|
Author
|
Topic: On Criticism - Four Types of Critics
|
rossum
Member
Member # 463
|
posted 09. December 2002 19:09
Moderator,
Thanks for your response. I do not think that it is necessary for me to distinguish between different types of criticism. If the purpose of Brainstorms is to float ideas, some of which may lead to fruitful avenues of research, then it is up to the researchers to distinguish the worthwhile criticism from the "ulitmately worthless". The person doing the research is going to have to justify the proposal to get the money, and defend the final work when it is published. They will find critical input useful and it is up to them, not anyone else, to decide which input is worthwhile. The whole point of a Brainstorm is that any idea can be put forward so that there is a larger pool to select the useful parts from.
If someone is just posting the same stock critisism in every thread then that person's comments can just be ignored when drawing up detailed research proposals.
By restricting all but friendly criticism you are in danger of admiring the emperor's new clothes, and not realising the mistake until the work is published. Remember Mrs Thatcher and the Poll Tax; a classic case of only listening to people who agreed with her. "What a wonderful idea Prime Minister" - it was so wonderful that she lost both the leadership of her party and the post of Prime Minister because of it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 10. December 2002 01:44
By restricting all but friendly criticism you are in danger of admiring the emperor's new clothes
I don't recall where the moderator is asking for only friendly criticism. In fact, as he listed his problems with Frances postings, not once did he mention they were unfriendly.
What I don't get is why many here have been translating an open-mind as some kind of wishy-washy, limp state of mind that can only offer weak counter-points. I would argue that an open-mind, from both perspectives, is a necessity in the early stages of any fruitful investigation. Otherwise, what you'll get are two sides trying to force the data into preconceived conclusions. An open-mind provides a good opportunity for making fresh insights and if any insight happens to connect with reality, it will snowball. For reality is a far more fearsome opponent than any group of people. If that happens, critics 2,3,4 will get rolled over regardless of whether or not they were part of the original brainstorming. And the cynic in me can't help but suspect that's exactly why critics 2-4 demand to be present when every fresh idea is hatched. "Nip it in the bud," as some might say.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 10. December 2002 02:30
I stand amazed watching these somewhat meaningless speculations about stereotypical critics. Is there only 1 kind of critic that is welcome at ISCID? And should similar criteria be applied to proponents of ID? Or should the ideas stand or fall based on the arguments not on the basis of pigeonholing people?
But Mike has one thing right, if new insights happen to connect with reality it will snowball. It may happen soon or it may happen never but I believe that critics can help focus the arguments, preventing ideas to go down a dead end and guide the research efforts in a positive manner. I would like to point out my attempt to do so which for some reason did not get much response.
Future directions for ID
It needs to be updated with the latest comments and suggestions made by Dembski to Orr but I believe it would or would have made for a starting point to determine if there is anything to snowball.
Yet I still fail to see why a category 2, 3 or 4 critic (as stereotypical they may be) could not contribute to culling new ideas? I think that ID could benefit immensely from not being side tracked by irrelevant or dead end ideas. And in fact critics can not only prevent this from happening but may even help guide the research or focus into areas where success may be more likely. Whether a critic is 'closed minded' in some stereotypical world or not is not necessarily relevant to value of their contributions.
An example comes to mind in which critics (Murray) have pointed out that the ID inference may not be able to separate intervention from front loading. I have seen Mike make similar suggestions that life somehow, somewhere, sometimes was 'front loaded' with the necessary requirements for life to arise (eventually). I find the merging of these ideas of intelligent design with methodological naturalism fascinating. In fact my personal viewpoint has been for quite a while that if there were a God/Intelligent Designer, the only logical place for Him/Her/Them to have intervened would be behind the quantum uncertainty at the beginning of the Big Bang (Planck Time). Not only would this explain why science has been so succesful in generating explanations of the world around them but also it would deal with issues such as free will. As a scientist and a Christian I find such an explanation most satisfying to both my religious needs and my scientific mind. And I find it fascinating to see how Intelligent Design seems to have reached similar conclusions about front loading. I am not sure if ID has determined the likely place/time of the front loading, or even if it was done by one or many designers or even if it was done at more than one place and time. I am however strongly convinced by faith and reason that the most likely time for front would have been before the Planck Time limit.
Dembski also suggested that information could be injected into our realm through zero-energy
See here for van Till's response and here for Dembski's original argument.
quote:
What's more, the energy in quantum events is proportional to frequency or inversely proportional to wavelength. And since there is no upper limit to the wavelength of, for instance, electromagnetic radiation, there is no lower limit to the energy required to impart information. In the limit, a designer could therefore impart information into the universe without inputting any energy at all.
An interesting idea but in this case I believe critics could be helpful by pointing out that the bandwidth for such information would become effectively zero. Perhaps quantum information theory may help resolve these issues further? Certainly concepts such a Negentropy seem fascinating to me. Or Extending Shannon’s formula to an optical fiber link viewed from the perspective of quantum theory
Two examples of claims made by ID which I believe are quite interesting and with the help of well guided criticism and guiding I believe critics of any sort can help find a resolution for these ideas.
But there are many more suggestions and ideas to explore as I have pointed out in my article on the future of ID. I would hope that these ideas may help generate some interesting research based on the concepts of ID so that we may see where it leads. I surely have my expectations of where they may lead but should my expectations qualify or disqualify me from contributing to the journey?
But I digress.
As far as the moderator's suggestions/complaints about my posting style
quote:
1. Your responses are often highly generic and canned criticism.
Often that is because I believe that ID has yet to address some very basic problems. I understand that repetition of these criticisms may seem to be counterproductive but ignoring them runs an even bigger risk of going down a path that will eventually dead end
quote:
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.
Again, timing of the response should not be equivocated with content of the response. Some people find it easier to focus on the shortcomings of the poster's arguments for instance. Should this disqualify a poster from being a 'model critic'?
quote:
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
Generic or specific but off topic? I find this to be a somewhat vague stereotyping of a posting style. Introducing even more subjective standards into the moderation policy may lead to the a moderation policy which relies on subjecive measures and thus arbitrariness rather than fairness.
[ 10. December 2002, 02:54: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 10. December 2002 03:02
Yet I still fail to see why a category 2, 3 or 4 critic (as stereotypical they may be) could not contribute to culling new ideas?
Obviously, they can, which is why the moderator is not making a category the basis for a decision, but the person's overall contribution to the forum. The problem with being closed-minded is that the person also has the potential of thwarting and side-tracking a promising idea. Since the person is no longer interested in whether ID has merit (as he has already concluded it does not), he will tend to focus on things that reinforce that conclusion. Thus, a promising idea may get drowned out by the noise that is created from such efforts. All I think the moderator is saying is that he is not going to tolerate such activity. In other words, if you are closed-minded about ID, feel free to cull. But a pattern of thwarting and side-tracking will lead someone to the door.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 10. December 2002 03:18
Frances: Often that is because I believe that ID has yet to address some very basic problems. I understand that repetition of these criticisms may seem to be counterproductive but ignoring them runs an even bigger risk of going down a path that will eventually dead end
Not necessarily. Take our exchange in the Error Correction Thread. Your generic point (raised more than once) about front-loading being indistinguishable from "natural causes" keeps missing the fact that the specific point being argued in the thread provides a glimmer of such a distinction. Some of those "basic problems" may simply evaporate from productive, focused brainstorming.
Again, timing of the response should not be equivocated with content of the response.
Rapid responses comes across as "spin." If someone posts a speculation, think of it as existing with multiple degrees of freedom. Theorists may be able to step from it to a connecting speculation, which in turn, may be more solid and promising than the original. If the speculation gets "blasted" within a few hours of being posted, the critic then defines the direction of the speculation. And if the critic is closed minded, such acts of definition blur into side-tracking and thwarting (i.e., preventing others from making a weak point stronger). It only seems reasonable to allow a speculation ferment for a few days. And if nothing seems to emerge, blast away!
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 10. December 2002 03:26
For what it's worth, I'm a (the?) moderator over at ARN, and I have the same problems with Frances (XYC) there, even though ARN is a general discussion forum and not just a brainstorms forum.
The question needs to be asked. Why does a category 4 critic want to participate on an ID brainstorm board? I would definitely identify Frances and RBH, for instance, as category 4 "political" posters. I can see that they have a place at ARN, as long as they are polite, follow the rules, and accept moderation. I actually commend (well . . . generally) both Frances and RBH along those lines.
But how is their political view that ID should be defeated, squashed, and vanquished consistent with a brainstorming function? Sure, they have the ability to make nice when they have to, to avoid being kicked off the board. Still, it's easy to see that they're campaigning against ID. Frances is constantly being reprimanded for that. That is the motivation for being here!
I would like Frances to take a crack at that: How is your political view consistent with a brainstorming function?
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 10. December 2002 08:04
I have avoided this discussion so far, but I'd like to step in and say that, irrespective of anyone's concerns about Frances and particularly his behavior elsewhere, I am puzzled by this characterization of RBH.
I have enjoyed the threads in which I have participated with RBH. While criticizing certain aspects of ID, he has also provided ideas for finding testable hypotheses, such as in the MDT threads, and I see nothing wrong with his tone, style, and substance when he is being critical.
I agree with those that say that motivation should not be the criteria - behavior should be. I also agree with those that say that good criticism, both giving and taking is a hallmark of science. Both brainstorms and more developed ideas should welcome constructive and insightful criticism, even when strong, as a stimulus to further building one's ideas (or to abandoning them if one honestly comes to see their weaknesses.)
I think behavior is the key, not one's level of criticism, and certainly not one's motivations. Civility, staying on task, not misrepresenting another's point (a judgment call, I know), etc. are the criteria by which posters should be judged, but not the degree of skepticism that they do or do not bring to a topic.
I also support the idea of having different criteria for an opening post than for subsequent posts. OP's should offer enough meat to sustain substantial dialog on a relevant topic.
My 2 cents on this issue. I am glad the moderator has allowed the discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 10. December 2002 09:26
I agree strongly, with the view that this is an interesting, productive and useful discussion and I would like to compliment the moderator both on starting the discussion and allowing it to continue. I think the discussion clearly shows that participants understand the factors that limit productive debate.
I would like to make three suggestions. First, I suggest it would be more productive to base the discussion on ‘type of argument or criticism’ rather than ‘type of critic’. The problem, IMO, is that there are certain commonly used arguments, debating techniques or ‘games’ which are frequently used to disrupt and side-track arguments. A discussion of debating techniques could lead to practical techniques for stopping the disruptive games(and techniques for actively encouraging productive discussion). Limiting the type of critic, rather the type of criticism will unduly limit participation.
Second, I think in addressing critiques and criticism, it is important to recognize that it is not appropriate to apply the same rules and standards to all issues. It should be fairly obvious that one set of arbitrary rules will not work for all issues. Different issues involve different types of questions (mathematical, scientific, standards, etc. ). Analysis of different issues involves different technical standards and questions. The rules of discussion need to be adaptable to the issue being discussed.
Third, I suggest it would be useful to maintain a special sub-forum to discuss on an ongoing basis issues relating to the appropriateness of different types of criticism relating to specific issues. There are times when it is appropriate to discuss the validity of certain types of arguments or criticisms applicable to a specific issue. It is, IMO, important to separate the discussion of standards of criticism from the issue being discussed.
Again, my compliments on both the starting this thread and on the quality of the discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 10. December 2002 11:59
Jack,
I thank you for your comments and although I disagree with your characerizations, I feel that your comments need to be heard.
From my perspective however ARN moderation has become arbitrary in which the moderator seems to be intent on protecting his favorites rather than on generating a climate of mutual respect. Several participants seem to have quit after a bout of indiscriminate moderation and deletion.
It is easy to pigeonhole people as you just have done and based on that perhaps incorrect subjective concept reject their contributions.
And that is a real risk it seems
And I am confused what my 'political views' have to do with my participation on ARN/ISCID. I would characterize myself as a concerned scientist as well as a concerned Christian.
Mike,
I understand that it may come off as spin but really... Should the content of the response not be more important than a kneejerk interpretation of motives?
As far as frontloading and intervention being indistinguishable form eachother and front loading being indistinguishable from natural causes, I believe that these are hardly generic statements although their implications seem to be often ignored. It may very well be that the ID proponent has not taken into considerations these possibilities and realities. Does this mean that ideas about front loading are not constructive? I do not think so for the same reason that using concepts from engineering are not useless in helping us understand the world of DNA, RNA etc. We should however realize that these are tools and that may be where the analogy ends.
[ 10. December 2002, 12:08: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 10. December 2002 14:11
Jack Foster wrote quote:
The question needs to be asked. Why does a category 4 critic want to participate on an ID brainstorm board? I would definitely identify Frances and RBH, for instance, as category 4 "political" posters.
I won't answer for Francis, but I post here on ISCID because I'm learning stuff by doing so. My MDT OP and subsequent posts required me to think through some issues I hadn't thought about previously. My recent posting on the "Evolution's Logic of Credulity" thread required me to read and think about interesting and professionally relevant issues. I learn by reading other critics and (believe it or not) ID proponents. Janitor has raised some important questions and stimulated my thinking, though I haven't (yet) felt competent to address some of the most interesting issues he/she has raised, particularly the representation problem and the utility of engineering design theory in evaluating (and constructing) explanations in biology. My posting in the Karl D. Stephan thread caused me to think more about the force of an argument from analogy and the role of mathematics in science than I otherwise might have.
Because the ID proponents here tend to be at a more 'professional' level than on ARN and because the moderation here is directed at maintaining that level of discourse, I find it a stimulating place to read and post.
I clearly have political motives in opposing some aspects of ID, particularly its recent push to spend my tax money on teaching it as "science" in Ohio secondary schools and the personal pressures brought to bear in its name on my friends and my spouse. That opposition I express in other venues as appropriate. But as far as I am able, I do not address those political issues here. If you, Jack, find posts of mine here on ISCID that are political in nature and that do not address the issue being discussed in the thread in which they occur, don't hesitate (as I'm sure you won't) to call them to my or the Moderator's attention.
Beyond that, I'm not sure why I read and post here is any of your business.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 10. December 2002 15:04
Hi RBH. You're probably aware that I actually have a great deal of respect for you:
quote:
Beyond that, I'm not sure why I read and post here is any of your business.
Well, it is directly related to the thread topic. I personally think that judgement of the post by judgement of the poster is unworkable, here or at ARN. Still, I think motivation is often reflected in the posts, and sometimes you can't fully understand the content of a post without understanding the motivations of the poster. On this discussion board, for example, you are discussing the anti-ID strategy of broaching MDT to collapse ID's big tent with a "Mr. Davies". Should other brainstormers be aware that the proponent of MDT does not feel seriously about it, but rather uses its introduction as an anti-ID strategy?
Well, I don't actually think the topic was inappropriate at braistorms; it was interesting, and I always knew that you weren't serious about it. But then when you placed MDT in contradistinction with "SDDID", (Single Designer Dembskian ID); well, now you're over the line. You're misrepresenting Dembski as a strategy to debunk ID, and that's just not right. (For the uninitiated: none of Dembski's ID writings are designer-centric.)
I actually think that you have been good for brainstorms, and you're good for ARN. But the moderators indeed need to carefully watch the debunkers.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 10. December 2002 16:10
Jack Foster wrote quote:
Well, I don't actually think the topic was inappropriate at braistorms; it was interesting, and I always knew that you weren't serious about it. But then when you placed MDT in contradistinction with "SDDID", (Single Designer Dembskian ID); well, now you're over the line. You're misrepresenting Dembski as a strategy to debunk ID, and that's just not right. (For the uninitiated: none of Dembski's ID writings are designer-centric.)
I won't rehash that argument here, but merely point out that in the MDT OP I provided evidence to support the inference that major ID theorists, including Dembski, implicitly seem to assume a single designer. That did not come out of thin air.
Further, I was and am serious about at least some aspects of MDT, in particular the methodological problem of discriminating among what I called design "themes." While I have not posted in that thread for some time, I haven't quit thinking about that issue, in concert with the points Janitor raised concerning the potential utility of (human) engineering design theory. I don't spend a lot of time on those kinds of issues frivolously or for political reasons. I do it both because I'm intellectually interested and because the issues have the potential to inform my work in the 'real' world. That it has as a side effect some informed critique of various proposals and claims made on behalf of Intelligent Design is not fortuitous - it arises in that context - but if that's all there was to it I wouldn't waste my time on it.
RBH
Added in later edit: I appreciate the Moderator's remarks. Thank you.
As an addendum to suggest that even a "Category 4" critic (in Jack F's estimation, at least) can generate useful inputs to ID, in several contexts I have urged ID researchers to provide a list of phenomena that pass one or another of the proposed tests for designed-ness. Most recently (as far as I can recall), in the MDT Thread on September 29 I wrote: quote:
Here's another ID research suggestion, free of charge. Given Mike Gene's criticism of 'Designer-centric' ID, a worthwhile (even necessary) research program for current ID, independent of any presuppositions about the designer(s) - singular or plural, embodied or unembodied, earthly or alien - is to conduct the most basic kind of foundational scientific work: build a taxonomy of designed biological structures and processes. Do the dirty, slow, painstaking work of finding and listing all the structures and processes that are classified as 'designed' by the criteria Dembski and Behe provide. Then do the factor analyses and cluster analyses and correlational analyses to find structure in that list if structure there be. If there is no detectable structure in the list, then ID has provided nothing of use to science. As I said in my OP, in the absence of classifications, in the absence of generalities about classes of instances, all one has is a sort of cosmic oddity shop full of isolated instances. Let ID show it can provide more than a cosmic oddity shop using the tools it pushes for detecting design.
A month later in his address to the RAPID Conference Bill Dembski recommended that ID develop a: quote:
1. Catalog of Fundamental Facts (CFF)
One of the marks of a disciplined science is that it possesses an easily accessible catalog of fundamental facts. Think of the magnificent star cluster catalogs in astrophysics. ID needs something like this. It would be enormously helpful if we had and could make publicly available a catalog of irreducibly complex biological objects or processes. The catalog should contain as complete a list as possible, organized more or less as a table, with very complete descriptions. Under the bacterial flagellum, for instance, the catalog would list: found in the following; involving these biochemical parts; requiring this level of energy; these substrates, etc. etc. The catalog should move from simple to profound examples of irreducible complexity (such as the mammalian visual system).
I do not claim that Dembski borrowed the idea from me; I'm content with parallel thinking (in this respect at least). I do claim that my research suggestion slightly predates and is practically indistinguishable from that of the foremost proponent of ID.
RBH
[ 10. December 2002, 17:21: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 10. December 2002 16:27
I think of RBH as a strong participant at Brainstorms. RBH typically provides insight and clarity through his criticsm: I've not found it to be "discussion stopping" in any way.
Hope that helps clarify things. Perhaps things are different at ARN, but at ISCID RBH has been a strong critic who participates in the spirit of Brainstorms. His ideas have helped to sharpen rather than dull the discussion: particularly his ideas on MDT.
[ 10. December 2002, 16:31: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Iain Strachan
Member
Member # 96
|
posted 10. December 2002 17:11
I'd like to make a small suggestion if I may.
It seems to me that "brainstorms" does not display the proper pattern that I should expect for "brainstorming" (at least how it was taught to me on a "Creative Problem Solving Course", that I attended at work).
The typical pattern I see emerging is that someone starts a thread with a new theory of theirs that may or may not be particularly well-formed. That is fine, and is what brainstorming is all about. However, what one so often sees is that a critic jumps right in immediately and starts to pull the theory to bits, and this often results in the original poster attempting to defend the (possibly ill-formed) theory against the criticism, and then a confrontation of wills ensues, which doesn't allow the theory to evolve (if ID'ers will pardon that expression!).
But the way I was taught brainstorming was quite different. You start with what was termed a "divergent" process, where the most important rules were:
(1) Contribute whatever ideas strike you at the time, without analysis or restraint.
(2) Most importantly: no criticism is allowed, even of the most stupid and idiotic suggestions.
What this means is that ideas spark off other ideas, most of which are plain daft, but some of which are actually sensible (ideas arise by association and pattern matching).
This divergent process should continue for a set period of time (or until people run out of steam). At this stage there is a lot of junk on the blackboard, with (hopefully) a few nuggets of value.
At this stage a convergent process is initiated, where criticism is allowed back in. The daft ideas are immediately sifted out, and the more hopeful candidates are subjected to further scrutiny, analysed, dissected, criticized and so forth.
If necessary, further divergent sessions can be arranged to generate new material from what has developed before (this sounds awfully like random mutation and natural selection, doesn't it ?!).
I would like to see something like this happen on brainstorms threads. So we don't get a new idea jumped on immediately and battered to death; more contributions along the line of "that sounds a bit like ...", or "or how about this ....". The critics get to have their say (and this is an essential part of the process) after a fixed period of time, or when the diverging seems to have run its natural course.
I don't know if it could be made to work on a bulletin board such as this. It's normally done by a group of five or six people around a blackboard. One could impose arbitrary rules, such as a fixed time, or when the thread gets to "page 2". Alternatively it could just be known that 1 week represented the time when criticism wasn't notionally taking place, and thus if anyone just couldn't wait to pitch in with a debunk, that they would be ignored; original posters should resist the temptation to respond to criticisms during the "divergent" process. If such a policy were known to be a general principle on how the board operated, I reckon it would assist in the brainstorming process.
Iain
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 10. December 2002 17:44
Frances: I understand that it may come off as spin but really... Should the content of the response not be more important than a kneejerk interpretation of motives?
Of course. But I don't think you are contemplating my point. An initial speculation can spawn further positive ideas even if it is somehow flawed. Rapid Debunking has the ability to thwart this aspect of brainstorming. All I am suggesting is that the debunker wait a day or two, allowing others to ponder the original speculation without having their thoughts channeled by debunking points.
We should however realize that these are tools and that may be where the analogy ends.
Agreed. In fact, this is a very important caveat. And that itself may highlight part of the problem. Some people want to stop the analysis until we can independently justify a continued extension of the analogy. This thwarts brainstorming. Because the other option is to continue extending the analogy, with your caveat in mind .
I guess that's one of my main problems with debunkers - they tend to convert caveats into clubs to halt the analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic