|
Author
|
Topic: ID and Peer Review
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 04. July 2003 16:39
Pim: Mike Gene wondered why so many people see ID as religiously motivated.
I’ve never wondered this. It’s always been obvious. Yet the fact that Pim attributes such a questioning state to me is relevant to the issue of stereotypes.
Many here seem more interested in the blame game and whether the reliance on stereotype is justified. I think it is far more interesting to consider the implications of the existing stereotypes. Let’s consider a standard discussion of stereotype:
quote:
A "stereotype" is a generalization about a person or group of persons. We develop stereotypes when we are unable or unwilling to obtain all of the information we would need to make fair judgments about people or situations. In the absence of the "total picture," stereotypes in many cases allow us to "fill in the blanks." Our society often innocently creates and perpetuates stereotypes, but these stereotypes often lead to unfair discrimination and persecution when the stereotype is unfavorable.
For example, if we are walking through a park late at night and encounter three senior citizens wearing fur coats and walking with canes, we may not feel as threatened as if we were met by three high school-aged boys wearing leather jackets. Why is this so? We have made a generalization in each case. These generalizations have their roots in experiences we have had ourselves, read about in books and magazines, seen in movies or television, or have had related to us by friends and family. In many cases, these stereotypical generalizations are reasonably accurate. Yet, in virtually every case, we are resorting to prejudice by ascribing characteristics about a person based on a stereotype, without knowledge of the total facts. By stereotyping, we assume that a person or group has certain characteristics. Quite often, we have stereotypes about persons who are members of groups with which we have not had firsthand contact.
http://www.remember.org/guide/History.root.stereotypes.html
The reliance on stereotype leads to a mental inertia where one “fills in the blanks” according to the stereotype. Since science is an interplay between nature, social factors, and human psychology, this becomes an important consideration if we are addressing an ambiguous topic that is coupled to strong stereotypes. Put simply, it may not be possible to get beyond the noise. An ID theorist, putting forward something less than a crass demonstration, will fail to arouse the interest of someone viewing things from inside the dominant paradigm. The only thing that will be interesting are the “motivations” for such “crank” views. Enter the stereotypes with their tidy explanations. After all, just look at all the supporting evidence that exists for these stereotypes! Need we say more?
If we return to Pim, how in the world could he commit such a blunder as to think I have been wondering why people have stereotypes about IDers? Answer? He’s never really sought to truly understand my arguments (beyond that which is needed for the “debunking mode”). I suggest that stereotype comes into play here. Why bother to understand what someone is saying when a stereotype seems to make things more tidy?
And once again, we’re back to what is “interesting.” Often times, what is “interesting” depends on the ability to understand what is being said. Yet the ability to understand assumes one is interested in what is being stated. Few people pay attention to arguments they consider uninteresting. And if stereotype already provides this “understanding,” there is no real interest in what is being said. What’s more interesting is reading between the lines to see if you can validate the stereotypes that you bring to the table. Thus, you end up putting words in people’s mouths. This act then feeds the stereotypes of others. The cycle feeds on itself.
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 04. July 2003 17:44
The great thing about Mike Gene's occasional bias kicks is that he never realizes just how double-edged they are. In the midst of a discussion of stereotypes, he writes,
quote:
An ID theorist, putting forward something less than a crass demonstration, will fail to arouse the interest of someone viewing things from inside the dominant paradigm. The only thing that will be interesting are the “motivations” for such “crank” views.
...and thus stereotypes the lot of ID skeptics. I'm going to have to get a new irony meter...
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 04. July 2003 18:47
Yersinia,
If you follow the argument, there is no double edge. The argument is not a moral argument (thou shalt not rely on stereotypes). I am pointing out the sociological implications of reliance on stereotype as it relates to ID research programs. If you want to make the case that my stereotypes of ID skeptics have significant sociological implications, go for it. I didn’t realize I was in such a position of power (although some think I can snap my fingers and make the pesky ID Movement go away).
Anyway, let me draw this latest "bias kick" to a closing (on both threads). I'm past the 50 Rule.
[ 04. July 2003, 19:24: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 04. July 2003 19:27
Mike writes,
quote:
If you follow the argument, there is no double edge. The argument is not a moral argument (thou shalt not rely on stereotypes). I am pointing out the sociological implications of reliance on stereotype as it relates to ID research programs. If you want to make the case that my stereotypes of ID skeptics have significant sociological implications, go for it.
Well, lessee, if we look at the beginning of the ARN Tipler thread, the first two critical comments (charlie d. and aptamer) posted both argued that the primary problem for ID was not peer-review, but rather the lack of substantive ID research papers that could be submitted. As supporting evidence they pointed to the lack of such papers even in forums where peer-review was not an obstacle, such as PCID.
How did you, Mike Gene, respond? In your very first post on the ARN Tipler thread, you wrote,
quote:
DJ, It does seem to me that those skeptical to any notions of intelligent design in cosmology or biology feel vindicated by the absence of any peer reviewed articles which conclude 'ID'.
Yes, and this sense of validation is born of sloppy thinking and childish expectations concerning human inquiry. Tipler writes an excellent piece, but don’t expect the ID critics to truly listen and understand. Expect, instead, distracting knee-jerk reactions born of superficial thinking. In other words, instead of thinking through on Tipler’s observations, and the implications, many folks will desperately attempt to redirect attention to old rhetoric. The ironic thing as that many of these same people advertise themselves as being qualified to “objectively” peer-review ID.
But don’t make too much of this. They also typically come with thin skins and short fuses. More helpful traits for objective reviewers.
Let's list the slurs, shall we?
[*] sloppy
[*] childish
[*] knee-jerk reactions
[*] superficial
[*] desperate
[*] "objective" with scare quotes
[*] thin skins
[*] short fuses
You listed all of these, instead of responding to the counterargument to Tipler regarding ID, namely that if all of these brilliant ID papers have been blocked by peer-review, then where are they?
So, based on this evidence, here are the sociological implications:
- Like many people advocating dissenting scientific positions, you have become sufficiently obsessed with the alledged biases of your skeptics that, when something like the Tipler paper pushes your button, you have a tendency to shoot off accusations about the close-mindedness of your opponents rather than reading their counterargument and responding directly.
- Similar dynamics seem to apply to some other prominent personalities in the ID movement, notably Dembski
- Result of the sociological dynamic: more time is spent on name calling, less time is spent producing the ID research papers which would either (a) get ID into the literature or (b) failing that, show the unreasonableness of the current peer-review system.
How's that?
[ 04. July 2003, 19:28: Message edited by: yersinia ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 04. July 2003 19:35
Yersinia,
The unreasonableness of the peer review system has already been established by the Cochrane Review.
As far as insults and knee-jerk reactions, your post earlier in the thread showed exactly that, when you accused Dembski of leaving out certain facts about a peer reviewed paper, when in fact, Dembksi's quote accurately described the reference in question. You also are very quick to take people out of context, such as in the blood clotting thread, you just show similarity and say that Dembski never mentions this when he talks about how evolutionary stories are absent. In fact, Dembski does address similarity, why didn't you mention this? And lets not get into all the ways you took me out of context in the Topo II thread. Such things give credence to Gene's remarks, you can't help but view at least some of the ID critics that participate in these boards as closed-minded.
I know we're going to get zapped by the moderator soon so let me end it here.
[ 04. July 2003, 19:37: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 04. July 2003 19:45
Charlie d wrote:
quote:
Actually, Behe is saying he'd like to generate a computer simulation of some sort, to show how 2 proteins would evolve an interaction by mutation and selection, with the ID expectation being that this would not happen in a reasonable time frame. Of course, that's no explanation at all.
Sure it is. If the system takes too long, or shows an unliklihood of arising via natural selection and random mutation, then we can rule out that cause and begin to build a positive case using ID. These are all the steps needed in order to come to a full explanation for it's origin, AFAIK.
By the way, how do you think that paper you reference is relevant?
[ 04. July 2003, 20:11: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 04. July 2003 20:12
As I said, negative results are just that. How would you rule out that the simulation (or the assumptions underlying it) is not flawed, if IC doesn't evolve?
Note that this is not just a problem for IC-related issues, it's just a problem of experimental science. Only few, very well designed experiments, in which all relevant variables are well controlled, can be informative if they yield negative results. (Ask any graduate student!)
As for the paper I listed, it seems to me to be very relevant, because it shows 2 things that affect the design of Behe's hypothetical simulation:
1. A molecule that has multiple disulfide bonds loses function A if the bonds are disrupted, but another, unrelated function B remains intact. If we did not know about the second function, we'd draw the wrong conclusion, that disulfide bonds are necessary for the molecule itself to perform any function. (And in Behe's hypothetical computer simulation, how would one account for possible unknown alternative functions?).
2. Several mutant molecules with partially disrupted/shifted disulfide bonds still maintain function A, at least to some extent. That is, we cannot say with precision with determinants in a molecule effect its function, and how moderate structural changes are going to affect it. In otehr words, while we may know that a certain disulfide bond is structurally important, there is no way we could test all the possible alternative structures to determine which ones, if any, also hapeen to be functional, at least in aprt. (And, in Behe's hypothetical simulation, how would we define the functional determinant, to allow for such flexibility?)
As I said, Behe's "research plan" is more pie-in-the-sky wouldn't-it-be-cool-to-do-that, than an actual project (even allowing for computer power and protein structure prediction software that is probably at best a decade away).
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 04. July 2003 20:25
charlie d writes:
quote:
As I said, negative results are just that.
No, they are much more than that. Genetic screens wouldn't be what they are if not for negative evidence. Genetic screens sometimes rely on negative evidence to steer them towards the cause of a phenotype. Sometimes negative evidence opens doorways to new ways of looking at things.
As far as the relevance of the paper, you're pointing once again to co-option. Most likely it is the need for co-option itself that points to the unliklihood of getting that IC system (too many chance events). While selection was pruning the system for antimicrobial activity something had to occur to make it start selecting for disulphide bonding. Not to mention that you need to establish that antimicrobial activity preceded disulphide bonding in this case. See? With Behe's question, we are already making headway into how the system might have originated, even if we find that co-option is the way to go. Thats what scientific research is all about.
[ 04. July 2003, 20:29: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 05. July 2003 02:05
Mike: I’ve never wondered this. It’s always been obvious. Yet the fact that Pim attributes such a questioning state to me is relevant to the issue of stereotypes.
Is it? Or is it more likely a misunderstanding of your 'arguments'? Surely Mike would not want to draw stereotypical conclusions about me stereotyping :-)
Rememmber the two-edged sword...
Does the reliance on stereotype lead to a mental inertia? Perhaps but in the case of ID I have not seen any impact of this. Additionally although Mike suggests it to be a stereotype, it seems to be a stereotype strongly encouraged by a large part of the ID movement.
I wonder why Mike considers my interpretation of his comments to be a blunder. I guess we may never know... or will we?
quote:
He’s never really sought to truly understand my arguments
A bit stereotypical thinking on Mike's part I would say. I do accept the possibility that Mike truely believes this and I merely point to Mike's comments about the impact of stereotypical thinking.
quote:
Why bother to understand what someone is saying when a stereotype seems to make things more tidy?
Does Mike realize how well his comments apply to his own actions and statements I wonder? What was this about reliance on stereotypes leading to a mential inertia :-)
I also am fascinatinate by how Mike moves from the (individual) impact of stereotypical thinking to a societal impact. I guess when he used the statement:
quote:
Why bother to understand what someone is saying when a stereotype seems to make things more tidy?
He surely must have been under the impression that my societal impact is quite significant. And while I thank Mike for his support, I do not feel that my ideas have that large an impact.
Perhaps there is a double edge sword after all as Yersinia has so exquisitely addressed in his posting dated 04. July 2003 19:27.
[ 05. July 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 07. July 2003 17:45
One more brief point (since my deleted point was addressed) –
RBH: Darwin made an argument; Lenski, et al., provided detailed data.
But that’s the point. Over a hundred years later, we’re still trying to nail down the details. ID, on the other hand, needs to deliver its “extraordinary evidence” just to trigger the investigation. If we needed Lenski’s detailed data before we could ever investigate Darwin’s claims, would there be a Lenski?
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 07. July 2003 19:21
Mike Gene wrote quote:
One more brief point (since my deleted point was addressed) ?
RBH: Darwin made an argument; Lenski, et al., provided detailed data.
But that's the point. Over a hundred years later, we're still trying to nail down the details. ID, on the other hand, needs to deliver its "extraordinary evidence" just to trigger the investigation. If we needed Lenski's detailed data before we could ever investigate Darwin's claims, would there be a Lenski?
Nope, but the question is a red herring. Darwin was not bereft of data: He provided more actual data in his several books than most theorists ever have done, and a whole lot more than any ID theorist has provided in ID's latest spate of publication. Starting from the get-go with the publication of OoS (and even earlier), a number of active and extraordinarily fruitful research programs in multiple disciplines began to burgeon, and that goes on still today. I don't doubt that in another hundred years we'll still be "investigating Darwin's claims," particularly since over the years the claims become more detailed as we learn more (as a sphere of knowledge expands the area of the surface of the sphere at the interface with what we don't know also expands). Claims and hypotheses become more demanding and more difficult to assess from an armchair. As instrument technology continues to develop (e.g., the recent rapid advances in techniques for molecular analyses), more claims can be investigated.
ID is welcome to investigate whatever its heart desires. What is less than welcome in the scientific community are extravagant claims of a 'new scientific paradigm' and 'a Kuhnian revolution' and so on made in the total absence of a coherent research program to underpin those claims. I know that you - Mike Gene - don't make those claims, but the boys in Seattle sure do. What is particularly not welcome is IDNet and DI pilgrims sailing into state and local school districts claiming that they have an alternative scientific explanation for biological phenomena, when their "explanation" consists of three words: "It was designed." Period, Full Stop.
Intelligent Design of the Discovery Institute variety has no visible research program. It has no theory. It has a propaganda machine aimed at the general public, but it has provided no visible research effort to even begin to answer the questions it raises. Anyone, even a philosopher, can ask questions; answering them is another matter. That's real work.
RBH
[ 07. July 2003, 19:23: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 07. July 2003 19:57
I had written a post to nelson saying I did not understand his point, but it has disappeared. Anyway, let me try some answers, and if they are the wrong ones, it's Nelson's fault anyway for not being clear enough ( ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ). First, negative results: quote:
Genetic screens wouldn't be what they are if not for negative evidence. Genetic screens sometimes rely on negative evidence to steer them towards the cause of a phenotype. Sometimes negative evidence opens doorways to new ways of looking at things.
This is not relevant to the topic, and I really don't want to get into another one of these side-discussions with Nelson in which definitions become the point, rather than the tools. Suffice to say that exclusion-mapping (when people conclude that a gene for a trait does not map to a certain area of the genome identified by a marker) is not a negative result, but a positive one, in which statistical analysis reaches a critical significance level, usually 100:1 against linkage of the marker with the trait in question (in linkage lingo, a "lod score" of -2). A negative result in these experiments would be one in which there isn't enough statistical power to either conclude or exclude linkage.
Again, please Nelson this is not relevant to the discussion, let's not get sidetracked. quote:
As far as the relevance of the paper, you're pointing once again to co-option. Most likely it is the need for co-option itself that points to the unliklihood of getting that IC system (too many chance events). While selection was pruning the system for antimicrobial activity something had to occur to make it start selecting for disulphide bonding. Not to mention that you need to establish that antimicrobial activity preceded disulphide bonding in this case. See? With Behe's question, we are already making headway into how the system might have originated, even if we find that co-option is the way to go. Thats what scientific research is all about.
This is the part I have some difficulty with. I am not saying either one of those functions, or a third or fourth one we don't know about yet, had to come first. I am not even talking about co-option specifically. All I am saying is that, as long as we admit there may be another functions we don't know about, or other proteins involved in the same function (and we sure can't exclude either in any specific case) any simulation like that proposed by Behe is simply going to be incomplete and meaningless, if it yields a negative result. We simply can never say we have controlled for all possible variables that would negatively affect the outcome of an experiment, especially one as complex as Behe's imaginary evolutionary simulation, because there is a basically infinite amount of them. That's the problem of relying entirely on negative data.
Maybe there are some positive, informative examples of ID-based research, but this isn't one.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 07. July 2003 22:39
Charlie wrote:
quote:
This is not relevant to the topic,
Of course it is. The question was asked if any IDers are currently active in scientific research. I quoted a recent statement by Behe concerning wanting to investigate the irreducible complexity of disulphide bonding. When you thought that that was all he was asking, you moaned that it was "some question" and brushed it off. When RBH pointed out that he was actually interested in doing a computer simulation, you moaned again that it was just negative evidence because he also wants to test to see if a Darwinian explanation can account for it. And so here we are, discussing how negative evidence is
relevant (of course I am of the opinion that nothing will qualify as positive ID research to you, even if Behe had the designer dissected in his laboratory, but who cares? I'm not really posting to convince you).
If this was all that Behe was doing, then I would agree that negative evidence doesn't translate into positive evidence for design. Nonetheless, you start with negative evidence and build a case for an alternative view. Negative evidence has value in this respect.
I gave an example of genetic screens, negative evidence are sometimes what genetic screens begin with. Lets go back to Rb-null fibroblasts, which indicate that inactivation of Rb is not sufficient for tumorigenesis. That is negative evidence, not positive evidence. Here are more examples,
Apolipoprotein E genotype and schizophrenia: further negative evidence.
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002 Jan;105(1):71-5.
Even though it is negative evidence it has great value in informing us that there is more to the story when it comes to tumorigenesis. We can now begin building a positive case for what factors are responsible for tumorigenesis (and schizophrenia, and other stuff).
Even if Behe's proposal is just negative evidence, it still qualifies as scientific research, as shown above.
charlie d:
quote:
I am not even talking about co-option specifically.
But if you're not talking about co-option then why did you reference the paper? I don't see the relevance of showing alternative functions if you were not talking about co-option. The paper does not contradict the notion that disulphide bonding requires two cystine residues. So it is irrelevant whether some structural function requires disulphide bonding. What we are interested in how disulphide bonding orginiated in the first place if it is irreducible .
Now of course, it is possible that there are zillions of unknown variables but that is irrelevant. Natural selection makes specific predictions that are testable and so with negative evidence we can rule it out. In fact this is how the whole Darwinian thing got started in the first place, they simply argued against creationist theories (and other type of theories) and so they won by elimination, not by positive research results.
Also, mere possibility of "unknown" variables does not negate the validity of negative evidence. Of course there are probably zillions of uknown factors that we may not take into account but science is not about certainty it's about reliability and inference to the best explanation. So that it is possibile that we are unaware of an unknown function is irrelevant to whether the interpretation of a particular piece of data conform to a particular framework for understanding that particular piece of data, particularly ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) .
There are many assertions in this thread that ID does not produce scientific research. However, the kind of research that you want is benchwork. But this is difficult because of the cited obstacles inherent in the flawed peer review process and in the difficulty for alternative views that go against the "herd" to retrieve funding. Despite that, there is a lot of armchair work that does spawn many research questions that I have seen and have documented. Why are these ignored?
I wonder if any of the ID critics that want to see this armchair work expanded into benchwork would be willing to lobby for funding for ID research? If Dembski or someone else tried to create a lab would they see the same type of persecution or would you stop talking from both sides of your mouth and actually allow an ID research lab to be established with a University (I'm speaking generally here not to anyone in particular)?
[ 07. July 2003, 23:40: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 07. July 2003 23:08
RBH,
The question is not a Red Herring – it gets to a fundamental point. Of course Darwin brought data to the table (however, most of the data was not something he himself uncovered). Yet none of it was “extraordinary evidence” and was clearly not as detailed as the Lenski results. In fact, in many places, Darwin introduces his speculations about mechanisms as possibilities. If we denied Darwin access to the community of investigators because his ideas lacked extraordinary evidence, immense detail, and only raised possibilities, there would be no “Modern Synthesis,” Lenski analysis, etc. to add to his original thesis. When you assert, “ID is welcome to investigate whatever its heart desires,” I find this sentiment absurd in light of the evidence/arguments I have provided on this (and similar) threads. For some reason, many people want to ignore sociology and psychology only when it comes to the practice of science as it relates to this specific issue. I find that an unscientific approach.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 07. July 2003 23:43
Mike,
I believe it IS a red herrring for the following reasons. Lets take for example your hypothesis, namely the idea of front loading. While the idea is interesting, it seems not much different from "a frozen accident". In both cases an initial condition is assumed. Thus the focus becomes on the initial condition, did the initial condition require intelligent design or not or did the initial condition involve intelligent design, and if so, can this intelligent design be differentiated from lets say nature as the designer?
So far nothing extraodrinary here unless we focus on the initial condition and then I agree that the evidence will be somewhat extraordinary in that it will have to eliminate alternatives. Or lets look at the more mainstream form of intelligent design, namely the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance". As Del Ratzsch argues in his book, false positives are unavoidable and thus make the design inference problematic. Thus elimination of Darwinian pathways, while interesting do not say much for the likelihood of Intelligent Design pathways.
Darwin presented a positive hypothesis with a mechanism that could be tested and applied to known data. So far ID seems to fail even in this aspect namely that the calculation of probabilities relevant for the design inference are close to impossible. Darwin's hypotheses were thus in this aspect nothing extraordinary, what was extraordinary was the insight provided by Darwin.
Similarly to Darwin, ID is welcome to investigate whatever its heart desires to try to build a coherent hypothesis. Lacking a testable mechanism however makes for a tricky proposition. I fail to see why you find this assertion to be absurd? Certainly I do not remember any evidence that would make the assertion to be absurd, in fact I find the argument quite solid.
Of course we can introduce sociology and psychology and discuss motivation but in the end what really matters is how solid the argument is that is presented. And since most of the papers submitted to journals, eventually finds an outlet, I find it hard to argue that somehow psychology or sociology have any substantial relevance to the issues.
I in the end fail to see why you reach your conclusion of "an unscientific approach". Perhaps you could elaborate?
I just read btw your response to Charlie in which you express your doubt that evidence to distinguish between ID and non-ID will become available. You then continue to argue that the assumption is what matters not necessarily the veracity of the assumption and I have agreed with you in the past that design centric arguments have been helpful in furthering science but that is a giant leap from ID having any scientific relevance. In the end extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence and until we have some evidence to the contrary, the assumption of a "neutral" initial condition seems to be prefered to suggesting, without any hope of resolution, that it was intelligent design, running the risk of ID of the gaps.
In the end we seem to agree on at least on issue namely that a design centric approach can be helpful in understanding biology. Where our paths differ is in the intepretation of the relevance of this to ID.
[ 07. July 2003, 23:54: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
