|
Author
|
Topic: On Criticism - Four Types of Critics
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 08. December 2002 14:46
FWIW, I think that dividing up the forums is the only way you're going to accomplish what you want to accomplish.
Part of the problem has been that, while avoiding the "same old" discussions has been repeatedly emphasized as the goal, Dembski (among others) has repeatedly lobbed any number of traditional bombs at evolutionary theory, and added on claims saying essentially that the whole establishment is corrupt, blinded, etc. etc., which frankly beg for the traditional response ("but what about *these* five articles??").
So probably splitting brainstorms into:
1) Original brainstorms idea, and:
2) Critiques of "Darwinism"/modern evolutionary theory and critiques of ID
If you keep just one forum, but allow Darwinism critiques but exclude ID critiques, you are just begging for people to slip in responses.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 08. December 2002 15:01
I totally agree with the moderator on this one. More than that I think that the dicussion on this board should be limited to people who accept ID and those that are interested in accepting ID, but require just a little more proof. It would be most interesting to see what develops.
IP: Logged
|
|
markg
Member
Member # 426
|
posted 08. December 2002 16:48
I wish to register my support for the moderator. As one who, as a lurker, has enjoyed the high standard of discussion and debate on ISCID from its inception I commend him for maintaining a very focussed and productive board, one that stands head and shoulders above most other boards on this topic. The moderator has done a sterling job in my opinion of handling the difficult task that presents itself in a debate that generates such an incredibly high level of vitriol, passion and angst.
Unfortunately I do not believe there is any other option but the one put forward in this thread by the moderator himself. I have observed numerous ID/evolution/creation lists and egroups over the past two years and the same problem that has emerged on Brainstorms has occurred in all of them. Unless firm moderation is in place every board that touches upon ID will be taken over by critics and debunkers of ID for the purpose of undermining or hijacking the debate. And inevitably this leads to a lowering of standards of civility and a loss of the all-important climate of mutual respect and openness in which non-mainstream views can be put forward and new ideas can be birthed and developed.
Without active moderation, boards inevitably fill up with "noise" - mindless insults, personal abuse, non-sequiturs, coarse jokes and cheap shots by those less committed to the notion of the civil society. These very same critics will be first to attack the moderator for his “unfairness” and "unethical" behaviour in “stifling” debate and preventing the airing of their views - which frequently consist of the usual blanket and virulent anti-ID sentiments and catch phrases.
Comment has also been made about "mechanical responses" to new threads on brainstorms. This is also a form of "noise" that has a veneer of civility - sometimes barely disguised - in order to achieve the very sort of disruptive and critical undermining of ID that is the stock in trade of the more aggressive and less restrained anti -ID critics. There are some posters even here at Brainstorms who give every indication of having no other life but that of the ID debate so quickly and so regularly do they respond critically to each and every new thread.
So far the ISCID Brainstorms site has avoided much of this "noise" because of its clear rules and active moderation, as well as a more restricted technical focus than pertains in most other evolution/ID lists. But I see the potential for more and more "suspect" posts appearing on Brainstorms - I use the term "suspect" quite deliberately because many of these posts come from individuals well-known on other sites, where their philosophical biases are allowed free reign and their posts are often less restrained and polite than the standard that heretofore has been demanded by the moderator of Brainstorms. I know from perusing many lists that more and more critics are becoming aware of ISCID, which is something I guess those behind ISCID would be pleased with. But along with this will come more and more of the aggressive and committed anti-IDers - those in categories 3 and 4 of the moderator's list of potential critics.
Of course the vast majority of them will never be persuaded of the validity of ID. Nor do I believe it is the purpose of ISCID to "win over" such ideologically opposed and committed opponents. Surely ISCID exists to find common cause with those men and women of goodwill who are sincerely open to the concept of purposeful design in nature; to develop and refine arguments and hypotheses about ID, and to get appropriate positive critical feedback from those who while not convinced are genuinely open to pursuing all avenues of investigation and research. Committed debunkers have no place in this scenario because they have already closed their minds to the ID hypothesis.
So let me humbly demur from one of the Brainstorms regulars, charlie d, who opines that:
"Using openness to ‘conversion’ as a litmus test is just unreasonable. If people with strongly held opinions invite others to an open, productive discussion (and discussions between strongly opinionated people can be productive, if the goal is not "conversion"), they at least should accept to have discussions with people with equally strongly held opinions. Otherwise it's a farce.”
Openess to “conversion” has nothing to do with the matter in hand, openness to another paradigm and a willingness to give it a fair hearing do. And most other ID discussion groups long ago descended into farce… It is because I do not wish to see Brainstorms take the same path that I support the moderator's position. "Open, productive discussion... between strongly opinionated people" so very rarely occurs on ID/evolution lists that one would be easily persuaded that in this debate they are mutually contradictory. But the stand of the Brainstorms moderator, and his enforcement of the list rules, has, in fact, enabled that open productive discussion you so rightfully desire to occur. His weakening of this standard would be a surrender to the rabble where the most aggressive, the loudest and the most opinionated would dominate, as they do on other such groups.
I quote the following comment from one of the moderators at another ID site, ARN who have also been confronted with this problem of carping critics:
"This is an ID site. Some of the critics here are rude, and seem to feel that they have an inalienable right to use ARN bandwidth. They don't. They are guests here, and need to act a bit more like guests. I've had complaints [...] that the critics have hi-jacked the site, driving out IDists with their rudeness and persistence. I think there is some merit to this view. Poster like [...] lend credibility to the charge."
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000517
There exists no inalienable right to reply. This has been amply demonstrated by the short shrift given to IDists who have their works minutely dissected in various publications and online with no equal right of reply by what can only be describes as self-appointed ID witch-hunters. ISCID is an ID site. Rude or belligerent critics - as opposed to those with appropriately focussed and civil criticism - surely have no "inalienable right" to use ISCID bandwidth. They too are guests and should conduct themselves as guests. If they cannot, they must go.
I would hate to see Brainstorms hijacked as I have seen a number of other formerly ID friendly discussion lists hijacked. There are numerous anti-ID sites and egroups on the Net where critics and debunkers can and do engage in all sorts of ID bashing. I consider it unethical to go to their sites and butt in with posts designed to undermine and attack their positions, nor do I think it is appropriate that debunkers have access to ISCID brainstorms for the purpose of blanket dismissals and attacks upon IDists and ID. There is a difference between specific criticism of particular points put forward in various threads by persons who have an open mind and a shared genuine desire to uncover "the truth" and the sort of blanket criticism and debunkery which is the universal currency on the anti-ID Net.
I'm sorry, "Kyle", but the notion that ISCID should run a "critics forum" where "people who are generally hostile to the notion of purpose in nature could discuss whatever they wanted" is truly bizarre. In wartime it might be called "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". Surely it is not one of the aims of ISCID to give hostile critics a forum; they already have that in spades! Could I also suggest that, in and of itself, "hostil(ity) to the notion of purpose in nature" drips with undisguised atheist metaphysical underpinnings and as such is a fully-fledged ideological belief system. Those who adhere to it would probably have little of positive value to offer ID.
Nor is it appropriate that your "truly open" forum exist - because, as I have pointed out, such "open" forums inevitably degenerate into a free-for-all of abuse and insults in place of reasoned debate and discussion. There is no shortage of such “open forums” all over the Net. We do not need another one! What is needed is an ID-friendly site that allows constructive criticism in order to "build up", not "tear down". We have so few of those...
Look, this is not a level playing field. ID is not accorded a fair hearing in the Academy or among the intellectual elite. ID theorists need to hear honest, constructive and positive criticisms but they also need a safe place to put forward and refine ideas and hypotheses without the continual interference of debunkers and aggressive and harassing critics. Up until now ISCID has provided that. I would hate to see that change.
There may be a price to pay for strict moderation but in the long run it will bring its own rewards. Whether strict moderation gives certain ideological enemies of ID pause over whether they will post on Brainstorms should hardly trouble the moderator or any fair-minded reader of the Brainstorms page. Category 2, 3 and 4 debunkers I submit lack any positive motivation to contribute meaningfully and positively to discussions on Brainstorms anyway.
I know that this is an area of debate and discussion outside the usual parameters of Brainstorms so I will make no further reference but to say that, as laudable as it may be to decouple political, religious, ideological and philosophical issues from the purely biological and technical issues that exist in discussion of origins, evolution and ID, it is something that is just not possible to achieve... Though brainstorms have given it an extremely good try.
IP: Logged
|
|
marc harmon
Member
Member # 595
|
posted 08. December 2002 18:21
There are two sides to this:
On the one hand, I have to agree with the Moderator and Mike Gene--one cannot foster new ideas when the skeptics are making demands from a concept that has not yet been properly “hatched.” Certainly some rules need to be established if ISCID is going to be a veritable incubator of ideas. That is what this board was set up for.
On the other hand, (and I hate to admit it) but RBH and gedanken are right in the sense that it is a big mistake to label skeptics based on what their motivations might be—then allow discussion only if you think they fit under that label. For the past three years, I’ve been arguing that the motivations of ID advocates do not invalidate their ideas about design in biology. If I believe this with any level of honesty, I have to apply the logic both ways.
I see nothing wrong with requiring posts to follow a specific criteria such as…
- Are your hypotheses positive rather than negative?
- Are you capable of sustaining a productive dialogue?
- Are your posts on topic?
But we don’t need to start labeling people and allowing them to post based solely on what we assume to be their motivations.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 08. December 2002 19:08
Marc,
Thanks for the insights. You are definitely right. We should avoid trying to interpret motives. However, here's the problem:
What do we do when there is a serial pattern of offenses? We have limited resources (2-3 moderators) at ISCID and can't survive by simply moderating each and every post. At a certain point, it becomes clear that certain posters will contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion. As others point out, there are some who only create noise...often in a civil manner. This drowns out strong insights. There are also some who consistently throw in polemics, provoking others. There are some who repeat the same general, mechanical responses over and over that are only superficially related to the topic on hand.
At some point posts need to be considered collectively and warrant our addressing their origin (the poster) from the discussion. Perhaps motives weren't the proper way to identify these patterns of behavior. But surely we can't consider each post independently. We've got to have some way of efficiently keeping noise out of our discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
rossum
Member
Member # 463
|
posted 08. December 2002 19:53
I want to add my voice to those who are worried by the proposal to exclude people rather than to remove particular offending posts.
If you want to have robust ideas which will be able to stand up to criticism, and which will lead to research that will also stand up to criticism, then you need to have the critics in from the beginning. If good research ideas do develop inside Brainstorms then you are going to want to do the the research and publish the results. As soon as you publish anything, all the poeple you have excluded from the discussion are going to jump all over it and start criticising. What you are risking is that there is a genuinely good criticism of the research. Wouldn't it have been better to have been aware of that criticism from the beginning, and incorporated it into the research?
By allowing early criticism all you have to do is to change some words in the Research Proposal to take account of it; in the end you will have a better and more robust Research Proposal because of the criticism. It is much quicker, easier and cheaper to correct errors right at the beginning when everything is just words on paper. Changing things at the end is much more expensive in time and money. If you want to avoid a lot of "Oh s***, we never thought of that!"'s in your researches then you should allow anyone to post to the Brainstorms board.
That would make the moderation more difficult. You will have to remove more individual posts and ask contributors to edit their posts more frequently. However I think you will get a better quality of ideas as a result of the more robust discussions. Following on from that you would get a better quality of research, which is probably something we can all support.
The quality of someones ideas does not have a close enough correlation with their beliefs, as perceived by you, to make exclusion of individuals an effective idea.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 08. December 2002 20:25
Rossum,
Thanks for your comments. However, you need to differentiate between different types of criticism and patterns of criticism. Certain types of criticism simply drown out good ideas and are ultimately worthless (outside of the satisfaction they may give someone).
If a poster propogates bad criticism for a long enough period of time - if a pattern develops - then the poster will be eliminated as detrimental to the purposes of productive brainstorming.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 08. December 2002 21:38
In a strange way this reminds me of when I was in graduate school. Over the years I've been in a lot of research seminars. Almost universally the role of the seminar leader was to (try to) keep discussions reasonably civil and on track, where "on track" means addressing the topic of the seminar. Typically, at every meeting one member of the seminar would make a presentation of nascent hypotheses and research plans, or research in progress, or interpretations of research completed, and the other members (perhaps after some questions for clarification or content), would do their darndest to poke holes in the presenter's ideas.
Sometimes the criticisms were tough to hear and critics could be brutally frank. It was a scary experience for a first-year graduate student making a first presentation to an audience that included dissertation-level students and a couple of faculty members. Even after years as an academic it wasn't always a walk in the park. But it is a powerful way to test ideas. By the time I got to my dissertation defense there were virtually no questions that I had not already faced in one or another presentation over the preceding several years. There was nothing they could ask me that I had not already been forced to think through.
The result was often the kind of thing rossum identified. Sometimes it pointed to changes, large or small, in the research plan or hypotheses described by the presenter. On other occasions it could lead to extending or strengthening the ideas being presented. Sometimes it was a fruitless and wandering exercise, though that generally followed from an initial presentation that was incoherent, not well thought out, or flat out factually wrong.
One characteristic of those experiences that I haven't seen here on Brainstorms is that those who knew most about the ideas being presented were often the toughest questioners and the fiercest critics. One's own lab-mates were most to be feared. I do not see that here. There is a clear divide between ID proponents and critics. That's unhealthy for ID but not for evolutionary biology. The reason is that within evolutionary biology the various disputes are as active as ever, the differences as heatedly disputed as ever, and the push to test competing hypotheses and settle theoretical issues in the light of empirical data gathered in the lab or in the field is paramount. That is indicative of a healthy and vigorous scientific enterprise. ID needs to foster that kind of healthy intellectual ferment if it aspires to become a scientific enterprise.
RBH
[ 08. December 2002, 21:39: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 09. December 2002 00:41
Many people seem to be working under the impression that the moderator only wants wishy-washy, weak criticisms. However, this is clearly a mistaken impression given that the moderator has identified Art as a "model critic." Thus, the problem is not that criticisms can be too harsh or fierce.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 09. December 2002 02:45
Mike,
But attempting to stereotype people into categories would increase the confusion and subjectiveness of such a moderation policy.
What makes someone a model critic? Would Wesley qualify under 1, 2, 3 or 4? And what about model critics who are convinced that ID is useless and yet contribute to the conversation in a meaningful but critical manner? Would such people who would be ranked under 2 in your 'filter' be allowed to post?
And who decides who is a 'model critic' and who should be banned for belonging to an unwanted 'stereotype'?
Would I qualify as a model critic? My thoughtful attempt to provide for future directions for ID did not seem to have generated much interest other than a short exchange with Paul Nelson.
How do we avoid a moderating policy which restricts criticism to critics who are 'open to the possibility of ID'? What about variants of 'I am not convinced and will unlikely be convinced based on my understandings of the design inference'?
I am sure that we realize that there are far more than 4 classes of critics and proponents?
Let me ask another hypothetical question: Is ID open to proponents who are not interested in dealing with the shortcomings of their arguments? What about ID proponents who are only interested in hearing positive things about ID? After all proponents and critics alike can have their shortcommings, so why the particular approach for critics? What would make critics less of a contributor to brainstorms than proponents? Should the moderation policy also include rules on ID proponents?
Or why not continue the present policy which would require the topic to continue to explore positive contributions. No postings like 'RMNS is unable to do XX' or 'ID is just religion'.
There may be more succesful and less arbitrary moderation policies. Certainly a 'four kinds of critic' stereoptype seems not very helpful.
[ 09. December 2002, 02:50: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 09. December 2002 03:10
Frances,
I don't think the moderator is talking about putting people into stereotypes in order to kick them out. I think he is trying to communicate the type of atmosphere he is trying to create around here. That is, after someone has been posting here for a period of time, he might step back and assess their overall contribution to the forum in terms of this targeted atmosphere. Are they usually highly specific and on topic with regard to their criticisms? Do they temper their bold criticisms with a respectful approach that strives for dialog rather than battle? Do they typically refrain from characterizing a specific argument in generic terms? Etc. He then has to make a judgment whether they are interfering with attempts to brainstorm or facilitating them (and yes, thoughtful criticisms facilitate). Do they seem interested only in undercutting freshly hatched ideas or are they willing to admit that a new idea has promise if it can be further developed?
Look, we all know these topics come with all sorts of baggage and have a built in tendency to polarize and spawn posturing. Yet this is the very type of atmosphere that is poison to any investigation in its early stages. I'm very encouraged by the fact that the moderator is trying to set up one tiny place in cyberspace where these dynamics can be minimized as much as possible.
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 09. December 2002 04:21
Although many have compared this board to academia, we must be aware of the fact that this is the Internet. It comes with some serious drawbacks. In academia, everyone knows names and identity. Here some use anomynity as a shield to destroy the environment and the brainstorming. For example, some log on as multiple users and seek to create anarchy and chaos. They will pose as proponents of a view and antagonists at the same time using different usernames. A good post is made and they quickly follow up with a half dozen responses. They will quickly add three more topics so the one good one is lost. If you put up rules these people will fall just withing the limits, but their objective is always the same -- create havoc and chaos. If they are kicked off the forum, they come back as a different user. They enjoy "psyching" one out and playing psychological games with you. They will hack you if they can and ....
I have wondered if these folks are funded and by whom or are they just a bunch of people with a lot of free time on their hands seeking kicks.
Those who have followed the different boards know what I am saying!
So, I am an advocate of a strong moderator who is not afraid to lay down the law. Also, I think you should get some more moderators, so that less pressure is placed on each of you. Also, don't be surprised if you get a chorus of criticism -- it is part of their game.
Although I have interacted with these folks, I am here for the opportunity of brainstorming.
Thanks,
Kyle
[ 09. December 2002, 04:25: Message edited by: kyle7 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 09. December 2002 07:56
Hey Frances,
The key issues here are "atmosphere" and "overall contribution." I could not possibly assess the the type of critic that Wesley is until he were to start posting, creating a pattern of contribution. I would assess his pattern of posting over time and then assess whether he was contributing to the atmosphere that I want at Brainstorms.
I also think you are mistaken (as several others are) on just where I am coming from in making these comments. Brainstorms has obviously become a hub for ID people and their critics. However, when I talk about critics, I refer generally to "the critic of a brainstorm" and not specifically to "the critic of ID." My goal is to see Brainstorms "spread its wings" beyond "ID and its critics" to our more robust atmosphere in which any thoughtful person who has a new creative idea that relates to the very broad category of complex systems can make a post and receive thoughtful feedback. The feedback can be critical, but not detrimental. It should be helpful, even if forceful. It should be highly specific criticism, not a generic whitewashing.
Finally, you asked whether you are a model critic. The answer is clearly no. This is not to embarrass you but to help you improve. I'll explain below:
1. Your responses are often highly generic and canned criticism.
2. You often seem to be the first, or nearly first person to respond to a thread. This gives me the impression that you don't really give the original ideas in the post a fair shot to simmer around in your mind for a while.
3. Your posts, being typically generic, or specific but off topic, very "early" in the thread's life, and frequent, tend to take threads on a tangent - a very familiar tangent at that
My recommendation would be the following:
1. Try reading through entire posts in the future and holding back for a few days before you post a reply
2. The first read through, really focus on what the author is trying to say. Re-read the post a couple times, each time focusing on the main thrust of the hypothesis, but this time looking at it a bit more critically - how could I help this idea improve
3. When you reply a few days later, don't pick on minor subplots in the author's brainstorm, but focus on the key issue
4. If you think an idea is so absurd, or so off track that it simply can't be improved and deserves to be thrown away in the dustbin of ideas, just don't reply - let the moderator handle it
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 09. December 2002 08:00
Hi Kyle,
We would love to add Moderators. Here is the problem:
1. We need consistency: we can't have moderators taking off months at a time
2. In order to have consistency we need money to entice the moderator to "do his/her job"
3. From what I hear, ISCID doesn't have money, or at least not enough to pay additional moderators a monthly salary;-)
Feel free to help out:
http://www.iscid.org/donations.php
IP: Logged
|
|
marc harmon
Member
Member # 595
|
posted 09. December 2002 14:40
Hello Moderator,
First, let me just say that I think the moderators already do an excellent job, and I agree that it’s not reasonable to expect you guys (and gals) to moderate each and every post.
Moreover, I agree with most everything you’re saying: let’s assess the members based on what they write, how they contribute, and what type of atmosphere they create. Except I still don’t understand something: When I click on the brainstorms forum, there is a link that says, 1. New Users: before posting, click here . When I click the link, you specifically state: “ At Brainstorms, the only type of critic that is allowed is #1. All others will be banned.” But take me for example. I might be a #1, #2, #3, or #4 type of skeptic. (I actually consider myself to be both an ID advocate and an ID skeptic). But if I contribute quality material on Brainstorms, are you really going to ban me? I think your answer is probably no, but that seems to contradict the guidelines you’ve set forth.
I have a few suggestions. Perhaps you could create a rule where all new members automatically go through a probation period. This way, they have to prove themselves before they become full-fledged members.
Another idea (though probably less popular) is that Brainstorms should be a private or semi-private forum. RBH talked about grad students who would present their ideas to a classroom for the faculty and students to critique. But you have to think that, before the students put together a presentation, they had to confer with their peers, bounce ideas off one another, and get some feedback before they even reached a point where they could make their presentations. In general, I agree that even harsh criticism will help strengthen an idea. But I was under the impression that Brainstorms represents the stage of idea-development that comes before the presentation.
Given the nature of brainstorms and what you want to accomplish, making it open to everyone is like telling a student to go out and give a presentation to the class room before he's ready. A private or semi-private forum would be one way to achieve your goals based on the few resources that are available to you. One draw back is that this might cut down on the popularity of Brainstorms, but, in my opinion, that is a superficial value anyway.
Thanks for listening, and again, you guys already do a great job so give yourself some credit.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic