|
Author
|
Topic: On Criticism - Four Types of Critics
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 07. December 2002 21:01
This thread is "no-holds-bar" until I deem its usefulness to be waning. Right now, I'm interested in getting feedback (Brainstorms will be changing direction (or, more appropriately, getting back on track) in January)
Contrary to popular opinion, we do like criticism at Brainstorms (criticism of the well informed, modest, "focus on the issue" variety and not the "in your face", "see you're wrong", "I'm victorious" type ). Though we've been accused of radical censorship (is enforcing the game of one's own board a form of censorship?), our ethos is really very simple.
Consider these four types of critics, all of which have been known to jump into the Brainstorms discussion from time to time (note that these categories were pointed out by a Brainstorms participant, Mike Gene):
1. Open-minded skeptic: I'm interested, but not convinced.
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.
3. Debunker: Not convinced; no longer interested in being convinced; interested only in convincing others they are wrong.
4. Debunking Crusader: Debunking to save humanity.
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.
Afterall, they weren't welcome in the first place.
(PS. In the future (no promises) I'm going to try to come up with a similar post to differentiate between types of "positive" posters and which types are welcome at Brainstorms and which are not)
[ 08. December 2002, 09:05: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 07. December 2002 23:41
I don't know if this topic is open to discussion, but that is really not good policy, IMO.
It almost sounds like you are only interested in skeptics with weak counterarguments, so that you may perhaps win them over, or look better to "lurkers". Unfortunately, it's the discussions with #2's 3's that ID has to be able to withstand, in order to carve itself a viable space and strengthen, if possible, its theoretical arguments.
After all, reversing the situation, to which evolutionary-skeptic categories do major ID proponents who regularly post on Brainstorms (such as Dembski, Nelson, etc) belong? Is anyone really imagining any major ID proponent here suddenly being converted to evolutionary theory but a strong counterargument, or new data? So why the double standard?
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.
Anyway, it is too bad that both ARN and now Brainstorms (and the RAPID conference organizers before them) have decided in rapid succession to cut down on open debate. Too bad indeed.
IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Member
Member # 122
|
posted 08. December 2002 00:27
I would be interested in finding out into which category I might be lumped.
Since this is my first ISCID posting, such a classification would have to be based upon my non-ISCID writings.
I've been trying to decide whether to participate on the ISCID Brainstorms Forum or not -- perhaps this is a moot issue.
Wesley
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 08. December 2002 00:47
As a new poster here, I’m just trying to understand the rules.
Intelligent design has been criticized because no results are published in mainstream scientific journals. ID proponents claim that they have their own “peer review”. I understood that ISCID was supposed to be a form of just such “peer review”.
On Science Friday debate between Miller, Krauss, and Meyer, Dr. Krauss made the point:
quote:
… And you can argue, as Stephen Meyers and other people have done very effectively because they have convinced, I believe, the public that there is a controversy. But they do it by picking and choosing and not getting involved in open and free debate in scientific organizations. I mean, Dembski is a member of AAAS and could freely to go that meeting.
But recently I got an e-mail from Wes Elsberry, who’s a PhD candidate in wildlife and fisheries sciences at Texas A&M who’s been on several panels on naturalism, theism and scientific enterprise, who tried to attend a meeting on research and progress in intelligent design, tried to register for that, and everything right up through until he got a call from the organizer and said, ‘No, no, it was a closed conference. They didn’t want people who disagreed to be part of the conference.’ And that’s not science. That’s not the way science is done.
So if someone has a clear understanding of an aspect of nature that is being discussed as an ID topic, and either mathematical (deductive) logic or reliable and repeatable evidence from observation of nature, and an argument from that information is extremely convincing, how is that position to be presented?
Specifically, are characteristics of the presenter’s own opinions of that information to be considered by the moderator when choosing who is to be allowed to post?
I understand a need to have some say in the manner in which arguments are presented, so as to retain civility. This basic civility is a foundation of our democracy.
What I am considering is the question of whether ISCID is going to be realistically considered by anyone as a peer-review process for ID. If ISCID desires, as I have heard, to aspire to be a “scientific” organization, then I think that one must not consider the validity of arguments based on the level of opinionating of the adherents of the opinion. By that I mean that repeatable physical evidence or mathematical quality proof, for example, can provide very convincing evidence for a position such that the listed categories above demand that the person making the point be disqualified from so doing. If this is the way ISCID will operate, then surely Krauss’ point is correct.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 08. December 2002 01:15
Charlie: It almost sounds like you are only interested in skeptics with weak counterarguments, so that you may perhaps win them over, or look better to "lurkers". Unfortunately, it's the discussions with #2's 3's that ID has to be able to withstand, in order to carve itself a viable space and strengthen, if possible, its theoretical arguments.
I don't read it this way at all. Brainstorms is described as: a forum for discussing novel intuitions, speculations, hypotheses, conjectures, arguments, and data related to complex systems that have yet to be developed into full-fledged research projects. I read this to mean that Brainstorms is trying to create an "intellectual incubator" where full-fledged research projects can be hatched. In other words, its emphasis is on encouraging an investigation, not in convincing skeptics. The problem is that critics 2 and 3 tend to undercut the investigation by demanding things that any investigation, in its early stages, cannot provide. This creates a lot of noise and a lot of posturing that short-circuits the investigation.
Of course, how does one determine if someone has an open mind or not? Ultimately, I suppose it's a judgment call on the moderator's part. Good indications of an open mind is someone who can admit there is a realistic chance their ideas are flawed in some significant fashion and also has the ability to publicly admit when their "opponent" makes a good point. Check out Mesk's reply on ARN (second to last in the thread) to see a good example.
As for critics 2 and 3, I have no problem arguing with such people (they do, after all, form the massive bulk of the critics I have argued with over the last couple years). Here I think its more of an issue of whether they seem to want to weigh in on every argument and keep rehashing old argument (as if they nurse a grudge and want a trophy) or they practice some form of restraint and enter the fray to express skepticism about new arguments. In the end, I think you are right that ID has to be able to withstand critics 2 and 3. Perhaps the ISCID will eventually develop a forum specifically design to accommodate the posturing that comes with such debates.
Gedanken,
Brainstorms is a subset of ISCID. It is a specific forum with a specific intent. Because the moderator of this particular forum doesn't want closed-minded skeptics to participate (because they tend to derail potentially fruitful speculations and conjectures) does not mean ISCID is opposed to criticism, review, or hardball debate. That's my take, for what it's worth.
[ 08. December 2002, 01:16: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 08. December 2002 02:19
I would suggest to divide the forum up. The following could possibly work:
1) ID Brainstorm forum: people with an ID perspective could hypothesize.
2) Critics forum: people who are generally hostile to the notion of purpose in nature could discuss whatever they wanted.
3) Open Brainstorm forum: A free place like we have now (with some rules).
Some are interested in advancing science, while others are only interested in criticism. If this is a true brainstorm, we should throw out an assortment of ideas (some off the wall). Possibly, by dividing up the forum, we could make it better. There are number of people here at ISCID who are only interested in shooting down ID or the notion of purpose in nature. These are the ones who have "mechanical" posts for any new subject. I find these people the problem.
I am not against criticism per se. It is healthy if we handle it correctly, but it can destroy the brainstorm -- which may be the objective of some -- if we don't correctly handle it.
Also, it may help if we allow the poster of a new thread to make some rules. For example, a person who is in the Pro ID or Pro Purpose in Nature forum Brainstorm may want to restrict the thread to only those with a Darwinian perspective who see purpose in nature. One may want to restrict the thread to a certain field (e.g. Biology and related fields). Possibly, one may want to restrict the thread to a certain education level(e.g. Doctorate) etc. If one is too restrictive, then nobody will respond, which will prevent an excessive exclusivity. Maybe we would go as far as allowing the thread originator to eliminate people who are disruptive to the goals of the thread.
I have enjoyed this forum because the ideas have been intellectually stimulating. There is a diversity of disciplines and perspectives that makes this place unique. I hope we don't stop at a certain level, but we take the ideas forward so we actually do research. For example, some people in the group may be willing to develop a better evolutionary algorithm that better simulates evolution (includes some of the criticisms of Dembski in the model).
Does anyone else have a better list of divisions?
I think this could be the solution.
Thanks,
Kyle
[ 08. December 2002, 02:32: Message edited by: kyle7 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 08. December 2002 03:02
quote:
Brainstorms is a subset of ISCID. It is a specific forum with a specific intent. Because the moderator of this particular forum doesn't want closed-minded skeptics to participate (because they tend to derail potentially fruitful speculations and conjectures) does not mean ISCID is opposed to criticism, review, or hardball debate. That's my take, for what it's worth.
Does ISCID have another forum in which such criticism and “hardball debate” is presented? Is it open to the same participants?
I guess I am asking because it seems to me that all scientific exploration depends on a combination of new ideas and the refutation of those ideas.
One of the fundamental principles of science is that it does not “prove” a scientific principle, law, etc. A theory, for example, only stands until, and to the degree, that it has not been refuted by evidence to the contrary, evidence that shows that the theory is not matched or consistent with observational evidence.
A consequence of that inherent aspect of science is that a scientific proposition can more or less be “proven” to be wrong by counterexample -- though it cannot be “proven” to be correct.
The problem here is in part that the moderator’s criterion is non-specific as to what is being considered in the levels of opinion and presentations thereof:
Is the term “skeptic” to mean “skeptic of ID”, or does the term mean “skeptic of a particular idea that was presented in a particular thread”? (Then apply various levels or degrees of certainty of opinion on that partciular subject as identified.)
In fact no true scientist can allow herself/himself to be totally convinced of any theory or scientific concept. All scientists must remain skeptical in some level of all scientific concepts. This is due to the very method and type of discourse of science. It is basic to what I was pointing out above, that evidence can more or less “prove” that a scientific concept is in error, but it cannot “prove” that it is correct.
So are the degrees of opinion in the numbered items talking about ID, or about specific ideas to be discussed in a particular thread. Without waiting for an answer, let’s discuss each possibility:
A) Numbered degrees of opinion are stands on ID itself:
In this case you have a very subjective criterion for judging whether a person is allowed to post. The criterion is totally independent of the posts or information being presented, precisely because it is a judgment of the person’s overall opinion, and not on the merits of specific posts. This can only be gathered over a long time period, or by using auxiliary information like what they said on another forum. But I have often heard that the validity of an idea is not based on how the idea came to be, rather is based on the solidity of the evidence that is presented. In my opinion, this criterion would be arbitrary and non-objective. It is furthermore unrelated to the issue of any individual thread, as ID does not mean a limited and specific thing -- thus a given person will invariably have different opinions on different aspects or presentations that fall in the purview of this discussion board. Are they disqualified for their opinions on aspects that are not specific to the given thread they are posting to? My point is that this problem is inherent in this meaning. The opinion of a presenter on one subject, subset of subjects, or aspect of a subject is the criterion for allowing presentation on all subjects.
B) Numbered degrees of opinion are stands on ideas presented in a thread:
In this case we must understand if “critic” means that one is critical of an idea that was presented in the thread. I can’t at the moment think of any other meanings that this could apply to. In this case, the issue is how one presents in a given thread, and is not a non-objective analysis of aggregate information. This could at least be “objective”. But does it make sense in the context of what is desired?
The context is the discussion of ideas. There is a very valid concept of “brainstorming” in which one is only allowed to present positive ideas -- and specifically any and all negative criticism are prohibited. This is usually done for a limited period of time (not necessarily fixed, just not over all time) so as to gather a large number of ideas for possible analysis. It is in fact a somewhat Darwinian approach to design (of ideas), in which the random thoughts are allowed to gather without constraint. But then after the initial “brainstorming” process, the large number of ideas must be winnowed down into useful subsets. This can only be done by criticism of ideas. If “Brainstorms” is intended to be such a space -- (operating as a “space” rather than a time span, so to speak), then another venue of comparable access to and of the same participants needs to be provided for the “criticism” phase. E.g. a “brainstorms” forum and a “ciriticism” forum -- with only positive ideas allowed in the former and free-for-all in the latter.
But I see this forum as already having that very property (as noted in previous paragraph), but in a time-sequential manner with the rules for positive initial post. This means that the restriction on the degree of opinion as applied to a specific idea discussed at the head of the post is not a rational criterion. Many ideas individually can be “disproven” or can be shown to be logically inconsistent. (Note that logical inconsistency is another failure of scientific concepts, different from the question of failure to match with observational evidence). So my original question above is primarily applicable to this understanding. If an idea has failed because it has logically provable flaws, or sufficient observable counterexamples to “disprove” it observationally -- then a person who is a skeptic of that particular idea would quite often fall into what might be categorized as these stronger levels of opinion beyond simply “open-minded skeptic”. The whole point that scientific concepts are only “disproven” is excluded if no none is allowed to present such “disproving” evidence -- and anyone who thinks he understands such disproving evidence could easily hold such stronger opinions on an aspect of the subject of the given thread.
This sort of criticism is what all scientific ideas must go through. They must all be subject to the potential of being “disproven” -- and often this is done so vehemently. If the ideas being presented here cannot withstand that the rigors of the scientific process, then I do not see how ID can call itself “scientific”. However if ID is indeed to be considered a scientific investigation, then I do not see how these limitations on the “Brainstorms” forum are supportive of that goal.
I really do understand the need for criterion on postings -- what is allowed and what is not. I just think that they should be criterion on the postings themselves, and only an accumulated history of objective problems should otherwise disqualify a participant.
I imagine that I have somewhat violated both the spirit and the letter of the rules here in this thread. But this thread is a “meta-discussion” of how all criticism is to be handled, and I wanted to get clear answers as to what was meant by the moderator, and to have my questions understood clearly. I hope that the issues I have presented are sufficiently illuminating to warrant the postings. Thanks Sincerely.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 08. December 2002 09:33
First of all, it is important to differentiate between Brainstorms and ISCID. Think of Brainstorms not as a discussion board that fully encompasses the organization ISCID, but as a brainstorming venue with a very narrow focus: to brainstorm - Not to discuss whatever comes to our mind, not to debunk, not to prove, not to win arguments. The purpose is to test the waters with new and original ideas as they apply to the very broad category of complex systems.
If it helps at all, though ISCID has become a hub for many ID people, please note that the role of the organization is:
1. Not to prove to the world that ID is correct. Rather, we find that ID is worth considering and "incubating" along with several other theories, including neo-Darwinism, self-organization, complexity theory etc.
2. To see what happens when reductionism, materialism and naturalism are removed as strict constraints on scientific inquiry. Do new ideas emerge? Or does it lead us to a dead end? Are these ideas bizarre, wacky and illegitimate or are they fruitful and helpful for understanding the nature of the world?
Considering these things, we are happy to provide ID and other non-reductive theories (as well as reductive theories; we are not placing constraints, disallowing reductive science) a place to be heard.
HOWEVER, at Brainstorms, whose function Mike Gene has nicely summarized, WHATEVER theory that is being used, the concept of the discussion forum is to "brainstorm". Therefore, positive hypotheses are required: debunking is frowned upon. Friendly, "I think you are wrong", and this is why ("why" being on topic and not merely a pre-written script) critics are welcome. Creative juices, "feeling around for a true idea in the dark", and taking risks are highly encouraged!
Finally, the Principle of Charity must be observed. It must be recognized that this is a brainstorming forum, and therefore critic's must be willing to take part in the brainstorming ethos. Proving and disproving and pronouncments of death, funerals, burials, etc. are simply out of place.
There are plenty of other forums for kicking eachother's butt.
[ 08. December 2002, 09:35: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 08. December 2002 09:43
Hey Wesley.
No lumping here. I just use the four categories to give me a subjective sense of the type of critic I want around Brainstorms. I'm sure there are many gradients between the categories. I'm also sure that there is no set of necessary and jointly sufficient criteria for determining which category a person gets lumped into.
As I've said several times before (in other words), things don't appear to me as black and white. I don't like rules. But I do have the capacity to quickly get a feel for whether a poster is here to engage in constructive dialogue or not. I'm sure you can understand my concern for guiding Brainstorms towards its telos;-) After a year of experimentation, I think we're ready to get a whole lot closer come January/February.
[ 08. December 2002, 10:04: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 08. December 2002 09:51
Regarding ID People Like Dembski
Alright, I think the whole debate comes down to this simple point. After all, which type of critics are most of the ID people like Dembski who participate at Brainstorms?
Let me confess to having made several mistakes as the Moderator of Brainstorms. I've tried to balance two issues:
1. Attracting a crowd (avoiding a ghost town) so that Brainstorms becomes self-propogating.
2. Keeping the discussion on topic.
Let me just say that when Dembski posts, the people flock. But this was a mistake I made, because at Brainstorms, Dembski needs to be held to the same standards as anyone else. I now realize that. I will hold him and others accountable in the future. (Please note that I have given Dembski three warnings since Brainstorms began last March).
One last note: people are people. Even our most prized posters make mistakes and have slips of the tongue. The key is to prove yourself to me, show me that you are capable of sustaining productive dialogue. I will then be more gracious regarding slippage. When slippage occurrs from someone I've come to trust, I will simply ask them to modify their post.
[ 08. December 2002, 10:03: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 08. December 2002 09:54
Thanks for the discussion. This is, actuallly, important to me: to get feedback on Brainstorms. Beginning in January, Brainstorms is going to be heading in a new direction and I'm putting out feelers right now to see what will work best.
For example, see my thread: " Quantifying Biological Complexity "
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 08. December 2002 10:07
quote:
Is the term “skeptic” to mean “skeptic of ID”, or does the term mean “skeptic of a particular idea that was presented in a particular thread”?
Skeptic is to mean "skeptic of a particular idea." Ideally, skeptics or critics would focus on the idea that was presented in a particular thread but this often is not the case.
Also, please note that in many cases, Dembski has started skeptical threads. In one case, I shut the thread down. In others, I may have made mistakes in letting them go. This will not continue.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 08. December 2002 10:17
Let me point out that there are plenty of type 2, 3 and 4 critics on all sides of the fence. I've booted three ID people since the board first began because all they did was come and pronounce the "obviousness" of ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 08. December 2002 12:33
While I come to this (meta)thread late because of other obligations, I'd still like to make one or two remarks. I think the most important sentence the Moderator wrote was quote:
The purpose is to test the waters with new and original ideas as they apply to the very broad category of complex systems. (Emphasis added)
I take "test" to be the operative word, and I concur with the several posters who put their emphasis on open and free and informed discussion of ideas, whether that discussion is critical or supportive. "Test" is not softball: it is hard and critical examination. Otherwise it degenerates into preaching to the choir.
I am uncomfortable with the Moderator's four 'types' in the OP because (as Gedanken rightly noted) they are characterizations of critics, not of the content of criticisms. That is, they focus on the motivations, states of mind, and scientific predispositions of persons rather than on their ideas. I think that's a recipe for errors and misinterpretations not least because of the inherent problems in inferring those properties of persons in a stimulus-impoverished medium like this. I recommend moderating based on content, not inferences about unknown (or even known!) mental or emotional properties of participants.
Added in edit: I might note that a significant criticism of MDT from at least one ID proponent was the impossibility of inferring properties of designers from the complex products of design! Am I contradicting myself? Possibly. I do think that it's possible, but very difficult and not to be attempted casually.
Brainstorms has attracted some very knowledgeable people on all sides of the various issues discussed here. Knowledgeable people tend to hold strong opinions about their areas of expertise, can sometimes display impatience or even arrogance, and are not averse to strong debate. Those are precisely the kind of people ID needs to "test" its views and ideas. Absent that kind of testing milieu, ID as a scientific enterprise runs a high risk of becoming a parochial ghetto, an intellectual backwater like current psychoanalytic theory.
Over the years I have both participated in and led "brainstorming" sessions on many dozens of occasions. The only general behavioral "rule" for leading (moderating, if you will) such sessions that I've found useful has been to encourage civil discourse. Otherwise one reduces the usefulness of the approach by introducing self-censorship and withdrawal from the process, thereby reducing open and fruitful discussion. Skepticism is an indispensable means of strengthening one's ideas, whether the locus of the skepticism is in oneself or others. Inhibiting skeptical examination is intellectually risky.
Finally, I thought a bit about what my 'slot' on ISCID might be in the four categories. It appears to depend on the specific issue being discussed. Once in a while I strayed into #4 on another board, as Mike Gene has been kind enough to point out on more than one occasion. But here on ISCID it generally depends on the substantive context and on how strongly I feel (and how much I think I know) about a specific substantive issue, and also sometimes seems to depend on whether I was on no squad runs or four squad runs the night before. In any case, on principle I decline to be confined to one box.
RBH
[ 08. December 2002, 14:07: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 08. December 2002 13:54
The main attraction of ISCID is that you offer to the public a chance to read opinions of a higher quality caliber of pro-ID people. That also attracts a higher quality caliber of critic. I endorse the idea of having two separate forums: one for brainstorming, one for head-to-head clash with critics.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic