pangloss

More examples of how one's twisted religio-political beliefs can distort their ability to think rationally...


<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000253" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000253</a>

beausoleil

As an outsider to the field and certainly not a disbeliever in evolution, I still think the guy has a point. Flies that are mimics, flys that are not mimics, and flies that are poor mimics, can all have evolutionary explanations constructed for them. I'll only really be impressed when some consequence of the explanation is tested for and discovered, which doesn't seem to have happened here. (Haven't read the article though)

I'm puzzled, in passing, why Nature and Science have such a high reputation among the general public (yes, I have published in them, incidentally, lest anyone think this is sour grapes). In my field, I think articles in either have a far higher likelihood of being found to be tosh within 5 years than in other journals. Their policy tends to be to seek attention grabbing stories of ideas close to their inception, and these are by their nature less well tested.

Valentine Pontifex

Well if one wants to put out the new original ideas that is the risk that one must take: most of them will be shown to be wrong.

Xeluan

Aahh, that is who RFH is. Explains a few things like RHF's continual assertion that ToE has no relevance to science anymore.

Xeluan

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Xeluan ]</p>

scigirl

I don't really know. I was told that it was always "groundbreaking" research or something like that. Research that either proved a hypothesis scientists have had for a while but just couldn't test it yet, or that disproved one.

I do think this is true for most science/nature articles, but they aren't as carefully reviewed I agree. The top-tiered journals in your field are always the best ones for information.

Although I like Science and Nature - I think it's important to have journals like them to keep scientists 'well-rounded' and well-versed in other scientific fields, and science news around the world.

scigirl

(You said you published in nature - what was your paper on?)

pangloss

I suggest you keep reading what Hirsch writes. Practically every time he writes something, he gets further in the wrong. If he occasionally appears to have a legitimate point, one need not look far to see that such occasions are flukes...

KeithHarwood

Nature is a quick publication journal. Its job is to get scientific advances before the scientific community as fast as possible. It is not normally considered a peer reviewed journal and from time to time there are `whoops we goofed' letters. However, it's better than having to wait for two years for the peer reviewed version of events to get out.

Before Nature, the quick publication path was via the letters to the editor of The Times. These tended to be somewhat imflamatory to counter which the stilted, third person passive style of scientific writing evolved. (There is supposed to be a letter from Eddington regarding nuclear fusion as the source of the sun's energy in which he said that if Rutherford thought the centre of the sun was not hot enough then he could go to a hotter place.)

Xeluan

I have a question from the Devil's advocate side of the bench...

How do we protect ourselves (I mean we as in yer general agnostic/athiest/non-believer of some sorts) in protecting ourselves against our (non)beliefs distorting our views?

From my experience you need to understand both sides of the arguments. It does no good for the anyone involved in the creationism/evolution argument to only read one side of the story. I read both (except Dembski. I can't understand his writing let alone his mathematics).

Aside: I'll make a generalization - Pro-evolutionists are the most likely to read both pro and con books re evolution and understand the arguemtns. I find creationists/IDers to have little or no understanding of evolution.

I think also humility is needed. I detest the political position of holding onto a position/view simply because it is antagonistic to the opponent even if clearly wrong. If you are wrong admit you are wrong.

I suppose I hold that critical thinking will guide me down the right path. I do suggest that it is a battle at times to prevent your own biases working against you.

Xeluan

Oolon Colluphid

Yup, and don't forget that it was in Nature the Targ and Puthoff published their 'testing' of Uri Geller...

Oolon

pangloss

I agree that it is difficult to be completely objective in this debate. Clearly, one side has a harder time at it - they have a belief system to protect, their salvations is at stake, and they all seem to have that psychosis that makes them think they are right about everything!

I think the fact that typically the evolutionist can/will supply verifiable documentation for their statements, as opposed to repeated assertions, or links to creationist websites, etc., makes the evolutionist position far more objective overall than the creatonists (thats my bias, of ocurse!). Even when a creationist claims to have evidence for their views from the mainstream literature, I have yet to come across an instance wherein such a claim is NOT based on a misunderstanding, wild extrapolation, or outright fabrication (adding ideas not inherent in the article).


I also agree that evolutionists by and large are a bit more conversant with the 'enemy's' works, if only from popular books and magazines. When I started engaging in these 'debates' some 5 or so years ago, I was one of those that argued from knowing only one side of the issue, and started getting accused of all sorts of things for not reading/knowing about the creationists and their claims. However, I discovered that doing so really does not matter to the creationist - they will always tack on some additional baggage. For example, I was once arguing with a cretin about baraminology. I referred to online articles; I was told that this was not the whole story, that there were several creationist 'journal' articles. I got the articles. Read them. Discussed them. I was then told that these articles did not tell the whole story, because there were even others out there. I read another. Told that I still didn't know what I was talking about - the author in question had written several other articles, and unless I had read them all, I had no business commenting on them. This went on and on. This creationist also informed me that what was in the abstract of one creationist paper was quite different from what the paper itself discussed - funny how that works....

Anyway - I think it was my reading of creationist articles, websites, and books that have jaded me towards all creationst authors. I have yet to find a single example of one that does not almost immediately resort to distortion, aspersion casting, misrepresentation, and hyperbole.


Have you?

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: pangloss ]</p>