. Butler
Ahh, the crackergate incident. I would generously grant PZ the right to call someone who threatens to kill a person for stealing a cracker a "demented fuckwit" - 'tis more a statement of fact than a mere cheap insult......#33 Sastra
But because every American has the right to their opinion, they think they can recreate reality to match it. How many times have you heard the ultimate argument: Shouldn't parents be the ones to decide what their children learn in school? And if parents want goddidit, science be damned."You have a right to your opinion. That does not make your opinion right."
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
May 3, 2010 11:34 PM
That's a little unfair to him, his views aren't militant at all. To the extent he goes I don't agree with him (which I have argued on his blog - it leads to a position where individuals are trying to have their metaphysical cake and eat it too), but I really can't fault his reasoning for his position.Posted by: Pluto Animus
|
May 4, 2010 7:09 AM
Ah, Myers. The old adage: the pen is mightier than the sword. In your case, the pen is mightier than the cross.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnb-E55g7vrnvH-3L1M6d7QuDYWoM_IDEM
|
May 4, 2010 7:16 AM
Perhaps we have witnessed a 'miracle'?
A pearl-clutching faitheist in the initial throes of realising that his filosophical-flapdoodle about concentrating on 'tone' does not work?
For many, including I, have pointed out that an experiment has been performed to test whether or not being polite & obsequious to the faith-heads is effective.
This experiment has lasted for more than 2300 years.
It revealed the results of this odious policy to be startlingly negative in total.
Another experiment has been performed over the last handful of years: telling the truth. At the helm of this experiment have been PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, D'Souza, hang on, (scratch that last one), etc.
It has worked far better in 2 years than Pigliucci's (previous?) polite accomodationist stand has in 2,000 years.
As I say, perhaps he is coming to this realisation. I can only hope.
Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher
|
May 4, 2010 8:17 AM
Puddles
Posted by: CaptainBlack
|
May 4, 2010 9:55 AM
A fine tuning argument for design of the Universe does not imply that the fine tuner is what anyone would recognise as a deity. In fact it would be just as consistent with the fine tuner being a hyper-being indistinguishable from a psychopathic torturer and voyeur.... Oh.. that is a definition of a deity!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 4, 2010 11:46 AM
QFT.
Then he should admit he has a problem. This isn't his first drunk drive-by here.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/EJVFIZw_kuXNNFJ2Kak9YFPn0r3.60jC3Qh.#93f9c
|
October 12, 2010 8:55 AM
Massimo Pigliucci has managed the feat of writing a “revolutionary” paper in 2010 «Genotype–phenotype mapping and the end of the ‘genes as blueprint’ metaphor» in the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, without citing numerous papers on the topic published … 20 to 25 years ago (such as 2 well known papers below) ! How to write a paper on a “new” topic….
Goodwin, B.C. 1985, Problems and paradigms: What are the causes of morphogenesis, BioEssays 3, 32-36.
Nijhout, H. F. 1990. Metaphors and the role of genes in development. Bioessays 12: 441-446.
Posted by: John Heininger
|
November 11, 2011 7:03 AM
"Romano complains that we're on "ego trips." Why? Because Pigliucci expresses such strong certainty about the conclusions of science."
Seems you haven't read the book. As his conclusions about science are far from strong.
The book is a good read however, with some excellent content. And I will be quoting him extensively in (creationist - ID )publications. Some very very useful quotes.
I love the one where he talks about Paleys ID argument going nowhere since that time. While Darwinism has literally taken off. (but In the wrong direction, down hill) He then extensively talks about the vast "complexity" of DNA systems and the complexity of genetic world. Seemingly oblivious to the Paley implications. And talks about profound complexity of fully integrated environmental systems. (which would necessitate natural selection having the perspective and attributes of deity, Or as Dawkins would have it, a "Grand Master Conductor" with the necessary overall perspective of deity, needed to produce The Greatest Show on Earth.)
So here's the rub: The reason that nothing needs to be added to Paleys argument is that nothing has changed, the evidence for both design and intelligence in the universe is still there, and self-evident to everyone other than those who relish unverifiable "explanations" based 'soft scientism', which can never be verified by the empirical scientific method, not ever.
In contrast, the 'apparent' design of natural "systems" are copied in technology all the time, by scientists who apply vast amounts of "intelligence" search for new ideas in their NON-INTELLIGENT universe. Makes perfect sense!
Posted by: John Heininger
|
November 11, 2011 7:15 AM
Does this mean that Dawkins himself is an undesigned hunk of discordinated flesh, possessing NO vastly complex biological systems and surpebly intergated multiple subsystems. Makes you wonder what "mechanism" he uses to get out of bed every day??????
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 7:43 AM
Sorry, there is no evidence for either. Typical behavior for an evolution denialist, to come to a zombie thread and make unevidenced claims. Citation needed for all your claims. Citations to the peer reviewed scientific literature, not religious sites like AIG or ICR.Since there is no deity, and you supply no evidence for one (just make an unevidenced claim), you just sound a little addled with such nonsense. Evolution has a million or so scientific papers that back it directly and indirectly. All are testing evolution. Compare this to the well refuted claims ofintelligentidiotic design in the SCIENTIFIC literature. Behe was refuted soundly. And Behe never published a rebuttal or presented more evidence. The Dover v. Kitzmiller trial showed what a liar and bullshitter Behe is.Yep, all came about by evolution, which is nothing but random mutation and natural selection. Natural selection is very power at selecting that which works. Here's a reference. You are nothing special, just another bald ape. Although, given your posts, an ignorant one.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
November 11, 2011 8:21 AM
Ah, you will be quote-mining him!
How amusing, that creationists have no research program of their own, but must resort to dishonest quote-mining of their betters. How easy life would be if cherry-picking reality actually worked!
Of course it goes nowhere. It has no intellectual engine.
I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about. Evolutionary biology has continued to improve and amass new knowledge. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.
There are no "Paley" implications.
Once again, you demonstrate sad ignorance and religious presupposition -- a toxic combination that results in thinking that just because you say something, you need provide no evidence in support of your ludicrous assertions.
How shamelessly you lie and put words in Dawkins mouth! It's fascinating how utterly dishonest creationists are.
Do you really not care at all that you are lying?
Except for all of the evolutionary biology that has gone on since Darwin, of course.
Or rather, the argument that there is "both design and intelligence in the universe" is still there -- and is even more a pathetic logical fallacy of ignorance and incredulity than it was in Paley's time.
It's self-evident that creationists are still so stupid as to have no idea what "parsimony" means, nor what "burden of proof" means.
Posted by: John Heininger
|
November 11, 2011 6:36 PM
"Or rather, the argument that there is "both design and intelligence in the universe" is still there.
So, as there is nothing but an "argument" for any evidence of intelligence in the universe, I assume that you have neither intelligence, nor can express any intelligence in what you are writing.
In which case, you have now established that:
A NON-INTELLIGENT CAUSE, CAN INDEED PRODUCE A NON-ENTELLIGENT EFFECT. - Well done.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 11, 2011 7:34 PM
Non-intelligent effects such as biology.
Well done indeed.
(For non-ENTelligent effects, you'll have to consult with Professor Saruman.)
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
November 11, 2011 7:40 PM
Well done! You quote-mined your own words, obviously referring to intelligence in the universe outside of human intelligence, in order to deliberately misconstrue my obvious intent, and falsely put words into my mouth, just so that you can mock the pathetic strawman that results!
You couldn't have done a better job of demonstrating that creationists are nothing but disingenuous, lying, utterly shameless and intellectually dishonest quote-mining cretins.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 7:45 PM
Pigliucci is right about most things, but he really is an intellectually dishonest ass.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 7:59 PM
It depends what you mean by intelligence. If you mean your imaginary deity, show us conclusive physical evidence for it. If you mean the equivalent of human intelligence, that is found here on Earth, so probability is one. SETI is still looking locally for non-terran intelligence.Posted by: John Heininger
|
November 11, 2011 8:18 PM
"Yep, all came about by evolution, which is nothing but random mutation and natural selection. Natural selection is very power at selecting that which works. Here's a reference."
Thanks for the reference. I like the references to MODELS and computer SIMULATIONS and PUNCTUATED EQUALIBRIUM.
A MODEL is something you put up when you don't really have anything solid.
A SIMULATION is something you set up when you don'ts have the real thing.
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM is a "trick" used to "jump over" known gaps, and fast forward gradualism.
Moreover, in the case of genetics there is no 'natural selection' going on at a genetic level as genes are not independently competing to survive.
And as we still don't have a cure for cancer, it seems all such MODELS and SIMULATIONS and PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM are inadequate or flawed. Meaning, all the highly INTELLIGENT input into understanding the "genetic mist", and all the complex computers DESIGNED to do simulations, has a long way to go. Making it impossible to claim all this "proves" evolution.
Bottom line: We are all still waiting to OBSERVE natural selection turn one lifeform into a lifeform of a different kind. And no one in all recorded history has ever "observed" it happen. (Although, Dawkins says he has observed it, but not while it was happening. Which means he did not observe what he observed.)
Until that happens Darwinism has nothing to offer but "unverifiable" inferences, assumptions, conjecture and sheer speculation. As Darwinism appeals solely to "explainatory power", all we have is scientism by EXPLANATIONS, that cannot be verified by the empirical scientific method. Which is about as soft a scientism as you can possibly get.
But stay with it guys, as the shift from science to the unsustainable ideology of philosophical naturalistic is working well for you.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 8:27 PM
It is evident, but not self-evident, that Heininger doesn't know what "self-evident" means (and you may not either, but you're capable of learning).
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 8:35 PM
BWAHAHAH! Are you a Poe, John?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 9:26 PM
John, where is the evidence for your imaginary deity???? Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Until you present such physical evidence, equivalent to the eternally burning bush, you sound very, very addled, like you don't have it all together, and are seeing mirages. That's what happens when you decide to be a delusional fool by not looking at the physical evidence.
Posted by: John Heininger
|
November 11, 2011 10:04 PM
Intelligence is the abilities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, planning and problem solving.
So, as your "intelligence" came from "non-intelligence", and your "reason" came from "non-reason", evolutionary style, consider yourself a very lucky man indeed, particularly when mindless mutations and blind natural selection wouldn't have the foggiest notion of where anything and everything is evolving to, or even why!
Now have a house full of grandkids. So, cheers for the moment. Be back.
Posted by: John Heininger
|
November 11, 2011 10:13 PM
"BWAHAHAH! Are you a Poe, John"
O.K. This is your big moment!
Give me the specific "empirical" verifiable genetic evidence that conslusively establishes that the evolutionary continuum is a "verifiable" and "observable" fact, leaving no alternative interpretation or option. Chaper and verse please.
Posted by: John Heininger
|
November 11, 2011 10:21 PM
By the way, thanks for all the kind complementary remarks. I wouldn't venture into a site like this if I didn't relish the friendly climate. Cheers
Posted by: John Heininger
|
November 11, 2011 10:28 PM
"BWAHAHAH! Are you a Poe, John"
O.K. This is your big moment!
Give me the specific "empirical" verifiable genetic evidence that conslusively establishes that the evolutionary continuum is a "verifiable" and "observable" fact, leaving no alternative interpretation or option. Chaper and verse please.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 10:45 PM
John Heininger, you're a despicable ass. The conclusive evidence has been gathered over 150 years; it does not fit in one verse of one chapter. Now fuck off and die, troll.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
November 11, 2011 10:53 PM
Indeed. And if you actually had intelligence, you would have the understanding that the logical burden of proof is upon you to use sound reasoning and empirical evidence to support the grandiose claims that you make for an invisible person with magical superpowers existing and using those magical superpowers in doing something to biology. Of course, you would be specific in what exactly was done, and how you know that it was done by your invisible person with magical superpowers.
And you would know that using logical fallacies such as special pleading and argument from incredulity and ignorance would not be sound reasoning.
Unless you are eternally omniscient, so did yours. Of course, if you were eternal and omniscient, you would have anticipated the need to demonstrate eternal omniscience, and you would have done so. But you did not, therefore, you cannot possibly be eternally omniscient.
QED.
Therefore, you started out from non-reason and non-intelligence, just like everyone else.
QED.
======
Oh ho!
Are you implicitly conceding that your claim that there is an invisible person with magical superpowers is nothing more than an "alternative interpretation or option", for which you do not actually have empirical support or sound reasoning?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 11, 2011 10:53 PM
And it is found in places like this.And still no evidence for your imaginary deity....
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 11:02 PM
Just as intelligent brains are made of unintelligent neurons made of unintelligent atoms, and intelligent adults developed from unintelligent zygotes.
Indeed they would not, but that's not a requirement ... but it takes more intelligence and knowledge than you possess to grasp that. To people who do possess it, D-K's like you look quite stupid and ignorant ... so stupid and ignorant that one is tempted to think you're faking it ... thus my question about being a Poe in re your goofy statement about genes, which is a bit like saying that, in a chili cookoff, the recipes aren't being judged, only the chili is. Of course, being the sort of intellectually corrupt garbage that you, like most creationists, are, you immediately moved the goalposts ... and then shrunk them to the size of an atom and said "hah, kick the ball between those!" Here's a hint for you: you won't sway anyone here with such tactics, you will only bring on a well-deserved stream of derision ... which you will then stupidly whine about, bringing on even more derision, you stupid creationist troll.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 11, 2011 11:09 PM
Oh, God please save us from idiots in Your Name.
If I had a nickel for every creationist asshole who waved his hands about how "Darwinism" (sic) can't explain anything because he was just too lazy to bother understanding it, I could buy the Solomon Islands and turn them into a nautilus ranch.
I mean, honestly, what has this John idiot presented to prove that Evolutionary Biology doesn't exist?
His own disbelief?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 11, 2011 11:28 PM
He's got brilliant arguments that no one here has ever heard before, like "mindless mutations and blind natural selection wouldn't have the foggiest notion of where anything and everything is evolving to, or even why!" -- see, natural selection and mutation can't know how to achieve God's aim of producing us humans, therefore it follows that we were designed by God and evolution is false.
Posted by: KG
|
November 12, 2011 7:01 AM
Now have a house full of grandkids. - John HeiningerPoor kids - having such a stupid and dishonest grandfather.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 12, 2011 11:46 AM
So, John is stupid enough to assume that (biological) evolution can not do anything because it's not sentient?Is he also stupid enough to think that tsunamis plan to smash coastal cities to bits? Or that earthquakes "decide" to shake in order to frighten people and antagonize insurance companies?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 12, 2011 12:11 PM
Just when you think the creationists can't be any more stupid, one of them comes along to show they can.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 12, 2011 3:35 PM
I dunno, this isn't nearly as stupid as how males could not have evolved without females, or that the Big Bang couldn't have happened because no one could have survived an explosion that big.Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 12, 2011 3:42 PM
Yes. Get over it.
No, why?
His limbic system, the part of the brain that even amphioxus use to switch between their handful of behaviors. Next question?
Ha. Creationism cannot explain a single champsosaur.
A model, as you know full well, is a description of reality. You then go on to test how well it describes reality.
A simulation is what you use to test whether a method works: Does it find the right answer when we know what the right answer is? If it does, it probably works when applied to reality, too.
Bullshit. When the environment stays stable, natural selection continues a stable phenotype. When the environment changes, natural selection favors a phenotype that changes in the same direction. Punctuated equilibrium is a name slapped on that fact – that's all.
It really is that simple.
ROTFLMAO! You seem to believe that cancer is a single disease with a single cure. That's laughably wrong.
But check out how many people survived pretty much any cancer 50, 40, 30, 20, even 10 years ago and how many do now. As the T-shirt says: science – it works, bitches.
BTW, it's deeply ridiculous that you believe punk eek has anything to do with cancer. :-D
Define "kind".
Go ahead, we've been waiting for decades already.
You like to throw big words around without understanding what they mean. For instance, "verify" and "scientific method" contradict each other (if your definition of "verify" is strict enough). And what, if anything, do you mean by "scientism"?
While you ponder this, bring me a Precambrian rabbit. I'm feeling lazy today.
You act as if these processes would need to know where to go in order to go anywhere.
If I just start walking in a random direction and change direction every time I bump into an obstacle, and if I have unlimited time for walking and don't become tired, I will eventually arrive in Beijing. It may take hundreds or thousands of years, but I will arrive there.
Funnily enough, this will work all the more quickly the more obstacles I recognize. Obstacles are selection pressure.
*hug*
*caress*
We do like a solid discussion. :-) Just don't bore us.
1) Why does the similarity of organisms form a tree shape? Why a tree? Why not a line, a tape, a circle, a square, a cross, a star, a net? Why a tree?
2) Why are there champsosaurs in that tree?!?
Intelligence and reason aren't things that come from somewhere. They're activities; they're what a brain does.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
November 12, 2011 4:11 PM
I'm going to insist, again, that a Precambrian rabbit would not falsify or disprove the theory of evolution.
Although I will add, as I did recently on the other site (which is currently not loading comments), that it occurs to me now that while it might be possible to rule out a hoax made with current technology, it might not be possible to rule out a hoax made using nanotechnology of a level of sophistication that it appears identical to what the real thing would. Presumably by very sophisticated (and contemporary) aliens, with a very sophisticated sense of humour.
I may have asked you this before and missed or forgotten the answer, but is there any example of what such non-tree phylogeny would look like, in terms of real-world characters?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 12, 2011 5:33 PM
What do you mean? If it's not tree-shaped, there's no reason to assume it was produced by phylogeny; that's my point.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 12, 2011 5:37 PM
I'm thinking of such schemes like that of the 18th-century botanist Jussieu who (AFAIK!) thought that the similarities of plants formed a line, with each species being most similar to its two neighbors, and built his classification of plants accordingly. Later, it turned out that a tree is a better explanation for the observed features of plants (and other organisms) than a line is.
(And I forgot if it's Jussieu Sr. or Jr..)
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 12, 2011 5:47 PM
Would a "Precambrian Rabbit" disprove/falsify Evolutionary Biology, or would, say, the appearance of a mythical chimera (or pegasus or gorgon, etc), do that better, or perhaps a pregnant cat giving birth to puppies?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
November 12, 2011 6:33 PM
OK, I guess I was sloppy in my usage of a technical term -- I meant, what would non-tree similarities between organisms look like?
Huh.
I guess I'll have to try and figure out what he meant.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
November 12, 2011 7:07 PM
I say "no", but I'd be interested in seeing comments/reactions.
I don't see how. Consider this summary of evolution, for example. Which principle does it falsify, exactly?
I would agree that a chimera would be an anomaly that would demand a new explanation -- or theory -- that might not be covered by evolutionary biology as it is understood today. But I don't see how it would falsify the basics of evolution.
I suspect that the best explanation for this anomaly would be "genetic engineering by an intelligent person or persons", and not "all of evolutionary biology is false, and magic works to fuse animals together higgledy-piggledy"
Heh. The question that arises is, how did the puppies get into the cat's uterus? If genetic analysis shows no relation to the mother, the most probable explanation is that the eggs were implanted by intelligent person or persons, thus making the cat merely a host mother (and a hoax mother).
If there is a genetic relationship between the mother and the puppies, the most probable explanation is, again, genetic engineering by intelligent person or persons. A horizontal gene transfer event via a dog actually mating with a cat would be far less probable, but perhaps genetic analysis would not rule it out.
But how would the basics of evolution be falsified by this event?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 12, 2011 9:04 PM
No single observation or finding falsified Newton's theory of gravity and prompted its replacement with Einsteinian relativity. Instead anomalous findings simply piled up over time and were consigned as exceptions for which special mechanisms were invoked for explanatory purposes. For example, another as yet unobserved planet closer to the sun was postulated to explain the deviation in Mercury's orbit from what Newton's equations predicted.
Similarly, no individual finding like a Precambrian Rabbit, or a chimeric organism, would, by itself, overthrow evolutionary theory. We would instead seek exceptional mechanisms to explain these isolated anomalies. We might postulate a limited degree of time travel for the Precambrian rabbit, or consider the possibility of convergent evolution, and we might consider genetic engineering for a single example of a chimeric organism.
Well established scientific theories like evolutionary theory and Newtonian gravity are more robust than that.
Instead, what happened with Newtonian gravity is that a new theory arose which explained the exceptions and anomalies in a more parsimonious fashion than the older theory. This new theory was also able to explain everything the old theory already explained, equally well, and also made new predictions which differed from what the older theory predicted.
This allowed experiments to be designed that directly compared the two theories against each other, and the results of these new experiments showed that Einsteinian relativity explained observed reality more accurately than Newtonian gravity.
And that is the only way a theory like Evolution, or Relativity, or the Standard Model, etc, can be falsified. A new, competing theory must be proposed, which 1) explains everything the old theory already explains equally well, 2) explains anomalies that the old theory struggles to explain in a more parsimonious way, and 3) makes some new predictions that are different from the predictions the old theory makes. Then the old theory and the new theory have to be tested against each other, based on these differing predictions, and the new theory must prove itself superior in this experimental test.
The ID people can search for anomalies until they're blue in the face and it would not matter. Even if they could PROVE that something like, say, the bacterial flagellum really could not evolve, all that would mean is that there is some new mechanism involved in this one special case, which would be a minor and unimportant mechanisms, since it only applies to this one special case. Even if they could PROVE that the flagellum were truly designed, all it would mean is that there was one tiny, minor exception, wherein some non-human intelligence did some tiny bit of genetic engineering one time in some bacteria and did nothing else.
What the ID liars always gloss over is that design theory in all its forms has already failed requirement 1. Design theory already cannot explain what we already observe as well as evolutionary theory can. It cannot, for example, adequately explain something even as simple as the existing variation, frequency, and distribution of human hair colors.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 12, 2011 9:15 PM
Also, when Relativity replaced Newton, the basics of gravitational theory also did not change. Gravity was still an attractive force that weakened with distance. Gravity was still the dominant force responsibility for shaping the macro-structure of the universe. Orbits were still ellipses.
Similarly, the basics of Evolution will not be overthrown, even if current evolutionary theory is replaced by some newer and better theory. Natural selection of existing variation will remain a mechanism for producing adaptions. Random mutations will remain a mechanism for generating variation. Common descent will still be true.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 12, 2011 9:40 PM
The creationists see evolution and creationism as a zero-sum game, if one wins then the other automatically loses. That's one reason why creationists spend so much effort trying to poke holes in evolution.
I suspect creationists don't understand how science works. They see evolution not as an explanation for observed data but rather as a dogma. That's why they continually sneer at Darwin. He's the prophet* of evolution, the founder of a competing religion.
*Some creationists think Darwin is evolution's god.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 12, 2011 9:52 PM
Jebus. While Darwin got the big picture right, his details were supplanted, as is typical with science, by later discoveries. Darwin had no idea of genes or DNA, which not only confirm the relationship between species, but is specific enough to identify individual rapists. Darwin was no deity. He was just a very good scientist who meticulously recored the evidence for his bigger idea. Which is why he gets credit for evolution, even though a good many of ideas, like his non-gene idea for heredity, was wrong. Gasp, a scientist could be wrong? Or rather, a million or so scientific papers supporting evolution, and which modified his ideas to conform the evidence into reality?Posted by: Kseniya
|
November 12, 2011 10:49 PM
Hey gang... off-topic question. Are FtB comment sections broken for everyone? It's not just that I can't comment - I can't even read any comments. It's not just me - right?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 12, 2011 10:59 PM
For the afternoon and evening, yes, you are correct. Bedtime for Nerd.Posted by: Kseniya
|
November 12, 2011 11:07 PM
Thanks. Sleep well. :-)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 12, 2011 11:18 PM
I can't read any comments either.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
November 12, 2011 11:59 PM
Something seems to have been shaken loose. I just now refreshed, and there is a new post, and comments seem to be back as well.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 13, 2011 11:10 AM
I don't see a new post or any comments even after refreshing.