Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lizard · 09-01-2002, 09:09 AM

From Michael Shermer's excellent book, "The Borderlands of Science," quoting a book from the 50s by Martin Gardner, entitled, "In the Name of Science: An Entertaining Survey of the High Priests and Cultists of Science, Past and Present.� Gardner gives advice on how to detect cranks (�hermit scientists,� as Gardner terms them):

Quote:

1. First and most important of these traits is that cranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues. ...

2. A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia. ...

(1) He considers himself a genius.

(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads.

(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to �enemies� for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition maty be due to error in his work.

(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ...

(5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.... He speaks before organizations he himself has founded, contributes to journals he himself may edit, and � until recently � publishes books only when he or his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed privately. ...

Sound like anybody we know?

ksagnostic · 09-01-2002, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lizard:
From Michael Shermer's excellent book, "The Borderlands of Science," quoting a book from the 50s by Martin Gardner, entitled, "In the Name of Science: An Entertaining Survey of the High Priests and Cultists of Science, Past and Present.” Gardner gives advice on how to detect cranks (“hermit scientists,” as Gardner terms them):

Sound like anybody we know?

Gee. I Don't know. InDeed, it is difficult to come up with an Insightful, Deadon, IDea! Oh wait! I Do believe I Definitely have ID'd who you mean!

The evolutionists who fruitlessly resist the relentless brilliance of the ID steamroller...

...in the bizarro world!

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

KnightWhoSaysNi · 09-01-2002, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lizard:
Sound like anybody we know?

Hmmm, could it <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000220" target="_blank">beeee......?</a>

I would add, #3: A pseudo-scientist feels (s)he is so correct that (s)he is justified in by-passing the scientific concensus with the use of popular opinion and political lobbying to introduce his/her ideas into the education system.

William Dembski states:

Quote:

Now, what does all this say about the teaching of ID? Mike, along with S&B, takes the "high road" that ID must first be developed further as a scientific and scholarly program before it may be legitimately taught in public school science curricula. Before the dissolution of my ID think tank at Baylor, my sentiments were largely the same. But I've come to reject this view entirely. Here are the relevant considerations from my end:

(1) Evolutionary biology has been so hugely unsuccessful as a scientific theory in accounting for the origin of life and the emergence of biological complexity that it does not deserve a monopoly regardless what state of formation ID has reached.

(2) ID is logically speaking the only alternative to evolutionary biology. Either material mechanisms can do all the work in biological origins or some telic process is additionally required.

(3) Why should ID supporters allow the Darwinian establishment to indoctrinate students at the high school level, only to divert some of the brightest to becoming supporters of a mechanistic account of evolution, when by presenting ID at the high school level some of these same students would go on to careers trying to develop ID as a positive research program? If ID is going to succeed as a research program, it will need workers, and these are best recruited at a young age. The Darwinists undestand this. So do the ID proponents. There is a sociological dimension to science and to the prospering of scientific theories, and this cannot be ignored if ID is going to become a thriving research program.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]

tgamble · 09-01-2002, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nightshade:

(1) Evolutionary biology has been so hugely unsuccessful as a scientific theory in accounting for the origin of life and the emergence of biological complexity that it does not deserve a monopoly regardless what state of formation ID has reached.

The lack of success of course has nothing to do wth the lack of attempt...

Quote:

(2) ID is logically speaking the only alternative to evolutionary biology. Either material mechanisms can do all the work in biological origins or some telic process is additionally required.

True. But so far the second option has no evidence to support it.

Quote:

(3) Why should ID supporters allow the Darwinian establishment to indoctrinate students at the high school level, only to divert some of the brightest to becoming supporters of a mechanistic account of evolution, when by presenting ID at the high school level some of these same students would go on to careers trying to develop ID as a positive research program? If ID is going to succeed as a research program, it will need workers, and these are best recruited at a young age. The Darwinists undestand this. So do the ID proponents. There is a sociological dimension to science and to the prospering of scientific theories, and this cannot be ignored if ID is going to become a thriving research program.

Maybe they should come up with something to work on first. So far, all they have is a load of assertations and attacks against real science.

Quetzal · 09-01-2002, 10:12 PM

Quote:

(3) Why should ID supporters allow the Darwinian establishment to indoctrinate students at the high school level, only to divert some of the brightest to becoming supporters of a mechanistic account of evolution, when by presenting ID at the high school level some of these same students would go on to careers trying to develop ID as a positive research program? If ID is going to succeed as a research program, it will need workers, and these are best recruited at a young age. The Darwinists undestand this. So do the ID proponents. There is a sociological dimension to science and to the prospering of scientific theories, and this cannot be ignored if ID is going to become a thriving research program.

What an amazing piece of special pleading. What he seems to be saying is: "Even though we have ABSOLUTELY no evidence whatsoever for our ludicrous claims, it's only because no student has ever been indoctrinated into the ID paradigm. If we were allowed to indoctrinate students into the ID paradigm, well of course we would be able to find the evidence. It's only the Worldwide Evilutionist Conspiracy (Academic Branch) that has prevented ID from developing empirical data to support ID by indoctrinating high school students into the evilutionary dogmatism."

Doesn't this sort of beg a couple of questions?

For example: 1. If that's the case, how did Dembski, Behe and their ilk "break the barrier"?

2. Doesn't the DI bilk millions of ignorant fools (err, receive donations from concerned citizens) to the tune of millions of $$$$ per year? Why isn't all this money being used for research to develop the scientific basis for ID?

3. The ID folks have been pushing their theory for twenty+ years - surely in all that time SOMEONE would have come up with SOME - even if insignificant and uncompelling - piece of actual data to support the hypothesis. Where is it? Hell, even Margulis has gotten a collection of scientists to buy off on her inherently metaphysical Gaia hypothesis in less time. Why can't ID - with LOTS more $$$? There isn't even a decent argument put forward - just a lot of Paley's Watchmaker and Designer-of-the-Gaps popscience handwaving (and in Dembski's case, utterly incomprehensible and opaque jargon).

The unmitigated gall of people like Dembski absolutely floors me.

lpetrich · 09-01-2002, 10:28 PM

Also, there are non-design mechanisms of evolution that are different from Darwinism, like Lamarckism and orthogenesis. Evolution != Darwinism.

Camaban · 09-02-2002, 03:59 AM

A Poem

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul97.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul97.html</a>

Quote:

To the pagan bandwidth of the Usenet group t.o
Our strong creationist bravely went, his knowledge for to show.
What! -- Did I say knowledge? Oh, silly, silly me;
I fear that it was Holy Writ
He opened on his knee.
The Bible! Yes, the Word of God! It held the answers all;
An encyclopedia of Truth we lost with Adam's fall
(Forgetting that its authors were never there to see
The creation celebration
Any more than you or me).

He met his first temptation in the demon of the FAQ,
But he easily avoided it, his head within a sack.
In ignorance of scientific method found he bliss,
Since it kept this young adept
From Darwin's poison kiss.

"The Bible speaketh not about this evolution lie,
Nor of fossils of transitions -- but of water from the sky!
And animals of fixe^d kinds, all crammed within a boat;
They spread about, sent offspring out,
When once it ceased to float!"

A snicker showed upon his screen, and more than that beside:
"Such myopic mythic mystery we cannot help deride.
In English or in Hebrew, a species is no 'kind,'
Else that boat would never float
Without leaving some behind.

"Or is that the fate of unicorn, of dinosaur and roc?
That is why they are no more, for Noah took no stock?
And rapidly the other 'kinds' did mutate, spread, and grow:
The solution, microevolution:
Does your book tell you so?

"And what of sickness, dread disease, and also parasites?
Did Noah's family nourish them upon those rainy nights?
And what did all the creatures eat for nigh upon a year?
And exercise? An elephant's size?
Did carnivores cause no fear?"

"Ecology! It has no place, you lying, heathen scum!
Laws of nature limit our Omnipotent One!
He can do just as He likes, and what His plan requires,"
Said creationist, now getting pissed,
"That makes you all just liars!

"For years and years and years and years it all has been the same
But only 'cause the world changed when flooded it became!
God changed water's chemistry and it began to flow
As from on high and through the sky
It all fell down below!"

"Au contraire, mon petit fre^re," said one who damned shall be,
"The physics of the atom say water's always been at sea.
Cent'ries of research on water never yet have found
It was bent by molecular dent
From impact with the ground."

The creationist fumed a while, then thought he found the key.
"This evolution bullshit contradicteth entropy!
Out of randomness you claim that order doth derive;
That messy stew, primordial GUE,
In our genome doth survive!

"Order out of randomness must always need a plan,
And plans require planners -- challenge that one if you can!
Explain to me the human eye, or brain if you prefer;
The thought of half just makes me laugh,
For no purpose could it serve."

"Science careth not a fig if planner there should be,
For we can only talk about the things that we can see.
Entropy is only true for systems that are sealed;
In sunny sky our Earth doth fly,
So the law has been repealed.

"If you would learn the priciples of that knowledge you deplore,
You would find preadaptation has long come through our door.
Half a thing is useless, denial would be mad --
But we disagree that what you see
Th' same purpose always had.

"Half a thing of one thing, a whole other might have been,
And change between the two is where selection did kick in.
Scaly Archaeopteryx with feathers could glide higher;
No eye of newt the shift from scute
To feather did require.

"Jurassic freaks and finches' beaks, what do these things share?
On neither one nor other will you find a single hair.
But look upon their fossils and their calcifie^d skellys,
And see the similarity
Between their legses pelves!"

"Ha-HA! You stupid nincompoops! I have caught you here!
For all of this to happen would require a million years!
But the magnetic field weakens and the Sun is getting thin!
Glory, yea, six K.Y.A.
The creation did begin!"

"And look at who makes all those claims -- it's the ICR crowd,
Led by Duane Gish who thinks that man's a watermelon cloud[1],
No science knows the answer before testing has begun.
You never lose if you pick and choose;
By such means is no science done."

Thus declaimed the evolutionary brotherhood on-line,
And glumly waited creationist's inevitable whine:
"All you see is just a trick to test our holy faith;
God was bold to make it old
And see who took the bait."

"You must be daft! How do you know that all that now you see
Is simply not a trick of God, a planted memory?
The instant of creation is right NOW as you read this
Or be as 't may on last Tuesday --
Does this thought bring you bliss?"

But each and all electrons that were part of every word
Were wasted bits of transience, for the creationist hadn't heard.
He refused to test his faith, convinced that he was right.
He'd only learned when badly burned
That complex was the fight.

The Devil's fiendish sack of souls appeared to be much fatter
As the hapless creationist went away, his head upon a platter.
Evolution's house had been built upon a rock, and
His belief had met with grief
Upon the shifting sand.

NialScorva · 09-02-2002, 06:41 AM

Quote:

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. Requires excessive admiration

5. Has a sense of entitlement

6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends

7. Lacks empathy

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

<a href="http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html" target="_blank">From the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic personality disorder</a>

Hrm... a Narcissistic component?

scigirl · 09-02-2002, 07:33 AM

Heh after reading that list by Nialscorva, several Nobel Laurates come to mind.

I want to point out that the legitimacy of a scientific field is irrespective of whether all scientists in that field are cranks or not.

thats all,

scigirl

pz · 09-02-2002, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
Heh after reading that list by Nialscorva, several Nobel Laurates come to mind.

I want to point out that the legitimacy of a scientific field is irrespective of whether all scientists in that field are cranks or not.

Oh, yes. Try reading Kary Mullis's autobiography sometime without puking. I don't think it was a fluke that he came up with PCR -- he definitely has imagination, and had a solid background in the technology of molecular biology -- but he doesn't have a clue about how to do science. The chapter where he "proves" that astrology is true is enough to show that all by itself.

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

09-01-2002, 10:28 PM	#6
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Also, there are non-design mechanisms of evolution that are different from Darwinism, like Lamarckism and orthogenesis. Evolution != Darwinism.

09-02-2002, 07:33 AM	#9
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Heh after reading that list by Nialscorva, several Nobel Laurates come to mind. I want to point out that the legitimacy of a scientific field is irrespective of whether all scientists in that field are cranks or not. thats all, scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.