KC

The Trial, by Franz Kafka.

Cheers,

KC

Adrian Selby

I have my doubts about Langan's philosophical basis for his CTMU, has anyone attempted an attack on what, on the surface, seem to be ordinary bordering on dodgy presuppositions regarding the mind body problem, the nature of the meaning of 'information' etc. If so, I'd like to read them, a search of ARN with the phrase 'philosophy' and 'Langan' predictably doesn't give me a focussed search on this issue of analysing his actual paper.

I have the further problem of not understanding much regarding the ID/evolution debate in terms of the minutiae of which people like Oolon are capable. However, I don't think spending some time posting is going to be a mistake.

Any links welcome.

Adrian

pz

This CTMU thingie is empty vapor. It has only been 'published' in hothouse environments like the MegaBrain site and ARN, where it can be protected from criticism and where laudatory comments can be cajoled from Langan groupies.

It hasn't been subject to serious critical analysis elsewhere because anyone with any reasoning ability at all can look at it and see that it is all hot air. There's as much point to dissecting it as there is to analysing the scribblings of the schizophrenic homeless guy who rants about CIA mind control while he is panhandling.

Clutch

The universe is self-interpreting information -- that was the only message I could decoct from the post-pop-pseudo-science cowpat of the wee man's prose. Nothing that a dozen struggling super-geniuses don't publish every year through vanity presses, and then mass-mail out to physicists and philosophers. I see this stuff all the time, as it sits stacked and waiting for the recycling truck. Langan's belongs in about the middle of the pile.

Also interesting: Einstein, for example, never told people who found his theory difficult that they were pathetic small minds who needed help wiping their bottoms. He wrote the gorgeously lucid Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. While not a facile read, the book patiently and thoroughly links the terms and principles of the theory(/ies) down to educated layperson algebra and discourse.

Langan's approach is completely constituted out of obfuscation, by contrast. Even to ask what things mean is to reveal yourself unworthy of an answer. I really don't understand how he acquired acolytes. Like a lot of postmodern snake-oil salesmen, I guess.

KC

I've been working through the paper, and have some misgivings over it. I started a thread about it <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001755" target="_blank">here</a>

It's as good a place as any to discuss CTMU.

Cheers,

KC

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: KC ]</p>

Adrian Selby

Thanks KC, I'll post my concerns over parts of it there then

The abstract is dense, as is much of the rest, I'm not convinced its just inflated self important text, though his arrogance and refusal to explain his ideas and engage honestly, if only to progress his theory, is shocking. I think he genuinely believes he has something important to say, and could be using a lot of terms in non standard ways, which could be causing confusion, but at some point, if I find something substantive, I'll register on ARN, as I'm sure he wouldn't come here, and see if he'll respond.

Adrian

pangloss

Its a strange thing (re: langan's groupies). I have noticed (I'm sure that I am not the only one) a pompous, almost beligerant condescension among the "great minds" of antievolutionism.

Look at Woody, Dembski, ReMine, Sarfati, etc. Its a who's who of "If you don't agree with what I say it is because you are (insert derogatory belittlement here)."

The really odd thing is that so many lay antievolutionists seem to interpret that as some sort of 'evidence' that the person is actually correct.

Of course, I have long thought that the lay anti-evolutionist is a gullible, easily led simpleton, but what do I know....

KC

Going over to ARN would be a mistake, IMHO. Just looking at the <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000237;p=2" target="_blank">latest egregious thread</a> gives us the following scenario: an egomaniac who, through infiltrating ARN management and holding the moderation in intellectual thrall, can post insults and abuse at will, even to the point of taunting critics who do not have access to ARN management. From the thread:

Langan is basically lobbing abuse from behind ARN management's skirts. Which speaks volumes.

Cheers,

KC

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: KC ]</p>

pz

Right there on that thread are three themes that come up over and over again among the anti-evolutionists, and simply boggle the mind that they would persist in them:

The confusion about Darwinism vs. modern evolutionary biology.Darwin had a great insight that forms the core of much of modern biology. We are not bound to cling to every other idea that that clever 19th century biologist had, and refuting some antiquated point (which has always been shot down long ago by some real biologist) is not a strike against evolution.

Randomness.Many things in biology have been found to have an empirically random component. Get over it. If Brownian motion, enzyme kinetics, and random copying errors in DNA duplication are affronts to your god, your god is one stupid SOB.

Junk DNA.Yes, the vast majority of your DNA consists of repetitive noise, sequences that could be replaced with some other random sequence or deleted altogether with no significant, detectable effect on the organism. I don't understand why some people are obsessed with finding some crucial purpose to this stuff. It's there, it doesn't do anything in particular, it doesn't hurt anything, get used to it.

KC

Agreed, and even stupider, in my opinion, is Langan's 'Chilly Willy ' example. In the original ChillY willy thread, Langan basically says that because we cannot look under EVERY rock in the Universe, we cannot make generalizations about the existence of anything.

The most ridiculous example is Langan's (and apparently his girlfriend's) obsession with petri dishes. If the only empirical data we had regarding the randomness of mutations with regard to fitness was petri dishes, he might have a shred of a point. But, like most armchair evolutionary critics, he can't be bothered to get off his muscle-bound ass and read the literature. It's this pontification from abysmal ignorance which irks me the most.

Cheers,

KC