|
Author
|
Topic: On Criticism - Four Types of Critics
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 10. December 2002 18:22
quote:
Moderator: 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.
I totally agree. But categories 1 through 4 are not necessarily correlated with "discussion stopping". You need a different scale, as I think you're beginning to see. (Mike's scale is good for something; it's just not useful to determine who gets to participate.)
quote:
rbh: I'm content with parallel thinking . . .
I had a similar idea over a year ago, which I talked about at ARN on a thread called "Systems Logic and IC". I started: "I wanted to try to catalogue, categorize, and otherwise breakdown, chew up, and spit out IC systems."
Ian's idea is the greatest. Give some time for true brainstorming, and then let critics category 1 through 4 have at it!
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 10. December 2002 20:39
Jack Foster: "Ian's idea is the greatest. Give some time for true brainstorming, and then let critics category 1 through 4 have at it!"
Which would mean having two different forums?
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 10. December 2002 23:35
Dear Mike
Of course I am contemplating your point. But I once again see you resort unnecessarily to stereotypes and strawmen to attack. Such does not further the conversation in any fruitful manner and in fact clubs to death any discussion in an early stage. Perhaps brainstorms could benefit from rejecting postings which rely on stereotypical thinking? That would reduce the potential noise significantly I would imagine?
As I have stated, I am quite in favor of exploring how a concept of 'design' or 'feedback' can help us understand better the workings of nature. In fact I would argue that such approaches have been taken for quite some time, even before the onset of the intelligent Design movement. But some have argued that intelligent design is an alternative to methodological naturalism. We may have to wait and see how ID can separate itself from naturalistic methodology. A purely eliminative approach is not going to be sufficient.
I agree with Jack that moderators have an important task but as we have seen just yesterday, ARN moderator 4 banned me for posting a civil reply from a previous board participant. I believe that consistently enforced rules, without special privileges for some are important to avoid a subjective behavior from the moderators. The recent addition of the 4 stereotypical strawmen critics on ISCID do not further the climate I believe. But in all honesty, the moderation of ISCID has so far been quite fair as far as I can tell. Other boards could take notice and perhaps follow suit.
[ 11. December 2002, 01:31: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 11. December 2002 00:45
quote:
ARN moderator 4 banned me for posting a civil reply from a previous board participant . . .
LOL! Believe me, Mr. Moderator. You do not want me to get into that.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob Aliet
Member
Member # 578
|
posted 11. December 2002 05:15
I am persuaded that the Moderator has caricatured the "critic types" that he has listed especially the last three, so I will re-phrase whatever he wrote. Some caricatures are so obvious for example why would anyone "debunk to save humanity"? save it from what?
quote:
1. Open-minded skeptic: I'm interested, but not convinced.
Read: Interested in ID because it makes a lot of sense (ie is persuaded that its valid) but needs to be convinced further.
quote:
2. Closed-minded skeptic: Not convinced and no longer interested in being convinced. Call me only if something new develops somewhere to cause quite a commotion.
Read: Knows ID is bunk and is not afraid to say it but willing to pay attention to ID proponents when they are ready to formulate a methodology and make predictions.
[it should be obvious that most scientists hold this position - if that were not the case, pro-ID articles would get published in scientific journals - but they still dont - they can hardly get through the rigorous peer-review process. What we have so far is the self-validating excercise of one pro-ID pseudo-scientist peer-reviewing anothers work]
quote:
3. Debunker: Not convinced; no longer interested in being convinced; interested only in convincing others they are wrong.
Read: Knows ID is bunk and has no future because its flawed from all fronts.
quote:
4. Debunking Crusader: Debunking to save humanity.
Read: Knows ID is bunk and debunks all (necessarily flawed) arguments that attempt to support ID.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So okay, this is a site that wants to promote ID and wants to stifle all direct and potentially "harsh" criticism. Thats fine, many here can live with that.
As has been observed, its incorrect to judge contributions people make based on what the moderator imagines are the peoples motivations.
For all the good reasons given.
However, its your call if you choose to salve the egos of pro-IDers and shield them from damaging refutations. I have seen people here who disagree and have managed to refute ID arguments within the suffocating confines of your rules. But that does not mean your rules or even attitude engenders balanced, focused criticism: it simply means some people can slip in some blows in spite of the defences you have in place to protect pro IDers.
You bet there are many who simply dont have the time and patience to dance to your tune while making arguments. Civility and relevance should be adequate. The "brainstorms" title is just an excuse because I have seen numerous posts here that are not about "brainstorming". You also choose to think for people - for example if I wrote an unfair review of dembskis work and posted it here, you would delete it with an explanation that goes like "your post had a negative proposition, did not make a positive contribution, does not give Dembski the benefit of the doubt etc" etc etc - why not just let Dembski fight his own battles? Dont we all reserve the right whether or not to give ANYONE the benefit of the doubt?
For the record, I vary between 2 and 3.
quote:
At Brainstorms, the only type of critic that is allowed is #1. From now on, all others will be asked to leave and perhaps banned.
So, do I get banned now?
[ 11. December 2002, 07:04: Message edited by: Intensity ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 11. December 2002 07:50
Intensity,
This thread is no holds bar, so no I'm not going to ban you. But I am going to keep an eye on you because your post indicates that you haven't given the thread nor the subsequent discussion a charitable read. If you had followed the discussion closely you would have seen that:
1. I have acknowledge several times that these rules apply to everyone: IDers, non-IDers, and whoever else wants to make use of a brainstorming environment.
2. This forum is in no way, as you have indicated, a place to promote ID. I've banned three ID people for trying to make it just such a place. I've given stern warnings to several others.
3. I have acknowledged that perhaps the stereotypes that I used in the description of the 4 types of critics misses the point (though it surely has stimulated discussion!) and that what is important is that participants show patterns of behavior that fit within the ethos of Brainstorms.
Considering the above three points, your post was a waste of time, attacking something (a strawman perhaps) that doesn't exist. This is an indicator to me that you really aren't interested in the discussions that ensue at Brainstorms, but are merely interested in finding a way to make your point: there are certain people out there who are trying to make certain ideas (which are pure bunk) look credible.
Guess what. When people brainstorm, a great deal of what they say is probably going to be bunk. But who cares? This isn't a place to prove theories: it is a place to explore ideas that otherwise may not have a home. Creativity and imagination are encouraged.
One of the original goals at Brainstorms was to free up the imagination; to free inquiry from the stifling nature of embedded dogma and its enforcement.
IP: Logged
|
|
RB
Member
Member # 263
|
posted 11. December 2002 10:43
Mod,
In our correspondence, I assume that the 4 types of critics applies equally to critics of Evolution as well as critics of ID. That being the case, I still am a little uncomfortable with the classifications (I don't see them as operationally mutually exclusive.)
Obviously what would be ideal on a site like this would be ID advocates critiquing ID models and criticisms of evolution, and ID critics critiquing each others responses to ID models and evolutionary models that are proposed to explain complexity (through natural design). All this in addition to the normal (IDA vs. IDC) exchanges.
Edit to note: I began this post before the Moderators post showed up. Clearly as he defines it a critic is a critic is a critic. It will be interesting to see how threads are initiated from the Evo critic as well as from the ID critic. Some have been good some not so good. I think the first thing that has to go is the automatic posting of all articles from the Archive section, since many of them do not belong on Brainstorm (I don't think Dembski's latest response to Orr for instance was a brainstorm, it was definitely, to my eye, a crusading debunker post and repetative, clearly Bill was out to debunk Orr.) Other articles that I think would have been fine would have been those on Triz, agree or disagree about how relevent they were to evolution, they were more consistant with a brainstorm philosophy that I believe the moderator was aiming for. If folks see an article in the Archives that induces a brainstorm (pro or con ID) then they can develop it. (my 1.5 pennies, I put the other half penny in the old mans hat.)
[ 11. December 2002, 11:46: Message edited by: RB ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Iain Strachan
Member
Member # 96
|
posted 12. December 2002 07:52
quote:
Jack Foster: "Ian's idea is the greatest. Give some time for true brainstorming, and then let critics category 1 through 4 have at it!"
Which would mean having two different forums?
No, it would be a bad idea to have two different forums. True brainstorming consists of two phases, one divergent where no criticism is allowed, followed by a convergent one where the half-baked ideas are weeded out, and what is left is critically examined.
Furthermore, it should not just be "critics level 1 to 4" or however you classify it; people who proposed the ideas would then be encouraged to criticize as well.
It would clearly be an administrative nightmare to transfer a thread from the "divergent/no criticism" board to a convergent/criticizm one. I'm just suggesting that any new idea needs to be developed, and trigger off new ideas, before being torn to shreds. Maybe a week would be the agreed period for "divergence". I guess it might be too onerous a task for the moderator, (possibly the original poster could do it?), but someone should decide when "convergence" should start, and then put up a post summarising the best ideas that have come out of that phase & weed out the silly ones (maybe acknowledge their role in the evolution of the sensible ideas). Once the summary post has been made, everyone is free to criticize.
Silly ideas often trigger off sensible ones by loose association of ideas. But if someone immediately jumps in and says "that won't work because ... ", then this process has no chance of happening. An example from the first time on the course we were given the opportunity to try it out illustrates this. The problem to be solved was "how to reduce telephone-box vandalism". The first idea someone sang out was "Kill the vandals" of course! Various other silly ideas ensued, (my favourite being "Happy phones" with free Hashish available), the most stupid of all coming about when someone looked out of the window and saw a crane on a construction site & suggested "Hang the telephone-box from the end of a crane". But then this sparked off the moderately sensible idea "Put the telephone box in a less accessible place e.g. top of a flight of stairs", so the potential vandal couldn't be bothered to vandalise it". The second idea isn't much of a goer either, but it is way more sensible than the first and could have led on in a number of directions.
Hope this clarifies things.
Iain.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob Aliet
Member
Member # 578
|
posted 13. December 2002 07:39
moderator,
quote:
This thread is no holds bar, so no I'm not going to ban you. But I am going to keep an eye on you because your post indicates that you haven't given the thread nor the subsequent discussion a charitable read
I consider this my only opportunity to speak my mind concerning your rules. So I can be honest. In ordinary threads, I wouldnt dare.
I dont think you need to worry about keeping an eye on me: in ordinary threads, I will stick to your rules. Because this is your site. I largely use your site as a definitive (re)source for the ID movement so I don't post a lot.
quote:
If you had followed the discussion closely you would have seen that:
That I followed the thread closely does not entail that I share your perspective.
Your "open-minded skeptic" phrase and subsequent description is an oxymoron and besides, you rely on ambiguity to describe them. You describe the first skeptic as the type who can say: "I'm interested, but not convinced". Interested in what? ID? Interested in brainstorming?
quote:
1. I have acknowledge several times that these rules apply to everyone: IDers, non-IDers, and whoever else wants to make use of a brainstorming environment.
Repeating a claim ad infinitum does not make it true. You know this so I wonder why you think that is a defense.
quote:
2. This forum is in no way, as you have indicated, a place to promote ID. I've banned three ID people for trying to make it just such a place. I've given stern warnings to several others.
Banning 3 IDers does not mean you do not promote ID. That is such a simplistic argument. How many non-ID people have you banned?
We cant use banning as the yardstick. Its the general censorship that takes place here that will be used to judge what ideals/ideas you promote.
quote:
3. I have acknowledged that perhaps the stereotypes that I used in the description of the 4 types of critics misses the point (though it surely has stimulated discussion!) and that what is important is that participants show patterns of behavior that fit within the ethos of Brainstorms.
I am confident that you could have accurately described the stereotypes without caricaturing them or using hyperbole. I expect that from someone who sets up such high standards for participation in this forum.
quote:
Considering the above three points, your post was a waste of time, attacking something (a strawman perhaps) that doesn't exist. This is an indicator to me that you really aren't interested in the discussions that ensue at Brainstorms, but are merely interested in finding a way to make your point: there are certain people out there who are trying to make certain ideas (which are pure bunk) look credible.
Ideas that are pure bunk - are we getting hot under the collar now? Darwinian evolution is pure bunk? Or what ideas are those that are pure bunk? The idea that ISCID is a pro-ID site?
Its inconsistent of you to admit (after reading my post) that your stereotypes miss the point, then later turn around and claim my post was a waste of time - don't you think? It refelects poorly on your character when you let your apparent chargin make you contradict yourself.
And if you are genuine that your caricatures do indeed miss the point, you ought to remove them from the "Rules" section because they are offensive and are an inaccurate depiction of whatever kind of people you have in mind. To have them there indicates that you endorse them and you leave a lot to be desired to pay lip service to the fact that they "miss the point" yet allow new posters to go through that list. It smacks of duplicity and cheapens ISCID.
quote:
Guess what. When people brainstorm, a great deal of what they say is probably going to be bunk.
No, they will not be pure bunk because you are the moderator. You censor what you beleive to be bunk - irrespective of what anyone else thinks.
Secondly, I did not say people say pure bunk in brainstorms. But I can understand the impulse to knock down a strawman.
quote:
One of the original goals at Brainstorms was to free up the imagination; to free inquiry from the stifling nature of embedded dogma and its enforcement.
Fallacy of missing arguments. "embedded dogma" - embedded where? and enforced where and by who? You do not need to "justify" whatever were the original goals of brainstorms using imaginary and negatively characterised entities/ forces.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 13. December 2002 08:40
Intensity,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your honesty and your forthrightness. However, it appears that we are now talking past each other.
If my words mean anything to you, what I'd like to see at Brainstorms is a place for genuine dialgue where people aren't afraid to share their productive ideas and critiques out of fear of being jumped on by other participants as ignorant or stupid. Unfortunately, this demands that the Moderator jump on some posters as destructive and counterproductive.
I encourage you in the future to directly point out, via email (moderator@iscid.org) anytime when I or the other moderators are showing bias. We honestly want to be fair. However, being fair sometimes means playing hard and making other people feel uncomfortable by enforcing the rules of the game.
But once again, please do point out specific instances where we are being bias. We will make every attempt to assess each instance on and individual basis and correct ourselves. However, we put very little stock in sweeping statements that merely implicate the complainer.
************************************************
To everyone:
BTW, since this thread has started, Brainstorms has received a remarkable number of congratulations from a very diverse group of participants. The moderators thank you sincerely. Those few words of encouragement make the job a whole lot easier.
Finally, please note that the Critics Criteria in our new users section will be updated as soon as this thread is completed to reflect the many insights that everyone has made. In particular, we will make it geared more towards the general pattern of posting rather than categorizing (stereotyping) the poster. Still, we hope that it will pack the same punch in terms of making crystal clear the type of posts that are acceptable and the type of posts that are not.
[ 13. December 2002, 08:43: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 13. December 2002 13:59
Intensity: So, do I get banned now?
I think you are missing the moderator's point. Admitting that you are closed-minded about ID is not sufficient for your banning. It's just that you are very likely to get yourself banned as a function of your closed-mind. That is, your closed-mind is likely to cause you to behave in way that drags down the spirit of inquiry and debate the moderator is trying to foster. And it would be the sum of your interactions that is likely to get you into trouble. Of course, there is no guarantee this will happen, but I'd say the risk is very high. This means you'd have to be very careful and police your methods. Your first posting on Brainstorms illustrates this.
1. You are presumptuous enough to "translate" the moderator's thoughts. Note that with each description of the a critic, you begin with "Read." This is called 'spin.' What you "read" is really what you "read into" the moderator's words (as a function of your closed mind and agenda of debunking).
2. Your translations employ illogical thinking to put the moderator in a bad light. For example, you translate an "open-minded skeptic" as a critic who is persuaded that ID is valid. This is a bogus reading. For example, I am open-minded about the Darwinian origin of the bacterial flagellum. This, however, does not mean I think the explanation is valid. If you do attempt to put words in people's mouths, be very careful not to erect straw men (ironic, given that you begin your post by lamenting caricatures).
3. You translate a "closed-minded skeptic" as one who "knows" ID is bunk. Here, you are smuggling in a truth claim, as no one really "knows" this. For someone to know this, it would have to be true. Now, I have seen good arguments from the critics that attempt to turn back attempts to prove evolution is impossible. But this is not the same as demonstrating ID is bunk. In fact, I have yet to see one good argument that indicates "ID is bunk." A closed-minded skeptic is really one who thinks ID is bunk. Whether his reasons are valid or not is another topic. The issue is what does a closed-mind really contribute to a brainstorming session.
4. You posture as if you speak for "most scientists." Yet no one appointed you spokesperson for the Scientific Community. You should simply speak as your own man and not try to inflate your opinions with arguments from authority. Your argument about publications is myopic (as I have explored on ARN).
5. You assert that "ID has no future" because its flawed from all fronts. You think that because of this, any argument that attempts to support ID would be "necessarily flawed." We can thus expect that this perspective would cause you to "translate" brainstorms to reinforce your perceptions (the way you translated the moderator). It would not be unreasonable to suppose you have invested in this perspective and thus a successful Brainstorm is not something you would like to see.
6. Consider this assertion: However, its your call if you choose to salve the egos of pro-IDers and shield them from damaging refutations.
You ignore the various explanations that people like I and Iain have provided (as if they did not exist) and instead spin the moderator's concerns in a fashion where you can engage in a psychological attack on the IDers who post here. You seem to display a stubborn unwillingness to consider that the type of attacks you have posted thus far may be poisonous to any serious investigation.
7. You admit that some people are trying to slip in some "blows." This speaks for itself.
8. You complain about "suffocating confines" without acknowledging that this is just your subjective perception.
In other words, if you continued to employ this type of posturing and rhetoric, that is what would get you banned. And the fact that you admit to being somewhere between a closed-minded skeptic and a debunker suggests that it is going to be very hard for you to resist such posturing and rhetoric (while slipping in blows). Knowing that ID is bunk and without any future, where any argument raised in support of it must, just must, be flawed in some way, while fretting over suffocating confines in an attempt to get around the shields to protect those fragile IDer egos, is a way to front-load banning. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
The ball would be in your court. How you play with it is up to you. If you start throwing it at people's heads, don't complain when the referee shows you the door.
Anyway, if you want, I suggest we continue this exchange over at ARN.
[ 13. December 2002, 14:03: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Edington
Member
Member # 421
|
posted 13. December 2002 21:01
"What we have here is failure to communicate."
I have a suggestion, perhaps the problem is not that certain persons have a closed mind, but rather that no criteria for establishing scientific "truth" has ever been agreed upon by the members of this list. I am of the opinion that is the members of this list can not even agree on something that basic then there is probably no hope than any of these topic will lead anywhere useful.
A useful thread might be something a lot more basic than anything on-going right now...perhaps something like "what constitutes a valid scientific theory?" or at least something along those lines.
perhaps if the group established some sort of common ground, the discussions wouldn't get so bogged down by people talking past one another.
it just an thought, take it for whatever you think it is worth...
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob Aliet
Member
Member # 578
|
posted 14. December 2002 09:33
Mr Moderator,
Thank you for addressing my comments. I appreciate the work you do and this is a great site despite my sentiments.
I think I have made my point so I will terminate my participation in this thread.
quote:
Finally, please note that the Critics Criteria in our new users section will be updated as soon as this thread is completed to reflect the many insights that everyone has made. In particular, we will make it geared more towards the general pattern of posting rather than categorizing (stereotyping) the poster. Still, we hope that it will pack the same punch in terms of making crystal clear the type of posts that are acceptable and the type of posts that are not.
I respect you a lot for this and I look forward to seeing some change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Genie
quote:
Admitting that you are closed-minded about ID is not sufficient for your banning.
First of all, I do not need you to educate me on the rules here.
Secondly, I did not say I am closed-minded about ID. I am mildly amused about ID if you must know.
quote:
That is, your closed-mind is likely to cause you to behave in way that drags down the spirit of inquiry and debate the moderator is trying to foster...
UNTIL then, I can participate, closed minded or not. And that is the point you are missing. So keep your presumptions in check.
The point I am making is that someone should not be banned because they are "closed-minded" (a label) but because they "...behave in way that drags down the spirit of inquiry and debate...". and you dont need to be closed-minded to behave that way. The moderator understands this and thats why some pro-IDers have got banned.
You can be closed minded but capable of holding a civil, focused and productive debate. Its a question of tact and maturity, not purely stance.
quote:
This means you'd have to be very careful and police your methods. Your first posting on Brainstorms illustrates this.
When I need your advice, I will let you know. Your vain and unsolicited advice merely shows you are only interested in empty posturing.
quote:
1. You are presumptuous enough to "translate" the moderator's thoughts. Note that with each description of the a critic, you begin with "Read." This is called 'spin.'
No, it is called 'twist' ![[Smile]](smile.gif) . Or shall we just settle on 'spin'? Okay, if you insist. 'Spin' it is then. Um, what was your point? - that "Spin' is bad?
quote:
What you "read" is really what you "read into" the moderator's words (as a function of your closed mind and agenda of debunking).
I can see you have classified me into one of your stereotypes. Congratulations. Do you also have four groups?
quote:
2. Your translations employ illogical thinking to put the moderator in a bad light. For example, you translate an "open-minded skeptic" as a critic who is persuaded that ID is valid. This is a bogus reading. For example, I am open-minded about the Darwinian origin of the bacterial flagellum. This, however, does not mean I think the explanation is valid.
Isn't the "Darwinian origin' based on an explanation? You cant be two-faced about this sir.
Its anti-Darwinian!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
If you do attempt to put words in people's mouths, be very careful not to erect straw men (ironic, given that you begin your post by lamenting caricatures).
Muhahaha, look whos talking
quote:
3. You translate a "closed-minded skeptic" as one who "knows" ID is bunk. Here, you are smuggling in a truth claim, as no one really "knows" this. For someone to know this, it would have to be true. Now, I have seen good arguments from the critics that attempt to turn back attempts to prove evolution is impossible. But this is not the same as demonstrating ID is bunk. In fact, I have yet to see one good argument that indicates "ID is bunk." A closed-minded skeptic is really one who thinks ID is bunk.
Heh, heh, so if one thinks ID is bunk, he is a closed-minded skeptic? Says who? You? Oh, so the scientific community is full of closed-minded skeptics? How terrible! Bad scientists! bad! How dare they think ID is bunk!
You have decided to resort to No true scotsman fallacy here? Heh heh. You have a sense of humour alright.
quote:
5. You assert that "ID has no future" because its flawed from all fronts.
Go back and read what I wrote good sir. I said no such thing. It was an interpretation.
quote:
You think that because of this, any argument that attempts to support ID would be "necessarily flawed." We can thus expect that this perspective would cause you to "translate" brainstorms to reinforce your perceptions (the way you translated the moderator). It would not be unreasonable to suppose you have invested in this perspective and thus a successful Brainstorm is not something you would like to see.
The strawman aside, your twisted logic is full of incorrect presumptions. Mischaracterising your perceived opponents and making gigantic assumptions about them is hardly tactful. You really ought to read Lao Tzu's The Art of War.
quote:
You seem to display a stubborn unwillingness to consider that the type of attacks you have posted thus far may be poisonous to any serious investigation.
Sorry for contaminating the evidence.
quote:
7. You admit that some people are trying to slip in some "blows." This speaks for itself.
Not true. First, you have used the wrong tense (accusing some people of future crimes - been watching too much Minority Report?). Secondly, I did not say they "are trying". I said they have suceeded.
quote:
8. You complain about "suffocating confines" without acknowledging that this is just your subjective perception.
That is just your subjective perception. Practice what you preach.
quote:
Anyway, if you want, I suggest we continue this exchange over at ARN.
I am not interested in doing that. I think its bad enough that you can undercut the moderator and front your opinions concerning my response to the moderator where I am clearly not interested in your opinions. You have swung into our exchange with a chip on your shoulder seeking to pick a fight with me.
Perhaps it gives you the kicks to simply know you picked a fight with some guy you imagine doesnt support ID, irrespective of how meaningless the fight is.
I shared my sentiments with the moderator because he was interested. If you are interested, PM me. Don't hijack the thread with a petty fight with me because you feel insecure. If you have problems with anti-IDers, deal with them decently.
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 20. December 2002 09:57
Maybe before you close down this thread I should throw in my two cents. For the record I'd like to say I wholeheartedly agree with the moderator -- if this is an ID site and if "brainstorms" is going to be something other than endless negativity -- then something has to be done. ID certainly needs criticism (would that materialism felt the same need), but people like Bill Dembski post and what follows is an avalanche of negativity and Bill Dembski doesn't bother to patiently deal each and every accusation endlessly world without end -- we can be left with the impression that Sr. Dembski is finished -- over with -- that he should dump the enterprise -- that it was all an utterly dumb idea to start with -- that he should be ashamed of himself -- that he's not even honest -- and on and on. Those who wish ID ill can be helpful in the manner of any Devil's advocate -- but if they monopolize brainstorms with doom and gloom -- how is it anymore brainstorms?
There are anti-ID sites out there by the droves -- if that's what I want I'll go there.
As emphasized already in this thread -- it's a matter of balance. But may I suggest that it be skewed toward the positive, and that -- whereas niceness is to be desired -- substance should trump niceness. A little passion on either side can be appreciated IF it carries with it some substance -- not just a droning repetitive rehash or snowing with endless detail. Here one would like to meet with enthusiasm, insight, novelty, dreams, big picture vision, optimism, progress -- and not just an amen corner -- ID needs real criticism -- but it doesn't need discouragement.
Overall I'd rate Brainstorms a success -- but I expect it to be even better next year.
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 20. December 2002 10:28
quote:
A little passion on either side can be appreciated IF it carries with it some substance -- not just a droning repetitive rehash or snowing with endless detail. Here one would like to meet with enthusiasm, insight, novelty, dreams, big picture vision, optimism, progress -- and not just an amen corner -- ID needs real criticism -- but it doesn't need discouragement.
But nature (and science) are precisely that, endless detail. Coping with the avalanche of known and to-be-known detail about nature is what scientists do every day. It may sometimes, even often, be healthy and stimulating to look at the big picture, but if ID can't figure out how the individual brushstrokes put the picture together (or is inconsistent with what we know about them), no amount of optimism is going to save it.
I think in fact it is ultimately the job of ID supporters to level the same kind of "strong" criticism on ID hypotheses that scientists level on it (and on each other) - whether fairly or not, only open and continued discussion can tell. What one often sees however is a lot of acritical mutual back-slapping and praise, at least in public (perhaps private discussions are more heated, who knows?).
I think ID would look much more convincingly professional and scientific, and less "political", if reciprocal scientific criticism was more obvious within its ranks - especially given the enormous variety of opinions and quality of arguments within the ID umbrella.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic