Expectorated!

Stein is making what was all ready a joke of a movie into something even worse. They are imploding so badly that I wonder if Christopher Guest isn't behind this, somehow.

Clearly Stein and Co. have been got at by Evilution Mafia Inc. and are now just acting so stupidly to further discredit the movie. They've been ordered to get bad press.

I wonder what they were promised?

Huh?

Oh.

They aren't acting? It's not a joke? They are buffons??!?

Geesh.

The irony of these people, who claim that their "opposing viewpoints" are being unfairly "suppressed," refusing to take questions other than from friendly sources is too exquisite for words.

I'm thinking I'll have get one of the new irony meters calibrated in Steins. The existing one is calibrated in standard DI units and goes up to 100 Luskins, but the needle is still pegging when trying to measure irony of this magnitude.

Is ID as hypothesis unacceptable to science ?
Yes.
Are proponents of ID furiously trying to smuggle religious worldviews into science classes ?
Yes.

But on

[On the fear scientists are claimed to have to speak out against evolution] I hate to say this, Walt Ruloff and Ben Stein having spent a lot of money to make this movie and all, but it seems to me more likely that these frightened scientists just don't exist.

I must express doubts.

It *is* possible that contradictory evidence will not be allowed in peer-reviewed scientific journals and it is possible that scientists may be frightened to disagree with widely held opinions. And this is especially the case if the theme is politically charged.

Two prominent precedences:
John James Waterston (kinetic gas theory)
Barbara McClintock (couldn't publish the already complete
theory of jumping genes for a decade)

It is possible, but unlikely. All of the "fearful scientists" who are known turn out to be people trying to publish outside their area of expertise and competence, or people whose views have been coopted for ID, but who really are just the usual dissenters from the consensus - people who often claim they are "lamarckian" or "non-darwinian" but, like Kaufmann and McClintock and the neutralists, are quite within the consensus once their views are understood and stripped of the rhetorical flourishes.

No evidence exists of a ruthless censorship of dissent - it's a myth created to bolster the illusion that there really is scientific merit to ID, only we can't tell you about it because we'd destroy careers, etc., etc.

But science is all about testing, debating and in general putting novel ideas to hard use. If ID had any scientific merit, then they'd be able to expose it to the light. They cannot and, despite years of people asking for the science, pretend that there's no place for them.

So while the outside formal possibility exists that actually there really is something substantial hiding behind the whining and dodging, I give it no credence at all.

I give it no credence at all.
Being part of the evil scientific conspiracy (ESC) against ID. You would say that now, wouldn't you?

It is possible, but unlikely. All of the "fearful scientists" [...]

I don't think on ID alone...in fact, they are the least problem. While their intent is clear, their pushing may have an unfortunate side effect: They are searching for any shred of information which may cast doubt on darwinism (and misquote it, naturally...but I don't think I am telling you or John Pieret anything new).
The best counterstrategy for the scientific world is therefore to stand united as possible, ok ? This means peer pressure to avoid any controversial evidence. So people who *are completely unrelated* to ID may be suspected as creationists / ID supporters if they try to publish anything
which may be seen as criticism on Darwin. Chilling effect.

But science is all about testing, debating and in general putting novel ideas to hard use.

No. That is a convienient and widespread misinformation with a grain of truth.
As young scientist there is only one way to gain influence:
Work on important projects (or make them important) and publish as much as possible in the hope that your work is recognized. If you apply for university or even tenure, they are looking on the impact factor of your work (they care a damn about the quality), so it is good practice to make some friends. That means citing people you know and being cited in return. And add people as authors which have effectively nothing done.
As money comes mostly from research, you are not friendly to ideas which may influence your source of income. If you antagonize a widely recognized expert in the field, your ambitions can be in trouble. While in mathematics and physics it isn't so much a problem, in medicine it can mean the end of your career.

Sorry to destroy anyones illusions, but science is human activity.

TSK,
sorry if you feel hard done by and it all seems too hard for you because people are critical about your work,but thats exactly what the scientific method is about.
Get a life mate.

I have addressed the nature of science a few times here. For now I will merely state this: science is not a set of methods, and yes, it is a human activity - old news. But it has a number of post hoc outcomes, and one of them is that ideas get tested and rejected or accepted by various (localised) criteria. Science that is not public is not science, which means publish it - make it public. Since IDers won't, they either aren't doing science or they lack the courage of their convictions about what they have done.

clinteas,
thanks for your deep and kindhearted sympathy, but I am working now as freelance software developer and the reason I left academia are neither hideous schemes nor colleagues or their criticism. But I still know enough scientists inside to get a pretty good idea what is going on.

So I may point out is that you *didn't* say my claims are untrue or exaggerated. And if I turn over your statement...are you claiming that the "scientific method" is about working hard and get praise from other people ? Seems still pretty far away from "testing, debating and in general putting novel ideas to hard use".
And it looks awfully similar to organizing events which require hard work and reaping praise for good work, too.
Is organizing events comparable to the scientific method ?

John,
all true what you said. IDers can't publish because any supernatural additions to critical papers are superfluous
appendages. All critical papers are from a scientific
viewpoint as good if ID is left completely out, therefore
ID is useless.
What I simply want to point out is that the often heard and from the journalist reiterated argumentation "There are no papers in peer-reviewed journals/dissenting scientists, so this theory has no scientific merit" is not so sound and convincing as it may seem for an outsider. Nothing more.

TSK,

"As young scientist there is only one way to gain influence"

I'm sure you feel you're getting the hot-iron for your statements here, but I think there is also the problem of science does not equal influence. Important works in science happen quite a lot without someone publishing it that has some sort of social prestige. It even sometimes occurs that someone's prestige does not benefit them when they do something that is less appreciated. (The issues surrounding Einstein's Nubel Prize come to mind at this point).

"But I still know enough scientists inside to get a pretty good idea what is going on."

I wouldn't expect that the scientists you have encountered are representative of the massive amount of scientists that there are on the planet.

"So I may point out is that you *didn't* say my claims are untrue or exaggerated."

I'm going to say that if your implication is that the buddy system is the only way to provide evidence of 'truth' per scientific data is through this game you've outlined above, then it is certainly untrue and exaggerated. If you're claiming that those mysterious scientists are unnamed or nameless because of some scientific buddy system, then I would also have to say that it is at least exaggerated.

In reality, even if gaining good standing with fellow scientists was an issue in the science realm really was an issue, then it doesn't eliminate the fact that bad science is used elsewhere or how the scientific method works.

"And if I turn over your statement...are you claiming that the "scientific method" is about working hard and get praise from other people ?"

That doesn't seem to be what he said at all. Also, turning people's words around is a fallacy all to its own. I'm sure you know that, perhaps it was a misstatement?

"What I simply want to point out is that the often heard and from the journalist reiterated argumentation "There are no papers in peer-reviewed journals/dissenting scientists, so this theory has no scientific merit" is not so sound and convincing as it may seem for an outsider. Nothing more."

Actually, this statement is flawed, but not for the reason you mentioned. Scientists frequently have dissenting arguments and papers published in journals. That is another way the scientific method works, actually. Sometimes one experiment leads to X hypothesis holding up and then a manipulation of the same experiment then shows how X hypothesis cannot be true and, thus, that what they were attempting to explain (y) was inexplicable by X hypothesis. Then, of course, a new hypothesis is formed and testing continues to try to explain y. There has indeed been scientific theories regarding the origins of human life and the origins of the planet(s), solar system and Universe. As New data is acquired, the disproven ideas are dropped and the new theories, based on the new data, replace them. Just because these works are not anywhere in line with ID, does not mean that they do not exist.

It *is* possible that contradictory evidence will not be allowed in peer-reviewed scientific journals and it is possible that scientists may be frightened to disagree with widely held opinions. And this is especially the case if the theme is politically charged.

It is possible. One certainly needs to meet a higher standard of evidence to challenge an existing orthodoxy, and I've known cases of scientists who had trouble getting their work published for this reason. However, all of them did eventually get published, although perhaps in not as high-profile a journal as their work deserved.

Years ago, I spent some time going through the creationist literature with just this in mind--perhaps some important work relevant to evolution was being neglected because it was tarred with the taint of creationism. Unfortunately, every reference I followed to the source turned out to be a misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or outright falsehood. I eventually concluded that the level of misrepresentation in the creationist literature was so high that it would be difficult to find valid work if it existed. ID/creationists have frequently been challenged to produce the quality work that is being censored by the mainstream scientific media, yet they have consistently come up dry. With many journals going exclusively online, there is clearly enough financial backing behind ID that they could easily start their own journal...if they could find any actual research to publish in it

"As young scientist there is only one way to gain influence"

I'm sure you feel you're getting the hot-iron for your statements here, but I think there is also the problem of science does not equal influence. Important works in science happen quite a lot without someone publishing it that has some sort of social prestige.

But Einstein got his reputation by publishing his findings in a journal so I don't see the problem ? I see no way to bolster your reputation and career during your life
without making your findings public.
Yes, you can do important work without reputation and even worse without getting the earned merit (Boltzmann and Waterston) but how does it help you in your career path ? Does it do you any favor that after your death, if ever, the scientific community recognizes your work ?

"But I still know enough scientists inside to get a pretty good idea what is going on."

I wouldn't expect that the scientists you have encountered are representative of the massive amount of scientists that there are on the planet.

And who, if I may ask, is able to verify that they are *not* representative ? The best a critic can do is to point
out that my experiences are bound to a specific subset of disciplines, locations etc. But even a very narrow subset, how biased it may be, is still *better* than conclusions based on less experience.

Anyway, Peters and Ceci sent 12 already published articles under fake names and instituitions to the same journal.
Only 3 were detected, 8 (!) of them were rejected due to
"severe methodological flaws".

Peters, Douglas P.; Ceci, Stephen J.
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, June 1982 Vol 5(2) p. 187-255

Hermann, Brach and Mertelsmann published several dozens of falsified papers into the prestigous Nature and Science
journals without the slightest problem concerning the reviewers.
Cole et al. sent 50 accepted and rejected project application again to the peer reviewers of the National Science Foundation for reevaluation. The acceptance rate was
practically random.
Chance and Consensus in Peer Review, Science 214 p. 881-886

"So I may point out is that you *didn't* say my claims are untrue or exaggerated."

I'm going to say that if your implication is that the buddy system is the only way to provide evidence of 'truth' per scientific data is through this game you've outlined above, then it is certainly untrue and exaggerated. If you're claiming that those mysterious scientists are unnamed or nameless because of some scientific buddy system, then I would also have to say that it is at least exaggerated.

To be precise: No, the buddy system is not the worrisome juggernaut. In fact most of the time you are working normally; acquiring data, check other findings, write your papers, play games, chat with your colleagues. From time to time you are irritated if a paper is rejected for dubious reasons, but there are other journals and you can apply a second time.

But if a discipline comes under political pressure or the grants are cut or there are much too many young people fighting for jobs, then...yes, then the thumbscrews for free scientific inquiry are drawn tighter. Remember Watson ? He wasn't kicked in public because he stole the data for his publication from other persons, no, he was kicked for racism.

"And if I turn over your statement...are you claiming that the "scientific method" is about working hard and get praise from other people ?"

That doesn't seem to be what he said at all. Also, turning people's words around is a fallacy all to its own. I'm sure you know that, perhaps it was a misstatement?

Oh, I know what he tried to said: Stop griping, critism is an essential part of the scientific method. But it is a thinly veiled killerphrase without any arguable content. Write his answer down and think about it. What does it say and how can you argue against it ?

"What I simply want to point out is that the often heard and from the journalist reiterated argumentation "There are no papers in peer-reviewed journals/dissenting scientists, so this theory has no scientific merit" is not so sound and convincing as it may seem for an outsider. Nothing more."

Actually, this statement is flawed, but not for the reason you mentioned. Scientists frequently have dissenting arguments and papers published in journals. That is another way the scientific method works, actually. .

Right, if the situation as described above is relative relaxed and your arguments aren't *too* dissenting.

Sometimes one experiment leads to X hypothesis holding up and then a manipulation of the same experiment then shows how X hypothesis cannot be true and, thus, that what they were attempting to explain (y) was inexplicable by X hypothesis. Then, of course, a new hypothesis is formed and testing continues to try to explain y.

No, unfortunately not. Measurements of Uranus position showed intolerable deviations of Newtons laws. Instead of dropping Newtons laws the scientists introduced the hypothesis that it is an unknown planet. Currently the scientists observe that galaxies are rotating much too slow
for ART. But ART isn't dropped, the scientists now assume invisible dark matter as possible solution.
The choose of the hypothesis is entirely subjective, there is no objective criterion when to drop a hypothesis or stay with it and try to supplement it / find other solutions.

Short note:
I don't think the choose of a hypothesis is arbitrary, on the contrary. It is influenced by their simplicity, beautiness, generality and aesthetic pleasure. But there is simply no rational measurement nor a rational method to get one.

@trrll: My condolences for this exhausting work. But I think creationists and ID proponents are blinded by their foregone conclusions. I think that any new theory will
simply refine and update evolutionary theory; there will be no replacement which the opponents so frantically desire.

"Yes, you can do important work without reputation and even worse without getting the earned merit (Boltzmann and Waterston) but how does it help you in your career path ?"

Worse? Hey, I have worked under various pen names and stage names for the last four years ... I don't really think getting merit is really so important to me as the influence what I do or have done has on others. Perhaps this is just a place where we would go our different ways. But I digress. Even with your examples of publishing something that doesn't get a lot of acknowledgment, it is still a publication. The scientists in question don't appear to have much to ride on - do we know if the publications you mentioned had anything to do with the subject matter they address regarding ID?

"Does it do you any favor that after your death, if ever, the scientific community recognizes your work ?"

I since I don't think that what is important is me having my name in lights but, rather, that my work do something positive somewhere for humankind, then yes, it does do me a favor.

"And who, if I may ask, is able to verify that they are *not* representative ?"

Kind sir, your logic is working backwards. Using your logic, who is able to verify that they are *not* representative of blood sucking vampires?

"But even a very narrow subset, how biased it may be, is still *better* than conclusions based on less experience."

OR, the less experienced could ask that instead of relying on your experience, we turn to more objective data. Thus, do you have a study or something to turn to rather than your subjective experience? Because, for all we all know, you just happened to encounter every single scientist on the planet with those particular traits. This is why when we do studies on groups, we like to have a 'representative sample,' and that sample must have justification for why it should be considered such.

"Remember Watson ? He wasn't kicked in public because he stole the data for his publication from other persons, no, he was kicked for racism."

Actually, Watson has been under fire before. The racism seemed to be the last (very massive) straw. Interestingly, Watson was the subject of discussion over at Zuska's blog.

http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2008/02/jim_watson_seed_advisor_…

"Write his answer down and think about it. What does it say and how can you argue against it?"

Argumentation is one thing ... accurate, logical statements are quite another. Just because you can flip someone's words around and commit a fallacy with them that sounds good doesn't mean that you're right.

Regarding Newton, Astrophysics and Dark Matter:

1. Sometimes hypothesis are altered to accomodate new data. It happens.
2. When an unexpected thing happens in an experiment or test, it doesn't always mean the hypothesis is disproven - sometimes it means the hypothesis needs altered or other things need considered. Holding something up for testing does not mean dropping the idea whenever the unexplained occurs.
3. Dark Matter is much more than just an assumption. There is a hell of a lot of evidence out there that such a thing as 'dark matter' indeed exists.

"Yes, you can do important work without reputation and even worse without getting the earned merit (Boltzmann and Waterston) but how does it help you in your career path ?"

Worse? Hey, I have worked under various pen names and stage names for the last four years ... I don't really think getting merit is really so important to me as the influence what I do or have done has on others.

Let me shortly review what I was stating because we are deviating from that path. John was replying to my apprehension about possible suppression that science is all about debating, testing etc. I responded that this is not the case; science is a human activity and if you want to be a successful scientist, you may face obstacles which have nothing to do with the scientific method.

My statement was referring to of what a scientist must take care of if trying to achieve success, NOT if success itself is a desirable goal. So if you get personal satisfaction from your influence even if it is not acknowledged, if you
can get satisfaction from being published but ignored, it may be fine and a sign of a wonderful character, but it does not affect my conclusion in the slightest.

"And who, if I may ask, is able to verify that they are *not* representative ?"

Kind sir, your logic is working backwards. Using your logic, who is able to verify that they are *not* representative of blood sucking vampires?

Because blood sucking vampires are inconsistent with our current knowledge. A thing which may be seen directly but not in a mirror violates all what we know about the properties of light. But we know very much about the behavior of people in society. We know that in every society there are people who are lying and cheating, establishing dominance even if wrong etc. etc. So on what are you basing *your* conclusion that science is a noble exception ?

"But even a very narrow subset, how biased it may be, is still *better* than conclusions based on less experience."

OR, the less experienced could ask that instead of relying on your experience, we turn to more objective data.

I have already cited several studies that refuted the faith that peer review is fair. If you have other data, fine, find and cite it; I haven't found anything. Arguing that there may exist studies which refute my claims is argument from ignorance.
By the way, I am not the only one who encountered bad behavior: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/_over_at_adventures_in.php

"Remember Watson ? He wasn't kicked in public because he stole the data for his publication from other persons, no, he was kicked for racism."

Actually, Watson has been under fire before. The racism seemed to be the last (very massive) straw.

But all the fire does refer to social or political questions, not scientific ones, which was my main point. Watson did *scientific misconduct* as *scientist* and was rewarded by it, not rebuked.

"Write his answer down and think about it. What does it say and how can you argue against it?"

Argumentation is one thing ... accurate, logical statements are quite another. Just because you can flip someone's words around and commit a fallacy with them that sounds good doesn't mean that you're right.

You can't use logical statements against killer phrases. These are intended to stop discussions and hurt the opponent; either to silence or to provoke a flaming response. Zuska may give you plenty material how they are used and how to defend against them.

1. Sometimes hypothesis are altered to accomodate new data. It happens.
2. When an unexpected thing happens in an experiment or test, it doesn't always mean the hypothesis is disproven - sometimes it means the hypothesis needs altered or other things need considered. Holding something up for testing does not mean dropping the idea whenever the unexplained occurs.

And how do scientists decide alone on *rational, objective*
reasons when to supplement or drop a hypothesis ? And how do hypotheses occur ?

"I responded that this is not the case; science is a human activity and if you want to be a successful scientist, you may face obstacles which have nothing to do with the scientific method."

Actually, the tone of this statement is very different from the one you used before. The one you used before made it sound like there was some vast conspiracy of scientists oppressing you and preventing your success.

"But we know very much about the behavior of people in society. We know that in every society there are people who are lying and cheating, establishing dominance even if wrong etc. etc. So on what are you basing *your* conclusion that science is a noble exception?"

Earlier you cited *your* experience as if it was representative of all experiences. I'm saying that it is unlikely that you have a representative sample, so then you decided that because people can't prove that they are *not* representative, then they must be. This is kind of like going out to your yard, grabbing a handful of grass and claiming that it is representative of all grass. In reality, though, there are nearly 10,000 species of grasses. Most likely you don't have that amount of diversity in your yard. Furthermore, the whole "you can't prove it is *not*" is backwards itself. When you make a claim like that it is for you to support as a statement, not for everyone to accept until someone can come along and disprove it. If we looked at this in experimental form, the sample of scientists that you likely have met is a very small group in comparison to the entirety of scientists. Lastly, just because we know people cheat, lie, etc. doesn't mean that it is safe to conclude that all that *you* have encountered in a situation are doing such. Many people tell the truth, many people are honest and many people don't do the things that you mentioned.

"I have already cited several studies that refuted the faith that peer review is fair. If you have other data, fine, find and cite it; I haven't found anything. Arguing that there may exist studies which refute my claims is argument from ignorance.
By the way, I am not the only one who encountered bad behavior: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/_over_at_adventures_in.php"

Interestingly, your link mentions one of the fallacies that you've committed. "Poisoning the well." They also point out that they don't think that it is common.

"You can't use logical statements against killer phrases. These are intended to stop discussions and hurt the opponent; either to silence or to provoke a flaming response. Zuska may give you plenty material how they are used and how to defend against them."

I would rather make an accurate statement that is expressed clearly than use an argument that was poorly constructed, fallacious or just intended to blow something off.

"And how do scientists decide alone on *rational, objective*
reasons when to supplement or drop a hypothesis ? And how do hypotheses occur ?"

Of course that is going to depend on the situation and thing in question. That doesn't mean that there is absolutely nothing moderating it. I would agree that hypotheses themselves are very subjective, although I like to think that theres some point at which one may pass from hypothesis into absurdity, I can't readily think of how or where that line is crossed at this moment.

"I responded that this is not the case; science is a human activity and if you want to be a successful scientist, you may face obstacles which have nothing to do with the scientific method."

Actually, the tone of this statement is very different from the one you used before. The one you used before made it sound like there was some vast conspiracy of scientists oppressing you and preventing your success.

What ?! The only one who alleged *that* was clinteas, neither I nor from his reaction John did it understand this way. I even already answered to clinteas that I am not working as scientist anymore and the reason for that has nothing to do with colleagues or criticism. You swallowed his bait hook, line and sinker. Please cite the lines where I indicate a vast conspiracy of scientists suppressing me.
If you can't, you are acknowledging that fallacies may be used to impress you.

"But we know very much about the behavior of people in society. We know that in every society there are people who are lying and cheating, establishing dominance even if wrong etc. etc. So on what are you basing *your* conclusion that science is a noble exception?"

Earlier you cited *your* experience as if it was representative of all experiences.

No, the only thing I said is: "But I still know enough scientists inside to get a pretty good idea what is going on.". Please don't claim sweeping generalizations for what I actually said. The representative thing was introduced by you when you doubted that the people I met are representative for the scientists on the planet. I asked back how you can be sure that they are not and I provided evidence that some of the problems I mentioned are well-known in scientific circles.

I'm saying that it is unlikely that you have a representative sample, so then you decided that because people can't prove that they are *not* representative, then they must be.

Again, no. What I said is that in my impressions have a higher possibility to be true than impressions of someone who don't know scientists. This is especially true if there is no data to refute or bolster a claim.

If we looked at this in experimental form, the sample of scientists that you likely have met is a very small group in comparison to the entirety of scientists.

That I have already pointed out. But the gag is that this very small group is identical in its properties of the large group if group members are chosen at random. Now it *is* biased because of location, students applying for a location, sympathy etc. etc., but as long as we don't have more data, it is the best estimate we can get.

Many people tell the truth, many people are honest and many people don't do the things that you mentioned.

Did I argue the converse ? (No) "There are people" is not "most/many of the people".

"I have already cited several studies that refuted the faith that peer review is fair. If you have other data, fine, find and cite it; I haven't found anything. Arguing that there may exist studies which refute my claims is argument from ignorance.
By the way, I am not the only one who encountered bad behavior: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/_over_at_adventures_in.php"

Interestingly, your link mentions one of the fallacies that you've committed. "Poisoning the well." They also point out that they don't think that it is common.

He didn't mention the fallacy "Poisoning the well" (which means deliberately a specific opinion or their proponents as unarguable option), he said that one asshole in hundred is enough to poison the well (meaning that he can create serious problems). Its in the middle of the third paragraph.
And what means "it" if "it" is common ?

"You can't use logical statements against killer phrases. These are intended to stop discussions and hurt the opponent; either to silence or to provoke a flaming response. Zuska may give you plenty material how they are used and how to defend against them."

I would rather make an accurate statement that is expressed clearly than use an argument that was poorly constructed, fallacious or just intended to blow something off.

Then try hard to follow your advice. You are painting me severely black and this is annoying.