Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theyeti · 12-06-2002, 12:19 PM

I dunno, have you ever read Berlinski's writings? They are the most vaccuous drivel imaginable, and that's saying a lot for an IDist. Filled with all sorts of flowery language and metaphor, they are an exercise in pedantry. He seems to advocate something akin to nihilism, which is of course self-defeating, but other than that I can't honestly say I've ever gleaned a coherent argument in his writings. He helps round out the DI's gaggle of circus freaks quite nicely.

theyeti

pz · 12-06-2002, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti:
I dunno, have you ever read Berlinski's writings? They are the most vaccuous drivel imaginable, and that's saying a lot for an IDist. Filled with all sorts of flowery language and metaphor, they are an exercise in pedantry. He seems to advocate something akin to nihilism, which is of course self-defeating, but other than that I can't honestly say I've ever gleaned a coherent argument in his writings. He helps round out the DI's gaggle of circus freaks quite nicely.

Well, yes -- I agree that he is a freakin' batshit loon. My point is that we do not engage in clinical diagnoses here, or on the basis of abstract writings. I suspect that Mr. Berlinski is quite capable of navigating the grocery store aisles, wiping himself after using the toilet, and even carrying on a conversation about the weather without drooling...in other words, he isn't yet a candidate for institutionalization.

Principia · 12-07-2002, 05:32 PM

From <a href="http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000246" target="_blank">here</a>, the ISCID Moderator thus decrees:

Quote:

Is this agreeable. Plus, the topic of this thread is a negative claim. Starting in January we are going to be cracking down hard with Moderation in an effort to steer Brainstorms in a better direction. Three things you need to work on are:

1. Avoid making the same positive claims over and over in new threads if you don't have any new material to discuss

2. Avoid the tendency to make negative arguments against other theories, especially when they are claims of logical defeat or impossibility

3. Spend some time putting some meat onto your ideas. Wrap them up in concrete details. Bring in some empirical data.

And then from <a href="http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000247" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

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)

In other words, if you can't do research for the IDiots, then you are useless.

Can the message get any clearer than this, folks? On a side note, is there one single original thinker among them, or do they all just copy each other's one-liners?

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

Xeluan · 12-07-2002, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia:
From <a href="http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000246" target="_blank">here</a>, the ISCID Moderator thus decrees:
In other words, if you can't do research for the IDiots, then you are useless.

Can the message get any clearer than this, folks? On a side note, is there one single original thinker among them, or do they all just copy each other's one-liners?

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

To be honest (I lurk there and have never posted though) I've never had any real trouble with the ISCID moderation. Though I think some of the IDers may have a little to much leeway, in general the discussions are usually civil and interesting. In fact Dembski has had his ass handed back to him on a platter a few times.

This change is disturbing (but expected). How are they going to decide if someone is a skeptic or debunker? Have Mike Gene psychoanalyze them in one of his interminable posts?

Xeluan

Principia · 12-07-2002, 06:22 PM

Quote:

In fact Dembski has had his ass handed back to him on a platter a few times.

This change is disturbing (but expected). How are they going to decide if someone is a skeptic or debunker? Have Mike Gene psychoanalyze them in one of his interminable posts?

The point is that the IDiots want to make their forums testing grounds for their latest revisions to the design argument. If I am Dembski, I would definitely want to get any feedback that I can get, since that's about as close as I can get to a peer-review. Notice that Dembski rarely replies with any substance himself. Either he flames his critics, or it is all hush hush. Notice too how John Bracht's ears perk up whenever an ID critic offers a possible experimental system. I think it is time for the critics to be a little saavy about how they are participating in this online chats. Ironically, they are giving the IDiots free lunches.

RufusAtticus · 12-08-2002, 12:52 PM

Quote:

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.

Written by someone who has never participated in peer-review or had a doctoral comittee. Real science is brutal and consists of #3 and #4. That is how accuracy is maintained and encouraged.

pz · 12-08-2002, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
Written by someone who has never participated in peer-review or had a doctoral comittee.

Or even gone through a real doctoral candidacy exam. In mine, I got locked in a room with 5 tenured faculty: 2 didn't have much of a clue what I was doing, but 3 were well-known figures in fields related to mine. All were out to demolish everything I said, and one was actively hostile to my thesis advisor, and would have relished shooting me down in flames (he didn't like me personally, either). The general topic of the oral exam was supposed to be cytoskeletal dynamics in developing neurons, but the first question I got was to quantitatively describe ion fluxes in a bursting oscillator.

Four hours of hellish sweat. But it was good for me. I think.

Xeluan · 12-08-2002, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia:

I think it is time for the critics to be a little saavy about how they are participating in this online chats. Ironically, they are giving the IDiots free lunches.

I agree. I don't see the point anymore as most IDers simply have no grasp of the what evolution is apart from some bizare caricture that implies nothing much has happened since 1858.

Xeluan

Dr.GH · 12-08-2002, 08:13 PM

From my oral exam,

"Prof. X, "What is that on page 4 of your paper?"

Me, "It is a graphic of the cognitive categories empolyed by Mayan potters to organize minerals."

Prof. X, "Oh. It looked like a piece of crap to me."

Prof. Y, "It would help, Prof. X, if you could have read the text accompanying the graph."

27 years later I still remeber every word. If it weren't for Prof. Y, I never would have graduated. I had put the damn graph in just for Prof. X in the first place.

Dr.GH · 12-08-2002, 09:45 PM

HaHaHA

I just saw that DNAunion is back on at ARN.

I finally deleted my ARN bookmark. It was just too great a temptation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-06-2002, 12:19 PM	#31
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	I dunno, have you ever read Berlinski's writings? They are the most vaccuous drivel imaginable, and that's saying a lot for an IDist. Filled with all sorts of flowery language and metaphor, they are an exercise in pedantry. He seems to advocate something akin to nihilism, which is of course self-defeating, but other than that I can't honestly say I've ever gleaned a coherent argument in his writings. He helps round out the DI's gaggle of circus freaks quite nicely. theyeti

12-08-2002, 08:13 PM	#39
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	From my oral exam, "Prof. X, "What is that on page 4 of your paper?" Me, "It is a graphic of the cognitive categories empolyed by Mayan potters to organize minerals." Prof. X, "Oh. It looked like a piece of crap to me." Prof. Y, "It would help, Prof. X, if you could have read the text accompanying the graph." 27 years later I still remeber every word. If it weren't for Prof. Y, I never would have graduated. I had put the damn graph in just for Prof. X in the first place.

12-08-2002, 09:45 PM	#40
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	HaHaHA I just saw that DNAunion is back on at ARN. I finally deleted my ARN bookmark. It was just too great a temptation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.