Francis Beckwith and his defender Denyse O'Leary seem to not be able to agree on what is wrong with
Forrest's critique of Beckwith in
Synthese.
Beckwith (2011) in
Synthese:
This is why it strikes me as odd that Forrest claims that I am an ID advocate because I present "ID exactly as ID leaders do--their arguments are his arguments, restated without hedge or criticism" (Forrest 2011, p. 346). Not only does such a statement
ignore my recent writings, explicitly critical of ID, that were available to Forrest many months before her article was to appear in print (Beckwith 2009c, 2009-2010, Beckwith 2010c), but it also ignores the academic responsibility I had in writing a graduate thesis in law on a matter of fundamental freedoms. In such writing, one is obligated to present the view under analysis with fairness and charity, especially when the nature, and not the veracity, of that view is the only thing relevant to the question one is trying to answer.
So, Beckwith ain't no ID advocate and never was, I guess. But wait, what does
O'Leary say over on UD today?
Frank Beckwith contacted me January 31, and we later spoke by phone. His problem was this: Barbara Forrest, a philosophy prof at Southeastern Louisiana University (and author of anti-ID screed The Trojan Horse) , had published a hostile account of his life and work in Synthese which implied that he was an ID advocate.
That was astonishing because we are led to expect that profs do their homework. Thus, Forrest should have known what everyone else does, that Beckwith is no such thing. I wrote about Beckwith's rift with the ID theorists years ago here. I took the view that he had made his point far more loudly than was necessary, under the circumstances.
Wait, O'Leary is saying that Beckwith once
was an ID advocate, and later had a break with the movement! That's rather different than never having been an ID advocate. Why can't Beckwith just say that he was snookered in the early 2000s by the sweet talk and alleged non-creationism-ness of the ID movement, he thought before 2005 that it had intellectual and scientific credibility and a serious legal chance, he painted an entirely rosy legal and intellectual picture of ID in his publications on the issue, and that he later realized he was horribly wrong about all this, and realized it rather later than most people? I hate to tell someone We Told You So...but, Mr. Beckwith, we did.
(As an aside, it's clear that it's not only O'Leary that thought Beckwith was on the ID side, and surprised when the turnabout came. Dembski posted wounded remarks himself at various points. I suspect that Beckwith's position switches on the ID issue are part of larger trends in his life, i.e. (a) entering the academic mainstream with a faculty position at Baylor, and (b) converting from evangelicalism to Catholism (at the time, while head of the Evangelical Theological Society -- you've got to give the man credit, when he changes positions, he does it in an big way!).)
A few minor points:
First, Beckwith's statement about his legal writings on ID that "In such writing, one is obligated to present the view under analysis with fairness and charity, especially when the nature, and not the veracity, of that view is the only thing relevant to the question one is trying to answer" is just silly six ways at once. First, when writing in law review journals and the like, you are not a paid and contracted advocate for some legal party, you are, at least allegedly, supposed to be doing scholarship. This imposes certain obligations, such as exercising critical thinking and conducting a fair review of the evidence. After all, readers are likely to read your law review articles when they are thinking about what governmental actions are constitutional, whether or not some policy they are thinking about is Constitutional, and whether or not they are likely to win a lawsuit over the policy if such occurs. Beckwith's work pre-2005 was a part -- a large part -- of the ID movement's campaign to convince people that ID was not creationism and was good science, and therefore was totally fine in the public schools, and that Constitutional problems wouldn't arise. We saw how that turned out. Beckwith's work has only the tiniest whisper of mildly critical remarks about ID -- the overwhelming, dominant message that any reader would have gotten from reading his work was that it was a revolutionary scientific movement with no tendency towards crankishness, pseudoscience, or creationism -- even though, and this is the most incredible part of his writing -- this was the mainstream and widespread scientific and academic view of ID even back then. Beckwith should have warned his readers that "most scholars think ID is worthless crap, a disguise for creationism, and ID advocates will have to overcome the obstacles this presents in political contexts and in the legal arena of expert witnesses, if they want to have any hope of getting into the science classroom and surviving the inevitable legal challenge."
Heck, he should say that
now, instead of endless rambling about Catholic philosophy and the like. Catholic philosophy might indeed cause problems for ID, but those aren't the main problems. The main problems are that it is scientifically worthless, even though its allegedly scientific nature is
the key selling point to the public and the schools -- and that politically and historically it is just a dishonest, disguised version of creationism, literally and obviously devised to get around previous court decisions against creation science. Until Beckwith deals with these issues in detail, especially the
cdesign proponentsists and connected evidence, he isn't a serious commentator on ID, and is just throwing up a smokescreen around the key problems with the movement.
Second, Beckwith writes,
"Not only does such a statement ignore my recent writings, explicitly critical of ID, that were available to Forrest many months before her article was to appear in print (Beckwith 2009c, 2009-2010, Beckwith 2010c)."
Well, this ignores the completely obvious point that Forrest's article, similar to most/all of the articles in this special issue, was "Received: 23 March 2009 / Accepted: 25 March 2009 / Published online: 15 April 2009". So the 2010 references are irrelevant. It appears that Beckwith's 2009c article was noted in
February 2009, so was available (added in edit: Beckwith cited his critical remarks about ID, marginal as they are,
online in November 2008 -- judge for yourselves). However, the article is full of dismissive remarks about and critiques of the
Kitzmiller decision, and Beckwith's primary point is to argue for theology as a legally relevant form of knowledge! There is a lot more ID-defending than ID-criticism (if there is any at all, I'm not re-reading it at the moment, but a skim shows none -- update: see the cited tidbit, linked above) in that article.
A less obvious point -- I don't blame Beckwith et al. for not knowing this, but it has led widespread misconceptions amongst ID advocates -- is that the
Synthese special issue was in the works long before 2009. I read at least one draft (Pennock's article) in 2007 for sure, and perhaps others. Forrest's article mostly reviews work up to 2006 and 2007, with a few later references that might have been late revisions during the final submission/review stage in 2009. Other articles in the issue are similar. It's too bad that the publication process was slow, but as anyone in academia knows, this sort of delay is common. In my opinion, the
Synthese articles should be read as if they are mostly products of work in 2007, unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
Finally, returning to this:
In such writing, one is obligated to present the view under analysis with fairness and charity, especially when the nature, and not the veracity, of that view is the only thing relevant to the question one is trying to answer.
Even if one were supposed to be an advocate rather than a scholar in the law review context, it
still isn't true that "the nature, and not the veracity, of that view is the only thing relevant" to the question of the Constitutionality of ID. The legal argument about ID went like this:
1. Plaintiffs sue, alleging ID is creationism and therefore unconstitutional.
2. ID defenders reply and say, no, ID isn't creationism, it's science, and teaching science in science class is constitutional.
It is
this argument,
from the ID side, that makes the science questions politically and legally relevant, and crucial to the debate. This is precisely why ID advocates spend so much time and effort trying to argue, unconvincing as it is, that they are for real scientists, that they do research for reals, that they are supported by growing numbers of scientists, etc. I'll agree that it's not the primary issue -- the primary issue is #1, and actually Beckwith has never seriously dealt with the immense historical evidence on this question -- but ID advocates raise #2 as a rebuttal to #1, and thus anyone involving themselves in a legal or political (or intellectual) dispute about ID has to address it.
82 Comments
Nick (Matzke) · 15 April 2011
This is Beckwith's "criticism" of ID from the 2009 article, publicized November 2008:
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/11/the_truth_about_me_and_intelli_1.html
Joe McFaul · 15 April 2011
I have Beckwith's Law, Darwinism, and Public Education, subtitled "The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design" sitting right here next to me. In 2003, Beckwith was uncritically citing ID materials and overlooking ID criticisms throughout that work: ["peer-reviewed" Behe's "ground-breaking and best selling" book....What the ID movement has accomplished in fewer than two decades is nothing short of astounding" ID exercises "its considerable intellectual muscle and sophisticated level of argument...shaping the direction and nature of public debate on evolution"]
He asserts that it is "legal to permit (or require) ID in public school science classes" in part because "its proponents make a reasonable and intellectually respectable case."
Most egregiously he glosses over the obvious "ID is a sham argument" calling it ad hominem. He quotes liberally and approvingly from Behe, Paul Nelson, Steven Meyer and Phillip E. Johnson throughout the book. Clearly an ID-friendly book and glowingly cited by the Discovery Institute for years without objection by Discovery Fellow Beckwith.
If he's not an ID supporter now, he certainly was.
But I understand the need to minimize the former enthusiasm and I applaud anybody who's capable of reversing field.
Doc Bill · 15 April 2011
What is clear is that Beckwith does not understand nor comprehend science.
At least, Beckwith does not demonstrate any understanding or comprehension of science. His comprehension is amateur at best at less than a 5th-grade level.
Thus, it's not surprising that he projects a childish analysis, although I'd expect more from a university professor. However, in retrospect, I would not expect more from a Baylor professor.
Joshua Zelinsky · 15 April 2011
John Kwok · 15 April 2011
Doc Bill · 15 April 2011
Well, you know John, lots of people go to Princeton and it doesn't mean they're smart, it just means that they got through.
I find Beckwith's arguments infantile and moronic. It's not so much a matter of my University of London degree versus his Princeton degree as his argument is unsupported whereas mine is.
I'm surprised when Beckwith complains about people being "mean" to him when, in fact, he puts forth a weak, unsubstantiated argument and apparently expects everybody to exclaim, as in Jack Horner's case, what a good boy he is, when, in effect, he's a moron.
Sorry, Beckers, you should have taken up another vocation.
John Kwok · 15 April 2011
Nick Matzke · 15 April 2011
Nick Matzke · 16 April 2011
Ichthyic · 16 April 2011
But I understand the need to minimize the former enthusiasm and I applaud anybody who’s capable of reversing field.
bah.
what should be applauded is INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. Beckwith has always been in short supply of this, and changing his relative position hasn't changed his poor reasoning skills one bit.
He doesn't deserve your respect.
Achrachno · 16 April 2011
Wrong Jack Horner, the ref. was to the old nursery rhyme:
"Little Jack Horner Sat in the corner, Eating a Christmas pie; He put in his thumb, And pulled out a plum, And said 'What a good boy am I!' "
John Kwok · 16 April 2011
Chris Lawson · 16 April 2011
John Kwok · 16 April 2011
DaveW · 17 April 2011
It astounds me that most of you PT folks are only capable of are ad-hominems and other logical fallacies. Insults aren't arguments. In fact, in a refereed debate, you'd lose points.
386sx · 17 April 2011
386sx · 17 April 2011
Chris Lawson · 17 April 2011
Superb, isn't it?
Not only is Beckwith's beef with ID that it takes science too seriously, but he thinks Ockham's Razor is a "mistake".
Ichthyic · 17 April 2011
It astounds me that most of you PT folks are only capable of are ad-hominems and other logical fallacies. Insults aren’t arguments. In fact, in a refereed debate, you’d lose points.
what astounds me is that not only do you not understand what an ad hom is, but your comment is actually the ONLY one here that actually IS an ad hom, and contains no argument whatsoever.
what a wanker*.
*wanker, btw, is an insult, not an ad hom.
John Kwok · 17 April 2011
Joe McFaul · 17 April 2011
harold · 17 April 2011
Henry J · 17 April 2011
babs gerber · 17 April 2011
15 April 2011
Richard Lenski, “evolvability”, and tortuous Darwinian pathways
Michael J. Behe
Several papers on the topic of “evolvability” have been published relatively recently by the laboratory of Richard Lenski. (1, 2) Most readers of this site will quickly recognize Lenski as the Michigan State microbiologist who has been growing cultures of E. coli for over twenty years in order to see how they would evolve, patiently transferring a portion of each culture to new media every day, until the aggregate experiment has now passed 50,000 generations. I’m a huge fan of Lenski et al’s work because, rather than telling Just-So stories, they have been doing the hard laboratory work that shows us what Darwinian evolution can and likely cannot do.
The term “evolvability” has been used widely and rather loosely in the literature for the past few decades. It usually means something like the following: a species possesses some biological feature which lends itself to evolving more easily than other species that don’t possess the feature, so that the lucky species will tend to adapt and survive better than its rivals over time. The kind of feature that is most often invoked in this context is “modularity.” That word itself is often used in a vague manner. As I wrote in The Edge of Evolution, “Roughly, a module is a more-or-less self-contained biological feature that can be plugged into a variety of contexts without losing its distinctive properties. A biological module can range from something very small (such as a fragment of a protein), to an entire protein chain (such as one of the subunits of hemoglobin), to a set of genes (such as Hox genes), to a cell, to an organ (such as the eyes or limbs of Drosophila).” (3)
Well, Lenski and co-workers don’t use “evolvability” in that sense. They use the term in a much broader sense: “Evolutionary potential, or evolvability, can be operationally defined as the expected degree to which a lineage beginning from a particular genotype will increase in fitness after evolving for a certain time in a particular environment.” (1) To put it another way, in their usage “evolvability” means how much an organism will increase in fitness over a defined time starting from genotype A versus starting from genotype B, no matter whether genotypes A and B have any particular identifiable feature such as modularity or not.
Lenski’s group published a very interesting paper last year showing that the more defective a starting mutant was in a particular gene (rpoB, which encodes a subunit of RNA polymerase), the more “evolvable” it was. (2) That is, more-crippled cells could gain more in fitness than less-crippled cells. But none of the evolved crippled cells gained enough fitness to match the uncrippled parent strain. Thus it seemed that more-crippled cells could gain more fitness simply because they started from further back than less-crippled ones. Compensatory mutations would pop up somewhere in the genome until the evolving cell was near to its progenitor’s starting point. This matches the results of some viral evolution studies where some defective viruses could accumulate compensatory mutations until they were similar in fitness to the starting strain, whether they began with one-tenth or one-ten-billionth of the original fitness. (4)
In a paper published a few weeks ago the Michigan State group took a somewhat different experimental tack. (1) They isolated a number of cells from relatively early in their long-term evolution experiment. (Every 500th generation during the 50,000-generation experiment Lenski’s group would freeze away the portion of the culture which was left over after they used a part of it to seed a flask to continue the growth. Thus they have a very complete evolutionary record of the whole lineage, and can go back and conduct experiments on any part of it whenever they wish. Neat!) They saw that different mutations had cropped up in different early cells. Interestingly, the mutations which gave the greatest advantage early on had become extinct after another 1,000 generations. So Lenski’s group decided to investigate why the early very-beneficial mutations were nonetheless not as “evolvable” (because they were eventually outcompeted by other lineages) as cells with early less-beneficial mutations.
The workers examined the system thoroughly, performing many careful experiments and controls. (I encourage everyone to read the whole paper.) The bottom line, however, is that they found that changing one particular amino acid residue in one particular protein (called a “topoisomerase”, which helps control the “twistiness” of DNA in the cell), instead of a different amino acid residue in the same protein, interfered with the ability of a subsequent mutation in a gene (called spoT) for a second protein to help the bacterium increase in fitness. In other words, getting the “wrong” mutation in topoisomerase — even though that mutation by itself did help the bacterium — prevented a mutation in spoT from helping. Getting the “right” mutation in topoisomerase allowed a mutation in spoT to substantially increase the fitness of the bacterium.
The authors briefly discuss the results (the paper was published in Science, which doesn’t allow much room for discussion) in terms of “evolvability”, understood in their own sense. (1) They point out that the strain with the right topoisomerase mutation was more “evolvable” than the one with the wrong topoisomerase mutation, because it outcompeted the other strain. That is plainly correct, but does not say anything about “evolvability” in the more common and potentially-much-more-important sense of an organism possessing modular features that help it evolve new systems. “Evolvability” in the more common sense has not been tested experimentally in a Lenski-like fashion.
In my own view, the most interesting aspect of the recent Lenski paper is its highlighting of the pitfalls that Darwinian evolution must dance around, even as it is making an organism somewhat more fit. (1) If the “wrong” advantageous mutation in topoisomerase had become fixed in the population (by perhaps being slightly more advantageous or more common), then the “better” selective pathway would have been shut off completely. And since this phenomenon occurred in the first instance where anyone had looked for it, it is likely to be commonplace. That should not be surprising to anyone who thinks about the topic dispassionately. As the authors note, “Similar cases are expected in any population of asexual organisms that evolve on a rugged fitness landscape with substantial epistasis, as long as the population is large enough that multiple beneficial mutations accumulate in contending lineages before any one mutation can sweep to fixation.” If the population is not large enough, or other factors interfere, then the population will be stuck on a small peak of the rugged landscape.
This fits well with recent work by Lenski’s and others’ laboratories, showing that most beneficial mutations actually break or degrade genes (4), and also with work by Thornton’s group showing that random mutation and natural selection likely could not transform a steroid hormone receptor back into its homologous ancestor, even though both have very similar structures and functions, because the tortuous evolutionary pathway would be nearly impossible to traverse. (5, 6) The more that is learned about Darwin’s mechanism at the molecular level, the more ineffectual it is seen to be.
1. Woods, R. J., J. E. Barrick, T. F. Cooper, U. Shrestha, M. R. Kauth, and R. E. Lenski. 2011 Second-order selection for evolvability in a large Escherichia coli population. Science 331: 1433-1436.
2. Barrick, J. E., M. R. Kauth, C. C. Strelioff, and R. E. Lenski, 2010 Escherichia coli rpoB mutants have increased evolvability in proportion to their fitness defects. Molecular Biology and Evolution 27: 1338-1347.
3. Behe M. J., 2007 The Edge of Evolution: the search for the limits of Darwinism. Free Press, New York.
4. Behe, M. J., 2010 Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-function Mutations, and “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”. Quarterly Review of Biology 85: 1-27.
5. Bridgham, J. T., E. A. Ortlund, and J. W. Thornton, 2009 An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution. Nature 461: 515-519.
6. See my comments on Thornton’s work at the middle of http://behe.uncommon descent.com/page/2/ and the bottom of http://behe.uncommondescent.com/.
Mike Elzinga · 17 April 2011
mrg · 17 April 2011
I don't think BG had any particular point, it was just a copy-paste of a Behe article from UD. I didn't pay it much mind, to the extent I bothered to look it over it seemed to be the usual content-free obfuscation.
John Kwok · 17 April 2011
Doc K · 17 April 2011
babs gerber · 18 April 2011
Dave Lovell · 18 April 2011
harold · 18 April 2011
John Kwok · 18 April 2011
DS · 18 April 2011
babs wrote:
"You appear to be assuming evolution is real at a systems level and the molecular level points the opposite direction."
Right. That's why every real biologist completely abandoned evolution when modern molecular biology came along.
You have been sadly misinformed. Your citing of biological examples, obviously without any real understanding of what they mean, reveals that you have fallen for the ID line. I would advise you to increase your knowledge.
harold · 18 April 2011
Doc K -
Using the socially perceived prestige of an institution as a mechanism for argument from authority is a game best left to creationists. A PhD from Fordham is an impressive accomplishment. An idiot slips through most PhD programs from time to time, even the most narrow and technical ones.
(Of course, amusingly, creationists keep using it no matter what the prestige level. If a creationist has a degree from Harvard, his authority derives from his "Harvard PhD". If he has a legitimate degree, but not from a fancy name, his authority derives from being a "PhD in Electrical Engineering" or whatever. And if he has a "PhD" in Fred Flintstone Paleontology from an unaccredited mail order diploma mill, his authority derives merely from his being a "PhD".)
Karen S. · 18 April 2011
mrg · 18 April 2011
D. P. Robin · 18 April 2011
D. P. Robin · 18 April 2011
Edit to me previous: Should be ex HS debater and debate judge.
Joe Felsenstein · 18 April 2011
harold · 18 April 2011
Flint · 18 April 2011
John Kwok · 18 April 2011
I wonder whether Beckwith and Fetzer suffer from the very symptoms described by Chris Mooney in his recent column on science denialism:
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
I think both may be displaying some if not all of the classic signs.
Flint · 18 April 2011
I don't read Mooney as really addressing the fanatical fringe, so much as he's talking about ordinary human biases and preferences. I think we all have mental models of how the world works, and we all feel more comfortable with defending that model against information that doesn't fit, than with making accommodations, possibly far-reaching, in the models themselves. We can best hope that our convictions, our models, are fairly correct and accurate already.
Ichthyic · 18 April 2011
Mooney evidently failed to acknowledge the people who have actually been doing studies on that subject for years:
Bloom and Weisberg.
for the umpteenth time, and as pertinent as always:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~deenasw/Assets/bloom&weisberg%20science.pdf
They published that review in Science years back. Mooney is saying nothing new, though I grow weary of the failure to recognize the fact that the problem isn't how we spin information, it's THAT there appears to be a benefit to doing so. What needs to be changed is not the way information is presented, but rather how people are twisted into thinking the source of the information is more valuable than the content to begin with!
This problem starts early in childhood, and should be addressed there. Trying to spin the information after the fact, merely reinforces the problematic behavior, instead of working to recognize and deal with it.
Mike Elzinga · 18 April 2011
This is where the Darwin Awards come in handy as a humorous reminder that, in an objective reality, beliefs have life-and-death consequences.
Even if it doesn’t change the beliefs of a follower of pseudo-science, asking them to use their “science” in a lab will at least slow them down for a while.
Examining the physical consequences of such pseudo-scientific beliefs can at least alert those who know a few things about real science that they are dealing with a crackpot.
Attempting to convince a wider, more gullible audience is more problematic, however, because many people would have absolutely no idea of what would constitute an experimental test in most circumstances. They can only pit one “authority” against another and come down on the side of the one they trust because that “authority” agrees with them.
It seems that it is not just fundamentalists whose cognitive and conceptual levels of development are stalled in childhood. Fundamentalists and those who remain under the thumb of authority figures seem to be the most prone to stunted development in their cognitive abilities. They become perpetually dependent on mommy/daddy, relaxing into their parenting arms and thereby avoiding the rigors of intellectual development.
Ichthyic · 18 April 2011
I wonder whether Beckwith and Fetzer suffer from the very symptoms
as to this question.
hard to say, really. To some extent, they probably do. I think if so it has been overlain with a ton of rationalizations.
Flint · 18 April 2011
Ichthyic · 19 April 2011
I’m not sure what you intend by this.
simple translation then?
get kids more focused on critical thinking skills, less focused on authoritarianism.
Of course, religion absolutely relies on authoritarianism, so it won't be an easy task. As you teach children how to evaluate information critically in a school, many parents will be just as rapidly trying to undo your work at home.
I don't blame them, really, because it's how THEY were raised. However, there is no hope for any kind of educated populace capable of making rational decisions when presented with evidence unless we focus on early learning conditions. Right now, we are failing to do even that, with the result being the massive amount of not just science denialism, but denialism of any factual information that clashes with early authoritarian training.
Scientific publications struggle constantly to become regarded as an authoritative, reliable source of well-researched material.
...but authority based on PEER REVIEW and much vetting.
nobody takes a scientist at their word without evidence, not even the most established with a publication list as long as your arm can put forward something without supporting evidence.
It's really not the same thing at all, Flint.
Ichthyic · 19 April 2011
If a noted authority in your field make some claim, I would certainly HOPE you'd take him more seriously than you'd take such a claim from me.
I would look for exactly the same supporting evidence from both, Flint.
Any scientist would.
Indeed, if you put forward a well tested hypothesis, that means you ARE doing science. Even the best scientists can miss things, even in their own fields.
Case in point: If you had asked me just 3 years ago, who I would have a ton of respect for in the field of animal behavior for having constructed wonderful experimental designs with rigorous data collection and interesting, well-supported conclusions, I would have likely answered:
Marc Hauser.
If you don't know why Marc Hauser is significant in this context...
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/harvard-professor-found-guilty-of-scientific-misconduct.ars
so, yeah, while authoritarianism exists within the scientific community too, it's not the same. You can't simply ride on the merits of your previous work; you constantly have to present evidence in support of your conclusions.
Would that the world worked even remotely simlarly.
Flint · 19 April 2011
Ichthyic:
I don't entirely agree with you. There is an extremely important reason why the US legal system requires primary sources as evidence in trials. It has long been recognized that secondary (and later) sources massage the material. So it does not matter what such non-primary sources might have to say, they are disallowed.
You understand, I hope, that I'm not discounting the content. I'm saying that in cases where assertions are not subject to test in practices (that is, most assertions about what happened in a unique past event), the content is often DETERMINED by the source, which is why courts start by restricting the source, and only then examine the content.
Certainly I agree that testable statements imply a different preferred source - the actual results of those tests. But even then, the content of those test results is largely evaluated based on the source - how those tests were performed.
People spew out content all the time, they say all kinds of things. To evaluate the accuracy of that content, we must know where it came from.
Now, when it comes to questions rather than assertions, I agree that the content of a well-formed question is entirely independent of who asked it.
In real life, we are presented with enormous amounts of material that either cannot be tested, or that is inherently impractical to test. This covers most of what you read in journals (you can't replicate every study), essentially ALL of what we read in the newspaper, the contents of books and magazines, etc. And so as a practical matter, it's sensible to factor in the source of all this content to make a first-cut assessment of its probable reliability.
Maybe I'm not the scientist you are, but I can't help but be just a bit less confident of the accuracy of what's reported on Fox News, and a LOT less confident of the content of the WorldNetDaily.
I agree kids should learn not to just swallow authoritative statements uncritically. But PART of critical thinking is to be aware of, and consider, the source of the material. Maybe you don't read texts, magazines, or newspapers because you don't have the time or resources to validate everything in them?
Maybe it would be better to say that the source is one element of the content.
Your quest for evidence is problematic. If your child's teacher makes a claim, especially a historical claim, how should evidence for this claim be gathered? From secondary materials like books? But that makes books the authority, and lots of books are full of lots of errors or bunk. Should the child have to investigate the book's sources? Does that help, even if it were possible?
For example, I'm not a climate specialist. Is AGW real? How could I possibly know - I won't live long enough to develop the necessary expertise, even enough to understand what the experts are saying. In this (and in just about ANY area outside my expertise), I have no choice but to rely on those experts. And when the experts disagree? I have no practical option but to choose an authority I trust, and accept THAT content.
What do YOU do? Become an expert on everything, immersing yourself in primary sources about all conceivable contents while replicating all past experiments?
I don't think you have thought this through very well.
Doc K · 19 April 2011
John_S · 19 April 2011
John Kwok · 19 April 2011
c4cube · 20 April 2011
The heart of your writing whilst appearing reasonable at first, did not really work perfectly with me after some time. Somewhere throughout the sentences you actually were able to make me a believer unfortunately only for a very short while. I nevertheless have a problem with your jumps in logic and you might do nicely to help fill in all those gaps. If you actually can accomplish that, I will definitely be fascinated.
ben aditare · 23 April 2011
mrg · 24 April 2011
John Kwok · 26 April 2011
DS · 26 April 2011
CJColucci · 26 April 2011
If Beckwith thinks his views are being misrepresented or misunderstood, perhaps he has himself to blame. I've read what he said. My best English translation is "I'm not in favor of ID because it doesn't go far enough." One can, logically, hold this view while explaining why one thinks the teaching of ID is constitutional, but it invites misunderstanding.
gerald welt · 27 April 2011
gerald welt · 27 April 2011
mrg · 27 April 2011
Dave Luckett · 27 April 2011
I speak under correction, and ask the indulgence of the biologists present, but isn't it the case that a sexually reproducing organism would exhibit a much higher mutation rate than a bacterium?
mrg · 27 April 2011
DS · 27 April 2011
DS · 27 April 2011
Well the Gish gallop seems to be in full force here. gerald completely ignored each of the five points I made about the Lenski paper. Then he starting talking about human evolution, even though that was not what the paper was about. Then he tried to bring in abiogenesis, as if that had anything whatsoever to do with anything.
And no matter what the results of any experiment, once again, they disprove evolution! Lenski would be rolling over in his grave, if he were dead.
Well here is a question for you ben and gerry (on your rocky road to denial), if humans didn't evolve, why do they share SINE insertions in a nested hierarchy with other primates? (I can provide references, but only if you promise to read them). How do you think that humans got here? Got a reference for that? Thought not.
gerald welt · 27 April 2011
mrg · 27 April 2011
Stanton · 27 April 2011
mrg · 27 April 2011
John Kwok · 27 April 2011
raven · 29 April 2011
Dave Luckett · 29 April 2011
raven, I've had African coffee. If there are cichlids in it, they'd have to be very highly adapted, is all I can say.
Ed Darrell · 3 May 2011
This is really an old argument with Beckwith, though he tends to dress it in different costumes from time to time. Way back in 2003 he argued to the Texas State Board of Education that, according to the law, ID was fine to teach to kids -- or something so close to that that the creationists on the Texas Board presumed he meant that it was legal to teach creationism and ID.
But I've been to law school, and I've worked in education, and I've worked in science, and I've worked in public policy. I chose to make the legal case -- he claimed I misunderstood the science. I pointed out the science for ID doesn't work, he said I was philosophically in error . . . you begin to see the trend.
It finally struck me that Beckwith was just badly naming and highlighting a hypothetical argument. He was claiming that, hypothetically, if there were science to back ID, it could be taught. But of course, when I confronted Beckwith, he claimed again I misunderstood the law, or the science, or the price of bananas in Brooklyn and the price of Brooklyn Dodger baseball cards in Costa Rica. Or something like that.
Still, I think he's arguing a hypothetical, though he does not understand that. On this blog I've made the case before, and I expanded on the idea at my own.
My understanding of Beckwith's claims is that he is arguing, for example, that the Federal Aviation Administration would have the power to regulate pig farms, if pigs flew. It's a perfectly logical case: FAA may regulate aviation, and regulate against aviation hazards (think of birds that fly into airplane engines). Therefore, if pigs flew, FAA could regulate pig farms.
I think Beckwith doesn't understand that, in his mind, he's turned the unturnable corner. He is, in effect, arguing that FAA should regulate pig farms now, and that such regulation is critical to prevent pigs and pig excrement from fouling general and commercial aviation.
He's just failed to understand that pigs don't fly, at least not in the real world. His hypothetical is valid, if only pigs flew.
In the real world, Beckwith's version of the legalities of teaching creationism including ID would be valid, if only there were science to back ID. It's a big if only.
In the real world, there is no science to back ID, just as in the real world, pigs don't fly.
It's a bit of a crude analogy. But I think it flies better than Beckwith's claims that he is not an IDist.
Nick (Matzke) · 3 May 2011
Great comment Ed!
Ed Darrell · 3 May 2011
Ed Darrell · 3 May 2011
Flint · 3 May 2011
Stanton · 3 May 2011
Ed Darrell · 5 May 2011
Flint, Scalia's defense was historically in error -- that is, it was wrong on the history. I suspect one of the clerks did the lifting, and relied on David Barton for the history.
Consequently, I don't fear that the three Musketeers you name will be unduly influenced by the decision, so long as there is a real hearing before hand.
Costa Rica Trips · 3 June 2011
I like this post! As a recommendation about Costa Rica, check out this website, I took them for my vacation in Costa Rica and I am very satisfied Costa Rica Trips They are company that operate as whole saler for hotels. It is you dream vacation. They have tours for cheap. Amazing post, I'll recommend some people here.
LPN resume sample · 7 June 2011
Current averages for an LPN earnings is between $30,000 and $46,000. greaterbackground and advanced certifications will be more attractive to possible corporations. Some jurisdictions may offer added than others so research particular job markets to determine the best one for yourself. practice will also assist to dictate a greatersalary.