A purge of commenters at Uncommon Dissent (Oops, make that "Descent")

Posted 15 February 2012 by Richard B. Hoppe

Four years ago in a post titled "Dissent Out of Bounds on Uncommon Dissent (Oops, make that "Descent")" I wrote of the banning of Elizabeth Liddle, a British neuroscientist whose nom de net is Febble, from Uncommon Descent (UD), the ID blog founded by William Dembski. That occurred during the reign of DaveScot as UD moderator, and resulted from DaveScot's hissy fit about Liddle's quite reasonable argument that Dembski's definition of "intelligence" operationally made natural selection an intelligent process. Later DaveScot fell out of favor and was himself banned from UD. Now under the reign of Barry Arrington, a lawyer, UD is engaged in a wholesale purge of commenters who are ID critics. At last rough count 20 commenters have been banned in the last couple of days, most of them ID critics. Once again, Lizzie (I've known her online for long enough to call her "Lizzie"!) is banned from UD. She wasn't notified of it but (like other bannees) found she could no longer log in to UD. However, she has a new home, the The Skeptical Zone, to which I commend readers' attention. More below the fold One of the reasons for the banning of a number of UD commenters seems to be failing Arrington's litmus test concerning the law of non-contradiction

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities. For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: "Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?" The answer to this question is either "yes" or "no." If the person gives any answer other than the single word "no," he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site. We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

Arrington's snit apparently arose out of discussions of quantum mechanics in which some commenters speculated about whether quantum superposition--the fact that a quantum system can exist simultaneously in multiple states (see here)--could be generalized to macroscopic objects (see here and here for examples of those UD threads, if you have the fortitude to wade through them). That speculation is not necessarily pure moonshine. Quantum superposition has been observed in objects in the micron range. So how did Petrushka respond to Arrington's question? Thus:

I accept the definitional foundation of logic. I also accept the findings of physics which make the concept of physical existence rather complicated. That just means that physical is not the same as the ideal, just as a physical circle is not an ideal circle. I thought this was something generally agreed upon. I thought it was the foundation of Plato's thought. But to answer the specific question, in formal logic, the moon cannot both exist and not exist. The question faced by physics is somewhat different.

Seems reasonable, no? But appended to Petrushka's comment is this:

UD Moderator: That's not "no" Petrushka. Goodbye.

Other commenters were banned without notice, apparently including Febble, when they learned of their banning only when they found that they could no longer log in to UD. This is of a piece with the main conflict resolution mechanisms available to religious movements: exclusion and suppression of dissenters. Arrington is creating an echo chamber inside of which ID proponents can talk sciency-sounding stuff to each other, safe from uncomfortable questions. Watching the train wreck at UD reminds me of why I like the Bathroom Wall here on the Thumb. Lizzie has a related section called Guano, and The Secular Cafe has The Smoking Section and The Trashcan. Those seem to me to be preferable ways of handling obstropulous commenters and comments.

68 Comments

Richard B. Hoppe · 15 February 2012

I neglected to mention that some of Arrington's bans of ID critics were apparently because they failed to object to disparaging remarks about UD and Arrington on another site, our own After the Bar Closes, which has a thread titled "Uncommonly Dense" which is in its fourth iteration. Discussion of the bannings on AtBC starts somewhere around here. Let's keep it clean here, and cuss 'em out there. :)

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm7FKTKWPYKL39ZC4VdrcqQ-mAAjjyCS3U · 15 February 2012

It's worthy of note that this reliance on the "LNC" is a Randian/Objectivist move. A central "argument" in Rand's philosophy is that the LNC is true, therefore everything else that Rand believes is true as a matter of deduction. (Seriously, the LNC entails that Rand's definition of human flourishing is the only thing that we should value. See http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm.)

Seems fitting that a staunch crazy objectivist is running things over at UD...

Joe Felsenstein · 15 February 2012

What is particularly bizarre about this wave of bannings is that the issue does not seem to have anything to do with evolution!

It might have something to do with cosmology and whether something (a universe) can come from nothing. Since ID arguments are about what happens after you already have living systems, the correct technical phrase to use for the connection of Arrington's litmus test to ID and evolution is that it has diddly-squat to do with them.

Which makes the unfolding of the UD disaster all the more mesmerizing. What next?

Frank J · 15 February 2012

To put it in perspective, Ray Martinez was banned too. In case anyone doesn't know, Ray is self-described creationist who posts here on occasion, and regularly on Talk.Origins. He's old earth and maybe young life, but like most modern evolution deniers, sympathetic to YEC, and evades the "when" questions whenever possible. But he's not nearly as hell-bent on the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" and especially "whodunit" as the DI's big tenters.

Whether from an "evolutionist" or creationist, UD does not tolerate critical analysis of their vacuous "theory." Ironic ain't it?

Robin · 15 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: What is particularly bizarre about this wave of bannings is that the issue does not seem to have anything to do with evolution! It might have something to do with cosmology and whether something (a universe) can come from nothing. Since ID arguments are about what happens after you already have living systems, the correct technical phrase to use for the connection of Arrington's litmus test to ID and evolution is that it has diddly-squat to do with them. Which makes the unfolding of the UD disaster all the more mesmerizing. What next?

I think it has something (maybe everything) with Arrington's need for authoritative respect. Likely he doesn't get a lot in real life, so he demands it in his imaginary playground. Keep in mind that folks who feel the need for respect (particularly things like respect regarding tribal culture and beliefs) see dissent and disagreement with group concepts (ID, conservative Christianity, conservative social norms, etc) as disrespect. Further, disagreement and dissent with things like the LNC and whatnot is likely seen as disrespect for Arrington's self-defined authority.

Starbuck · 15 February 2012

This is of a piece with the main conflict resolution mechanisms available to religious movements: exclusion and suppression of dissenters

Like the ecumenical movement?

dalehusband · 15 February 2012

Frank J said: To put it in perspective, Ray Martinez was banned too. In case anyone doesn't know, Ray is self-described creationist who posts here on occasion, and regularly on Talk.Origins. He's old earth and maybe young life, but like most modern evolution deniers, sympathetic to YEC, and evades the "when" questions whenever possible. But he's not nearly as hell-bent on the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" and especially "whodunit" as the DI's big tenters. Whether from an "evolutionist" or creationist, UD does not tolerate critical analysis of their vacuous "theory." Ironic ain't it?

Ray Martinez is so bigoted and stupid that he doesn't belong on ANY forum devoted to polite, honest discussion about any serious subject.

SWT · 15 February 2012

Frank J said: Whether from an "evolutionist" or creationist, UD does not tolerate critical analysis of their vacuous "theory." Ironic ain't it?

Teach the controversy, right?

apokryltaros · 15 February 2012

dalehusband said:
Frank J said: To put it in perspective, Ray Martinez was banned too. In case anyone doesn't know, Ray is self-described creationist who posts here on occasion, and regularly on Talk.Origins. He's old earth and maybe young life, but like most modern evolution deniers, sympathetic to YEC, and evades the "when" questions whenever possible. But he's not nearly as hell-bent on the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" and especially "whodunit" as the DI's big tenters. Whether from an "evolutionist" or creationist, UD does not tolerate critical analysis of their vacuous "theory." Ironic ain't it?
Ray Martinez is so bigoted and stupid that he doesn't belong on ANY forum devoted to polite, honest discussion about any serious subject.

That is because of Ray Martinez' pathological hatred of everyone and anyone who does not mirror his bigotries, and his pathological aversion to polite, honest discussion about anything.

Mike Elzinga · 15 February 2012

I happened to be watching UD when this thing blew up. It seems that Arrington has some obsession about this “Law of Non Contradiction” (LNC) that triggered this purge.

As near as I can tell, this LNC is the ultimate nuclear weapon that ID scholasticism has against its enemies. The usual ID/creationist tactic appears to be to argue their opponents into accepting ID/creationist misconceptions in arguing and then guiding them into a trap where they can drop this bomb on them.

But the discussion turned to other systems of logic, including superposition in quantum mechanics and self-referential statements that are undecidable (e.g., “This statement is false.”)

If you go over to UD and look at the three threads about this, you will see some really bizarre demonizing of and projection onto ID skeptics. Just reading through the comments of the sycophants that survived the inquisition gives us some insight into what would happen if sectarians like this got to rule us all.

As RBH has said a number of times, blood will be running in the isles and under the pews.

Dave Wisker · 15 February 2012

As one who was banned by Barry a couple of years ago, I'm not surprised. Megalomania is an ugly thing.

MosesZD · 15 February 2012

You know, Protestants AND Catholics used to murder and burn my Mennonite ancestors. All over what I consider to be a pointless difference in when to get baptized and a few other things of no consequence to anyone but the person practicing the religion.

So this comes as no surprise to me. Religious people are, by-and-large, brutal and intollerent of other opinions. Even if it doesn't really matter... Let's face it, if the Mennonites were wrong... They're going to hell... And as long as you, the Catholic or you the Protestant were right... You wouldn't... So who cares? Make sure you get it right, don't worry about them...

apokryltaros · 15 February 2012

MosesZD said: You know, Protestants AND Catholics used to murder and burn my Mennonite ancestors. All over what I consider to be a pointless difference in when to get baptized and a few other things of no consequence to anyone but the person practicing the religion.

That is, when they weren't busy murdering and burning each other, or Jews, or other ethnic or religious groups they didn't like.

Joe Felsenstein · 15 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said: I happened to be watching UD when this thing blew up. It seems that Arrington has some obsession about this “Law of Non Contradiction” (LNC) that triggered this purge. As near as I can tell, this LNC is the ultimate nuclear weapon that ID scholasticism has against its enemies.

However logical arguments made by pro-ID and anti-ID people do not really use different kinds of logic (note I said "logical arguments", not emotional or political arguments). So I do not see what Barry Arrington is using to claim that when one side uses logic, it is not really using logic. Why he has fastened onto the LNC as crucial to the distinction between pro-ID and anti-ID forces is mysterious to me.

patrickmay.myopenid.com · 15 February 2012

dalehusband said:
Frank J said: To put it in perspective, Ray Martinez was banned too. In case anyone doesn't know, Ray is self-described creationist who posts here on occasion, and regularly on Talk.Origins. He's old earth and maybe young life, but like most modern evolution deniers, sympathetic to YEC, and evades the "when" questions whenever possible. But he's not nearly as hell-bent on the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" and especially "whodunit" as the DI's big tenters. Whether from an "evolutionist" or creationist, UD does not tolerate critical analysis of their vacuous "theory." Ironic ain't it?
Ray Martinez is so bigoted and stupid that he doesn't belong on ANY forum devoted to polite, honest discussion about any serious subject.

Agreed, but the forum under discussion is Uncommon Descent. ;-)

Doc Bill · 15 February 2012

I was banned years ago for simply pointing out a factual error in math presented on the site. I'm not even a math guy but the error was so obvious I thought it was a typo. I think Dembski himself dropped the hammer on me for "rude" behavior. What is odd is that I thought I was contributing to the discussion but apparently I was being Uncommonly Dissentful.

phhht · 15 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said:
Mike Elzinga said: I happened to be watching UD when this thing blew up. It seems that Arrington has some obsession about this “Law of Non Contradiction” (LNC) that triggered this purge. As near as I can tell, this LNC is the ultimate nuclear weapon that ID scholasticism has against its enemies.
However logical arguments made by pro-ID and anti-ID people do not really use different kinds of logic (note I said "logical arguments", not emotional or political arguments). So I do not see what Barry Arrington is using to claim that when one side uses logic, it is not really using logic. Why he has fastened onto the LNC as crucial to the distinction between pro-ID and anti-ID forces is mysterious to me.

Looks to me like a Shibboleth of sorts.

Kevin B · 16 February 2012

phhht said: Looks to me like a Shibboleth of sorts.

They're trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. They'll soon have nothing left but the chaff.

Karen S. · 16 February 2012

Whether from an “evolutionist” or creationist, UD does not tolerate critical analysis of their vacuous “theory.” Ironic ain’t it?

It sure it. I thought we were supposed to be exposed to "all views" concerning origins.

Doc Bill · 16 February 2012

Srsly, BA actually wrote this?

this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

But, that's exactly what UD is. UD is an insane asylum run by the inmates. Surly UD simply reflects the current stage of "thinking" that comprises "intelligent design" creationism. When the leading lights of the "movement" are Klinghoffer and Arrington, the game is over. The drawbridge is up and the moat is filled.

Flint · 16 February 2012

I'm reminded of the trial of a Chinese author, whose defense was that the Chinese Constitution guaranteed freedom of the press. And the court found that the Chinese Constitution in fact DOES guarantee freedom of the press - to praise the Party in the words of your choice! Certainly it wasn't the intent of the Constitution's authors to encourage dissent, strife, political instability, and other such evils.

I suppose it takes a certain level of sophistication, even Faith, to Believe that the Truth will always prevail in a free marketplace of ideas. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but even if it does it will take time and lead to unpleasant disagreements. And this is doubly exasperating when the Truth has been delivered unto us unambiguously by Absolute Ultimate Authority, such that criticism is perverse at best, wicked at worst.

UD doesn't exist to encourage doubt where there is none, but to spread the Good News when it is known beyond any possibility of doubt. Silly to allow malicious people to muddy crystal waters for the professed reason of eventually arriving at the very crystal waters they muddied in the first place. God didn't tell us the Truth for it to be "critically analyzed" - that's both foolish and unappreciative.

So UD is like the Chinese court, permitting freedom to worship God's Word (their interpretation) in the words of your choice. Which is all the freedom any rational person could want anyway.

harold · 16 February 2012

So UD is like the Chinese court, permitting freedom to worship God’s Word (their interpretation) in the words of your choice. Which is all the freedom any rational person could want anyway.

Actually, though, the point here seems to be that UD goes beyond the standard which you ascribe to a Chinese court. And it my view, the point here is correct. You can be a pro-"ID" creationist desperate to kiss ass, and STILL get banned from UD for accidentally presenting slight verbal variations. You don't get to say either "the Party is like a benevolent father to the Chinese people" or "the Party is a living manifestation of the Will and Spirit of the Chinese people". It's the equivalent of one of those being required, and the other getting you banned.

Joe Felsenstein · 16 February 2012

This morning Barry Arrington has a response at UD justifying his actions. He has of course not been stifling dissent. It just so happens that almost all critics of ID at his site were refusing to behave logically, so he banned them. I'm sure he believes this.

Robin · 16 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: This morning Barry Arrington has a response at UD justifying his actions. He has of course not been stifling dissent. It just so happens that almost all critics of ID at his site were refusing to behave logically, so he banned them. I'm sure he believes this.

Heh! Barry further demonstrates his ability to use "logic" in a comment to Lastyearon:

4 Barry ArringtonFebruary 16, 2012 at 1:10 pm lastyearon: “You removed just about every critic of ID from the site.” Barry: Nonsense, as your very presence demonstrates.

Apparently LYO's use of "just about" eluded Barry's careful scrutiny and understanding. That or he just sees LYO as many people. That would explain his paranoia.

Kevin B · 16 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: This morning Barry Arrington has a response at UD justifying his actions. He has of course not been stifling dissent. It just so happens that almost all critics of ID at his site were refusing to behave logically, so he banned them. I'm sure he believes this.

I'm inclined to think that the phrase used by DrREC in the first comment to "Ya Can't Make This Stuff Up" (which seems a proximal cause of the whole banning orgy) is a very accurate summation of the main issue.

patrickmay.myopenid.com · 16 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: This morning Barry Arrington has a response at UD justifying his actions. He has of course not been stifling dissent. It just so happens that almost all critics of ID at his site were refusing to behave logically, so he banned them. I'm sure he believes this.

Wherein he completely ignores the distinction between formal logic and empirical observations, despite such being carefully pointed out by more than one of the people he banned. That makes him either a complete idiot or a pathetic liar. Since you're probably reading here, Barry, which is it?

rossum · 16 February 2012

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: That makes him either a complete idiot or a pathetic liar. Since you're probably reading here, Barry, which is it?

I assume that is an inclusive "or". rossum

Joe Felsenstein · 16 February 2012

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: That makes him either a complete idiot or a pathetic liar.

We should go easy on the "liar" and "idiot" talk. The capacity for honest and sincere self-delusion by otherwise intelligent people is bigger than we might realize.

Atheistoclast · 16 February 2012

I am happy to say that I too have been banned by UD..but for reasons related to my historical revisionism, not for evolution.

Just Bob · 16 February 2012

Damn! AC seems to be back. Wasn't he BWed?

patrickmay.myopenid.com · 16 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said:
patrickmay.myopenid.com said: That makes him either a complete idiot or a pathetic liar.
We should go easy on the "liar" and "idiot" talk. The capacity for honest and sincere self-delusion by otherwise intelligent people is bigger than we might realize.

In general I agree with you and in most cases I believe that people deserve the benefit of the doubt. I could even be convinced that UD regular kairosfocus is deluded rather than dishonest. Barry Arrington is a different kettle of fish. This is not the first time he has edited or removed comments or misrepresented the clearly articulated positions of his opponents. He is a reprehensible human being.

Joe Felsenstein · 16 February 2012

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: ... Barry Arrington is a different kettle of fish. This is not the first time he has edited or removed comments or misrepresented the clearly articulated positions of his opponents. He is a reprehensible human being.

Some of the most reprehensible people I have met were utterly convinced that they were the only honorable people around.

Mike Elzinga · 16 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said:
Mike Elzinga said: I happened to be watching UD when this thing blew up. It seems that Arrington has some obsession about this “Law of Non Contradiction” (LNC) that triggered this purge. As near as I can tell, this LNC is the ultimate nuclear weapon that ID scholasticism has against its enemies.
However logical arguments made by pro-ID and anti-ID people do not really use different kinds of logic (note I said "logical arguments", not emotional or political arguments). So I do not see what Barry Arrington is using to claim that when one side uses logic, it is not really using logic. Why he has fastened onto the LNC as crucial to the distinction between pro-ID and anti-ID forces is mysterious to me.

I go back to an old example that traces back to the tactics of Morris and Gish. They dragged naive debaters into accepting creationist notions about thermodynamics and evolution and then dropped the bomb that things can’t get better and get worse at the same time. Much of what I see over at places like UD, ICR, and AiG is their aggressiveness at controlling the narrative coming out of scientific research, and then foisting their misrepresentations off onto any challenger. An alert, knowledgeable challenger may be talking about the real science, but the ID/creationist will be insisting on ID/creationist science. A more naive challenger is more likely to fall into the trap of adopting the ID/creationist’s misconceptions and try to argue from those. We are seeing that tactic emerge as some of the UD crowd start showing up on Elizabeth Liddle’s site.

Red Right Hand · 16 February 2012

I wonder if Barry spends much time hanging at Conservapedia? A lot of his attitude reminds me of Andy Schlafly and his sycophants' hostility towards relativity and quantuum physics (those LIBERAL sciences!) and their habit of ideological enforcement of their viewpoints on the talk pages.

Joe Felsenstein · 17 February 2012

What astonishes me is the way UD seems to know in advance the answers to all sorts of scientific questions. Is string theory right in some form (NO), is some new scenario for the origin of life relevant (NO), does the Higgs Boson really exist (NO). The Higgs Boson is an amazing case. As a non-physicist, I can't imagine myself having an informed opinion on whether it is or is not really there. But because someone once dubbed it "the God Particle", UD seems to be convinced that it can't possibly exist, since a particle can't be God.

I would think there should be a better reason for thinking that, such as understanding some of the physics.

Mike Elzinga · 17 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: What astonishes me is the way UD seems to know in advance the answers to all sorts of scientific questions. Is string theory right in some form (NO), is some new scenario for the origin of life relevant (NO), does the Higgs Boson really exist (NO). The Higgs Boson is an amazing case. As a non-physicist, I can't imagine myself having an informed opinion on whether it is or is not really there. But because someone once dubbed it "the God Particle", UD seems to be convinced that it can't possibly exist, since a particle can't be God. I would think there should be a better reason for thinking that, such as understanding some of the physics.

I am equally amazed that they don’t understand the operating schedule of the LHC. It is currently running and being “trained” at low energies before taking the bigger step of shutting it down for maintenance and doing a thorough inspection of all the thousands of superconducting wiring joints before ramping up to the next level. That means they are going to mine everything they can out of the low energy regime. And even if the Higgs is not found at those lower energies, there are more complicated Higgs theories that have to be checked at those higher energies. Physicists would prefer the simpler Higgs in the range of energies they are now running. But nature may have other ideas. I too have been watching the sideline heckling, kvetching, snickering, and general “Nya, nya, nya they’re stupid failures at the LHC!” attitude. It’s just plain bizarre. It’s as though the IDiots over there are actually hoping for failure and would sabotage the accelerator if they could. They just can’t stand to watch smart people doing research.

Joe Felsenstein · 17 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said:
Joe Felsenstein said: ... The Higgs Boson is an amazing case. As a non-physicist, I can't imagine myself having an informed opinion on whether it is or is not really there. But because someone once dubbed it "the God Particle", UD seems to be convinced that it can't possibly exist, since a particle can't be God.
I am equally amazed that they don’t understand the operating schedule of the LHC. It is currently running and being “trained” at low energies before taking the bigger step of shutting it down for maintenance and doing a thorough inspection of all the thousands of superconducting wiring joints before ramping up to the next level. That means they are going to mine everything they can out of the low energy regime. And even if the Higgs is not found at those lower energies, there are more complicated Higgs theories that have to be checked at those higher energies. ... It’s just plain bizarre. It’s as though the IDiots over there are actually hoping for failure and would sabotage the accelerator if they could. They just can’t stand to watch smart people doing research.

But their attitude is actually that they don't care what level of energy is reached, or when. They know in advance that the Higgs Boson is not going to be found.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/K.2IylVy2.ffSbYUSrrYtSqM0Z0-#3d5d8 · 17 February 2012

Red Right Hand said: I wonder if Barry spends much time hanging at Conservapedia? A lot of his attitude reminds me of Andy Schlafly and his sycophants' hostility towards relativity and quantuum physics (those LIBERAL sciences!) and their habit of ideological enforcement of their viewpoints on the talk pages.

Well, they are both lawyers... I haven't been on UD for a while, but it wouldn't surprise me if their shared hostility is rooted in a suspicion that quantum physics is a serious threat to their belief that only God could have caused the Universe to come into being. Still, it would take a special kind of stupid to out do Schlafly. After all, he actually believes that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is the main reason why relativism is so popular in Western society today.

terenzioiltroll · 17 February 2012

"The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. ".

I understand this guy is a lawyer. No offence ment, but its profession might explain his total lack of acquaintance with the concepts of "range of energy" and "scale factor".

What might deserve a clear "no" at the energy levels and dimensions typical of an orbiting moon, not necessarily holds for an orbiting electron. Even the word "orbiting" needs to be redefined in between...

It appears to me one more stance of being unable to conceive that reality is not constrained by one's limited intellectual reach and, at the same time, coping trhough cencorship with everithing that does not conform.

Trying to censor the Moon, literally!

harold · 17 February 2012

Mike Elzinga said -

It’s just plain bizarre. It’s as though the IDiots over there are actually hoping for failure and would sabotage the accelerator if they could. They just can’t stand to watch smart people doing research.

This is almost a perfect description of UD, and has been from the beginning. Although these traits are not entirely unique to it, it seems to be a haven for people who have relatively high levels of academic training, but typically not directly in a science related to the topic, who have intensely immature and negative emotional character, who use pompous verbosity as a disguise for childishly irrational argumentation, who literally cannot tolerate criticism, and whose resentment of any perceived success is reflected as much in their constant banning of each other and power struggles as in anything else. And yes, this type of behavior does raise the issue of narcissism.

eric · 17 February 2012

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic.

Two-value logic, sure, but has this guy never heard of three-value logics? In these, the truth value of "A and notA" is not always False. It can be False, or it can be Unknown. (NB: different logicians use different definitions of Unknown; some systems use 'currently unknown,' some use 'unknowable,' some use others. That's kind of the point - logics are systems of rules, and there can be many systems.) Arrington's understanding of logic is almost a century out of date. Insisting that in logic, the LNC holds universally is about as futile as insisting that in math, all square roots must be positive. Sorry bud, in both cases the professionals in those respective fields have developed concepts you claim can't exist, and they use these concepts on a regular basis to solve problems. Assertion, meet reality. *** Now, three-value logics and QM are fairly recent developments. But even ancient philosophers had a counter to Arrington's claim:

“Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?”

Mu.

Joe Felsenstein · 17 February 2012

This morning we have "kairosfocus" posting at UD (presumably with Barry's approval) starting with

The latest flare-ups in the debates over design theory in and around UD have pivoted on the Law of non-contradiction.

which certainly doesn't apply to discussion here. Here everyone has been scratching their heads as to why Arrington and company have been focusing on the LNC at all, as it does not distinguish pro-ID from anti-ID positions. What distinguishes UD from the rest of the universe is the obsession with LNC. This seems to have inspired "kairosfocus" to write an especially long post. Oh dear.

harold · 17 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: This morning we have "kairosfocus" posting at UD (presumably with Barry's approval) starting with
The latest flare-ups in the debates over design theory in and around UD have pivoted on the Law of non-contradiction.
which certainly doesn't apply to discussion here. Here everyone has been scratching their heads as to why Arrington and company have been focusing on the LNC at all, as it does not distinguish pro-ID from anti-ID positions. What distinguishes UD from the rest of the universe is the obsession with LNC. This seems to have inspired "kairosfocus" to write an especially long post. Oh dear.

I have a confident prediction. It's just going to be another moronic* effort to "disprove evolution from above without dealing with the evidence", in the same category as wrong 2LOT arguments and wrong probability arguments. They're going to make some verbose pronouncement that "evolution violates the LNC, therefore evolution can't be true". The pronouncement will be grounded in some kind of mis-statement of LNC, some kind of mis-statement of the theory of evolution, or both. *I strongly agree that civility strengthens arguments and is usually ethically preferable, and I further agree that frequent contributors to UD have above average academic ability, at least in some limited ways. However, efforts to "disprove evolution" without understanding and dealing with the theory and the evidence are moronic. It is the arguments I am labeling thus, not any specific individual.

John · 17 February 2012

Dave Wisker said: As one who was banned by Barry a couple of years ago, I'm not surprised. Megalomania is an ugly thing.

Barry is merely trying to emulate his "Messiah", the ever so delightful Bill Dembski. I guess he's trying to be Darth Vader to Dembski's Emperor Palpatine.

eric · 17 February 2012

harold said: They're going to make some verbose pronouncement that "evolution violates the LNC, therefore evolution can't be true".

Alternately, it could be a variant on the "regularity of the universe proves God" trope. The verbose pronouncement may be about the LNC needing to come from God, or without God no LNC, or something like that.

Joe Felsenstein · 17 February 2012

eric said: Alternately, it could be a variant on the "regularity of the universe proves God" trope. The verbose pronouncement may be about the LNC needing to come from God, or without God no LNC, or something like that.

Even if that argument were true (about regularity of the universe implying a deity), it really says nothing about evolution. The point is that even if our universe is specially designed by a deity, it is one in which evolution and natural selection work as a result of those laws, as a result of that regularity. So the argument may (or may not) say anything about the God of a deist, but it certainly is not an argument in support of ID, as ID requires a Designer who intervenes in the evolutionary process. But you knew all that ...

Richard B. Hoppe · 17 February 2012

Just Bob said: Damn! AC seems to be back. Wasn't he BWed?

In my threads he gets one comment, and thereafter it's off to the BW.

eric · 17 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: Even if that argument were true (about regularity of the universe implying a deity), it really says nothing about evolution.

Well, if the only hypotheses you will entertain about Arrington's action are "he has an argument which makes sense," we might as well close this thread now. :)

harold · 17 February 2012

eric said:
harold said: They're going to make some verbose pronouncement that "evolution violates the LNC, therefore evolution can't be true".
Alternately, it could be a variant on the "regularity of the universe proves God" trope. The verbose pronouncement may be about the LNC needing to come from God, or without God no LNC, or something like that.

That's very possible, although as JF noted, that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. In fact an honest follower of a "some god is the 'first cause' of logic" religion would arguably be obliged to accept the theory of evolution, since it follows from the scientific method, and the scientific method follows from highly intuitive and near universally accepted assumptions. (I have no problem with, although see no reason for, such Platonic musings.) Still, I stand by my prediction. I have a perfect track record of (eventually) admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong (gradually decaying spasms of creationist-like defensiveness may precede such admissions). But I also have a very good track record when it comes to predicting creationist behavior. There are plenty of "proof of God's existence" guys out there, at least one of whom is a deservedly praised and prominent geneticist when not hand-waving about God, but UD is a "we care a lot more about attacking evolution than we do about anything else" site. They may be immature, undisciplined and dysfunctional compared to a big league propaganda site like AIG, but their goal is still to "deny evolution". If they wanted the "God but also evolution" option they would have taken it a long time ago. But here's something I bet we can completely agree on. I think I know what inspired the UD types to start obsessing over contradiction - PROJECTION Because they're the ones who contradict each other and ban each other. If you just look at the recent threads here on PT, there's one where an "ID advocate" contradicts himself multiple times, and there's another were "Atheistoclast" and Byers, whose stated beliefs are contradictory, are "defending ID" (even though one of them has been banned from UD already and Byers would be banned in short order if he bothered to show up there). Meanwhile, on the science-accepting end of things, there are movement atheists, non-religious people who aren't into movement atheism, deists, theologically liberal Christians, and some theologically traditional Christians, but everybody can agree about the science.

raven · 17 February 2012

This is of a piece with the main conflict resolution mechanisms available to religious movements: exclusion and suppression of dissenters.

This isn't even remotely true. Religions have had a tried and true mechanism for settling their disputes for thousands of years. They simply fight wars. The one who is right is the one who is still alive at the end. It works well. Ever seen an Albigensian Cathar? You haven't and you won't. The RCC launched a crusade, killed around a million people and spent a century mopping up the survivors. They got every one of them.

raven · 17 February 2012

This is of a piece with the main conflict resolution mechanisms available to religious movements: exclusion and suppression of dissenters.

Oh? What about the time honored heretic and witch hunts. Tying people to a post on a stack of firewood and burning them to death works wonders. They still have heretic and witch hunts even today although in the USA they don't usually burn them at the stake anymore. Worldwide, around a thousand alleged witches are killed every year. A few were killed last week (that we know of) in two different countries.

UD commenters seems to be failing Arrington’s litmus test concerning the law of non-contradiction.

That is also known as Stalinism. Anyone contradicts you, have a purge, and then it is off to the Gulag. The three main influences on the fundies seem to be: 1. Joseph Stalin. They like their purges and Gulags. 2. George Orwell. 1984 is their instruction manual. 3. The witch and heretic hunters.

David · 17 February 2012

Harold, Eric and others:
Yes it is along the lines of, “evolution violates the LNC, therefore evolution can’t be true”. I have seen many variations of this argument made by IDCists. Often it is put forward as some variation of Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" (EAAN)(outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism .

Another less "sophisticated" variant is: "Since GOD is TRUTH(TM) and all TRUTH(TM) comes from GOD then Logic and the Laws of Logic (or whatever) are a gift from GOD. Since we know there are things that are TRUE(TM) and Logical therefore GOD Exists."

Or something.

Joe Felsenstein · 17 February 2012

David said: Harold, Eric and others: Yes it is along the lines of, “evolution violates the LNC, therefore evolution can’t be true”. I have seen many variations of this argument made by IDCists. Often it is put forward as some variation of Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" (EAAN)(outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism . Another less "sophisticated" variant is: "Since GOD is TRUTH(TM) and all TRUTH(TM) comes from GOD then Logic and the Laws of Logic (or whatever) are a gift from GOD. Since we know there are things that are TRUE(TM) and Logical therefore GOD Exists." Or something.

I'm not blaming you for these arguments, but evolution is supposed to violate the LNC just exactly how?

David · 18 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: I'm not blaming you for these arguments, but evolution is supposed to violate the LNC just exactly how?

I don't really know. Most creationists, including and especially the ones at UD, seem to be arguing that they like the Science(TM) it is just all those pesky scientists that "interpret" it the wrong way. I think they are claiming that most "operational" science is OK but "historical" science and the scientists that explain their work are doing it all wrong because it doesn't come up with the results they like. If you really want to know what they think just go ask over at UD. I'm banned over there so I can't ask for you.

raven · 18 February 2012

You know, Protestants AND Catholics used to murder and burn my Mennonite ancestors.

Amateurs. My Catholic and Protestant ancestors used to murder and burn each other. Half my extended family is Catholic, half Protestant. My natal xian sect has split so many times, no one has any idea how many subsects there are. Despite starting from the same place and not very long ago, the individual pieces aren't really all that similar. They've evolved and speciated. All religions evolve and it can be very rapid.

dalehusband · 18 February 2012

raven said: Ever seen an Albigensian Cathar? You haven't and you won't. The RCC launched a crusade, killed around a million people and spent a century mopping up the survivors. They got every one of them.

In other words, the RCC committed its own medieval Holocaust. But then again, the Protestants who broke away centuries later are still around. One of the things Libertarians love to say about giant corporations is, "If it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist!" That's EXACTLY what can be said about the RCC! And like the Roman Empire it was modeled after, it is finally dying a slow death. May it rest in pieces forever!

dornier.pfeil · 18 February 2012

Raven, How is what you said exclusive from what RBH said? War is just a subset of the broader (conjoined) sets of exclusion and suppression. Same with witch hunts and heretic barbecues. But religion certainly hasn't be limited to only the violent forms of exclusion and suppression.

raven said:
This is of a piece with the main conflict resolution mechanisms available to religious movements: exclusion and suppression of dissenters.
This isn't even remotely true. Religions have had a tried and true mechanism for settling their disputes for thousands of years. They simply fight wars. The one who is right is the one who is still alive at the end. It works well. Ever seen an Albigensian Cathar? You haven't and you won't. The RCC launched a crusade, killed around a million people and spent a century mopping up the survivors. They got every one of them.

P.S. Thank you for the reference to the Albigensians. Something I was unaware of.

dornier.pfeil · 18 February 2012

Typo in the fourth sentence:
But religion certainly hasn’t *been* limited to only the violent forms of exclusion and suppression.

harold · 18 February 2012

David said:
Joe Felsenstein said: I'm not blaming you for these arguments, but evolution is supposed to violate the LNC just exactly how?
I don't really know. Most creationists, including and especially the ones at UD, seem to be arguing that they like the Science(TM) it is just all those pesky scientists that "interpret" it the wrong way. I think they are claiming that most "operational" science is OK but "historical" science and the scientists that explain their work are doing it all wrong because it doesn't come up with the results they like. If you really want to know what they think just go ask over at UD. I'm banned over there so I can't ask for you.

It would be unsurprising if UD resorted to arguments against "naturalism", or arguments that attack the idea of abiogenesis, and falsely labelled them "arguments against evolution". That's a common creationist dodge. The theory of evolution actually doesn't depend on philosophical naturalism or abiogenesis. I am totally non-religious, and the scientific attitude toward the origin of life on earth is that science should seek a natural model to explain it (that's true even for religious scientists). However, if a deity magically poofed the first cellular life on earth by magic, and that can be adequately supported by positive evidence, that event still happened billions of years ago and it's still been evolution since then. However, we must note that ID exists to contradict evolution. That's why the background at UD is a picture of the bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum as a biological entity that "could not have evolved" is a key claim in much ID literature. Therefore claims about "naturalism" or abiogenesis are not even ID claims at all, and a retreat to such claims is an admission of the failure of ID.

Richard B. Hoppe · 18 February 2012

raven said:
This is of a piece with the main conflict resolution mechanisms available to religious movements: exclusion and suppression of dissenters.
This isn't even remotely true. Religions have had a tried and true mechanism for settling their disputes for thousands of years. They simply fight wars. The one who is right is the one who is still alive at the end. It works well.

Um, as mentioned above, that's subsumed under my "exclusion and suppression."

SteveP. · 19 February 2012

What astonishes me is the way UD seems to know in advance the answers to all sorts of scientific questions. Is string theory right in some form (NO), is some new scenario for the origin of life relevant (NO), does the Higgs Boson really exist (NO). The Higgs Boson is an amazing case. As a non-physicist, I can’t imagine myself having an informed opinion on whether it is or is not really there. But because someone once dubbed it “the God Particle”, UD seems to be convinced that it can’t possibly exist, since a particle can’t be God.

I would think there should be a better reason for thinking that, such as understanding some of the physics.

On the flip side, the majority of people posting on this blog (except Proff Felsentein of course) remind me of the character in the movie "Perfume" that tried making the perfect perfume by boiling and distilling the fat and other parts of women, believing it was the woman's scent that attracted a man!

I married my wife because of her laugh. Go figure.

SteveP. · 19 February 2012

Joe Felsenstein said: What astonishes me is the way UD seems to know in advance the answers to all sorts of scientific questions. Is string theory right in some form (NO), is some new scenario for the origin of life relevant (NO), does the Higgs Boson really exist (NO). The Higgs Boson is an amazing case. As a non-physicist, I can't imagine myself having an informed opinion on whether it is or is not really there. But because someone once dubbed it "the God Particle", UD seems to be convinced that it can't possibly exist, since a particle can't be God. I would think there should be a better reason for thinking that, such as understanding some of the physics.

//Scratch that last post. Forgot to put Felsentein's comment in blocks.// On the flip side, the majority of people posting on this blog (except Proff Felsentein of course) remind me of the character in the movie "Perfume" that tried making the perfect perfume by boiling and distilling the fat and other parts of women, believing it was the woman's scent that attracted a man! I married my wife because of her laugh. Go figure.

John · 19 February 2012

SteveP. said:
Joe Felsenstein said: What astonishes me is the way UD seems to know in advance the answers to all sorts of scientific questions. Is string theory right in some form (NO), is some new scenario for the origin of life relevant (NO), does the Higgs Boson really exist (NO). The Higgs Boson is an amazing case. As a non-physicist, I can't imagine myself having an informed opinion on whether it is or is not really there. But because someone once dubbed it "the God Particle", UD seems to be convinced that it can't possibly exist, since a particle can't be God. I would think there should be a better reason for thinking that, such as understanding some of the physics.
//Scratch that last post. Forgot to put Felsentein's comment in blocks.// On the flip side, the majority of people posting on this blog (except Proff Felsentein of course) remind me of the character in the movie "Perfume" that tried making the perfect perfume by boiling and distilling the fat and other parts of women, believing it was the woman's scent that attracted a man! I married my wife because of her laugh. Go figure.

And I regard you as a sterling example of intellectually-challenged mendacity, Steve P. A number of us, including yours truly, have tried unsuccessfully for years to reason with you. Maybe you should listen to your Taiwanese colleagues, whom, I am sure, would most likely endorse mine - and others, including Felsenstein's - retorts to your breathtaking inanity with respect to your understanding of science.

Elizabeth Liddle · 20 February 2012

I'm pleased to see that a number of UD posters have appeared atThe Skeptical Zone.

This is to everyone's credit, I think.

Dave Lovell · 20 February 2012

SteveP. said: I married my wife because of her laugh. Go figure.

Steve, if you make her laugh as much as you make us laugh you must be a happy man indeed.

harold · 20 February 2012

Dave Lovell said:
SteveP. said: I married my wife because of her laugh. Go figure.
Steve, if you make her laugh as much as you make us laugh you must be a happy man indeed.

That depends on what she's laughing at.

Joe Felsenstein · 22 February 2012

Elizabeth Liddle said: I'm pleased to see that a number of UD posters have appeared atThe Skeptical Zone. This is to everyone's credit, I think.

I was particularly impressed that a number of pro-ID commenters fell on their swords and got banned rather than go along with the madness. Whatever their reasons, they did the right thing.

Joe Felsenstein · 22 February 2012

After the main purges had run their course, a number of people objected to Barry Arrington's approach and were not banned. It seemed for a bit that maybe Arrington had gone off to cool down and was reconsidering. No such luck. Today there is another long effusion on the LNC by "kairosfocus" posted. In among the comments we find this from Arrington:

Liddle denies the universal applicability of the three laws of thought. And people wonder why I refuse to countenance her self-repudiating incoherence masquerading as rational argument on this site. Why? As has been said, anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction doesn’t need an argument; they need therapy. Someone else said, “Do not answer a fool according to her foolishness lest you be like her.” Liddle is a fool. She will no longer be spewing her folly on this site.