What is "anti-science"?

[Roy]

I didn't see Chrawnus anywhere defend ingenuousness.

Did you see him defend you?

Are you referring to the Wedge Document? I've read it. Not only does it not contain an admission of lying,...

... it provides no explanation for why they would want to propagate their ideas at all if they believe them to be false.

You're misrepresenting again.

No-one claimed they believed their ideas to be false - only that they published blatant lies in support of those ideas.

One last point: If you have read the Wedge Document, then you didn't need to ask this:

You say that they publish "blatant lies which they know are blatant lies" in order to get more people to spread the lies to more people, including to more children (via public schools). But why? I'll guess you are going to say that it's so the next generation grows up believing the lies, so that the lies get propagated further. But none of this explains why these people want the "blatant lies which they know are blatant lies" to be propagated. What's the purpose?

since the purpose is explicitly stated: "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. ... To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

The purpose is to promote creationism, and they tell lies - including the frequent lie that the ID movement is irreligious - to try to achieve that purpose.

[Roy]

So, in post #138 we have Beagle putting words in Joel's mouth ("you certainly implied otherwise with your weasel wording [where the heck does he get any 'weasel wording' out of Joel's posts?]"). The rest of the posts you referenced are either baseless accusations by Beagle where he fails to showcase intent (that's the important part here, intent) or simply a case of differing opinions on a matter.

We've shown he's being disingenuous. If you want to believe that it's all accidental, that's your choice.

Are you sure you guys haven't simply been burned because of having to deal with Jorge and people like him too much?

Maybe we've just become very good at spotting the signs early.

[JonathanL]

We've shown he's being disingenuous. If you want to believe that it's all accidental, that's your choice.

I don't feel like arguing about this anymore, to be honest. You guys can feel free to keep on making unwarranted conclusions about Joel's intentions if you want.

[shunyadragon]

Are you referring to the Wedge Document? I've read it. Not only does it not contain an admission of lying, it provides no explanation for why they would want to propagate their ideas at all if they believe them to be false. It is far more plausible that they think that their ideas are true.

Regardless of how you view the Wedge Document as lying?, believe them to be false or true?, or whatever. The proposals and goals of the Wedge Document concerning the use of the scientific methods to falsify and legitimize Intelligent Design have completely failed. No research, nor falsifiable hypothesis have been provided by the Discovery Institute nor any other scientists.

[shunyadragon]

I don't feel like arguing about this anymore, to be honest. You guys can feel free to keep on making unwarranted conclusions about Joel's intentions if you want.

I believe that Joel has been splitting frog hairs, and appealing to the edge, obfuscating, and beating around the bush of what may be considered anti-science. It is all not difficult to see that proposals of YEC Creationism, OEC Creationism with a flood, Alien conspiracies, and other such foolishness is indeed over the top anti-science.

[oxmixmudd]

Did you see him defend you?You're misrepresenting again.

No-one claimed they believed their ideas to be false - only that they published blatant lies in support of those ideas.

One last point: If you have read the Wedge Document, then you didn't need to ask this:since the purpose is explicitly stated: "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. ... To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

The purpose is to promote creationism, and they tell lies - including the frequent lie that the ID movement is irreligious - to try to achieve that purpose.

You have to be careful here. To be a lie, a statement must be known by the teller to be false. While you and I would agree that many creationists at the top do understand they are on some level lying (saying things they know to be untrue - e.g. Sarfati's distortion of the paper on SN remnants), many of them also believe that their fundamental belief (that the Bible tells us the literal timeframe of creation) is true, and that when they cover up or distort facts to make them support that fundamental belief that they are telling the 'real' truth of a sorts. So it becomes twisted. Many/perhaps even most believe they are telling the truth in an ultimate sense, even though 'superficially(as they perceive it)' what they say isn't quite true (again from their perspective).

It is a very hard sort of self-deception to break through. I have in the past participated in it to a certain extent, but eventually my conscience would no longer allow me to say what I knew to be incorrect/false in terms of what was a valid scientific conclusion even if I believed it would ultimately be shown to be 'ultimately true' on some future day.

It boils down to what level of truth are you committed to. We all on some level or another fudge the truth. We do it to protect ourselves, or maybe sometimes to try to protect others from some unpleasantness about the truth. And it's in many ways a lot like Jesus and the Adulterous women as he says 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

If one tells white lies, the fundamental motivation is not very different. The creationist believes that by fudging the truth on these matters he is helping to keep some people believing in Christ that might otherwise not. And in the end, from the perspective that says one is only saved through faith in Christ, that is 'better' than watching them turn away from Christ.

I'm not saying any of this is right. But I am saying it's not a simple as 'this is a lie' from their perspective. And the reality is unless one is willing to take a very harsh sword to ones own tendency to fudge the truth on occcasion, then that person is already on the same path that lets people like Sarfati misquote Clark and Caswell.

On the other side, it is just this sort of hypocrisy that was found so often in religious leaders that Christ preached vehemently against. So it's certainly not wrong to call the creationist out on it, but it is ironic that so many Christians who desire and hope and try to follow Christ fall so eagerly into that particular trap.


Jim

P.S. Fundamentally, Science is all about cutting through such biases of perspective and self-deception. In the end, one could construct a definition of anti-science that contained language sort of like 'to be anti-science is to be willing to distort the facts or properly derived conclusions per the scientific method in favor of what one believes or hopes to be true'. Science - in its purest form - discards all belief, all superstition, all personal bias and draws strictly logical and causal conclusions from the application of the scientfic method to a set of data and previously derived facts or theories established through the same. That said, this does not mean science is infallable even when properly executed. It would then be anti-science to 'believe' in science in the same way one believes in God.

[shunyadragon]

You have to be careful here. To be a lie, a statement must be known by the teller to be false. While you and I would agree that many creationists at the top do understand they are on some level lying (saying things they know to be untrue - e.g. Sarfati's distortion of the paper on SN remnants), many of them also believe that their fundamental belief (that the Bible tells us the literal timeframe of creation) is true, and that when they cover up or distort facts to make them support that fundamental belief that they are telling the 'real' truth of a sorts. So it become twisted. Many/perhaps even most believe they are telling the truth in an ultimate sense, even though 'superficially(as they perceive it)' what they say isn't quite true (again from their perspective).

It is a very hard sort of self-deception to break through. I have in the past participated in it to a certain extent, but eventually my conscience would no longer allow me to say what I knew to be incorrect/false in terms of what was a valid scientific conclusion even if I believed it would ultimately be shown to be 'ultimately true' on some future day.

It boils down to what level of truth are you committed to. We all on some level or another fudge the truth. We do it to protect ourselves, or maybe sometimes to try to protect others from some unpleasantness about the truth. And it's in many ways a lot like Jesus and the Adulterous women as he says 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

If one tells white lies, the fundamental motivation is not very different. The creationist believes that by fudging the truth on these matters he is helping to keep some people believing in Christ that might otherwise not. And in the end, from the perspective that says one is only saved through faith in Christ, that is 'better' than watching them turn away from Christ.

I'm not saying any of this is right. But I am saying it's not a simple as 'this is a lie' from their perspective. And the reality is unless one is willing to take a very harsh sword to ones own tendency to fudge the truth on occcasion, then that person is already on the same path that lets people like Sarfati misquote Clark and Caswell.

On the other side, it is just this sort of hypocrisy that was found so often in religious leaders that Christ preached vehemently against. So it's certainly not wrong to call the creationist out on it, but it is ironic that so many Christians who desire and hope and try to follow Christ fall so eagerly into that particular trap.


Jim

I agree, I do not believe lying is a necessary issue, but I believe there are problems that need explanations. I am stretching this a bit and giving some room, but nonetheless the Wedge Document was written by the people at the top. Were they being honest about the expectations and goals that scientific methods could falsify and validate Intelligent Design.

[TheLurch]

I'm beginning to wonder if there's some confusion derived from Joel focusing on "empirical science". It's an odd term, given that it's redundant (all science is empirical). But he seems to want to define that as specifically testing a hypothesis against empirical evidence. And claiming that anyone who's willing to do that in at least some contexts cannot possibly be considered anti-science.

I'd suggest that what he's talking about is actually just empiricism. It's a part of the larger structure we consider science - the structure that's produced all our understanding of the natural world, and served as the foundation for our technology. But it's only part, as I and others keep emphasizing.

So, it's entirely possible for someone to be pro-empiricism (the narrow activity) and be anti-science (the larger process, or the results derived from it). Since the question is about anti-science, then the larger process is what matters. But Joel seems to keep arguing about the narrow activity, then conflating that with "anti-science". Which is why this argument has gone 22 pages of nowhere.

[Roy]

You have to be careful here. To be a lie, a statement must be known by the teller to be false. While you and I would agree that many creationists at the top do understand they are on some level lying (saying things they know to be untrue - e.g. Sarfati's distortion of the paper on SN remnants), many of them also believe that their fundamental belief (that the Bible tells us the literal timeframe of creation) is true, and that when they cover up or distort facts to make them support that fundamental belief that they are telling the 'real' truth of a sorts. So it becomes twisted. Many/perhaps even most believe they are telling the truth in an ultimate sense, even though 'superficially(as they perceive it)' what they say isn't quite true (again from their perspective).

Jim, I agree that almost all of them believe their overall beliefs are the truth, and that the evidence must therefore support it.

But the issue isn't their overall view, it's the details they cite to support it. Details such as whether bombardier chemicals explode when mixed, or where you got a particular quote from, or what the title of a scientific paper is, or whether Tiktaalik's pelvis was found, or whether the Wedge document is real - and even more blatantly, the continued making of such claims to new audiences even after admitting they are wrong previously. The Dover case contained several examples, ranging from Buckingham's insistence that he didn't know the source of donated books even though he'd been given a cheque towards the cost, and members of the school board conspiring to deny they had discussed creationism. Believing that the evidence must support your views doesn't cover those lies.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, I agree that almost all of them believe their overall beliefs are the truth, and that the evidence must therefore support it.

But the issue isn't their overall view, it's the details they cite to support it. Details such as whether bombardier chemicals explode when mixed, or where you got a particular quote from, or what the title of a scientific paper is, or whether Tiktaalik's pelvis was found, or whether the Wedge document is real - and even more blatantly, the continued making of such claims to new audiences even after admitting they are wrong previously. The Dover case contained several examples, ranging from Buckingham's insistence that he didn't know the source of donated books even though he'd been given a cheque towards the cost, and members of the school board conspiring to deny they had discussed creationism. Believing that the evidence must support your views doesn't cover those lies.

We agree in terms of the reality of what these things are. And it is hard to fully understand how examples like those you quote above could not be perceived as overt lies in the minds of those issuing them. And yet, I am fairly convinced that in the complexity that is the human psyche, many of them are blind to that stark reality. Again, I see it as a sort of self-deception. That for the many, especially in the lower eschelons, they see the problem only at a barely conscious level. I remember how my own mind worked at that time. It's not that one is oblivious to the fact there is a problem, but it is just fairly easy in that culture and environment to convince oneself one is 'doing the right thing' based on the consequences of looking directly at these issues. It's hard to describe. But one day I just realized I HAD to look at it and see what was really there.

This kind of thing happens all the time. The fellow bending the rules a bit, till he loses his job over it and realizes it wasn't ok after all. Or when we are whipping down the road @ +9 thinking that is what is 'allowed', till the blue lights start flashing. Or when our particular political persuasion causes us to look the other way at some issue we really don't quite agree with to maintain 'unity of voice in the party'. In many ways it is part of our culture to cultivate a commitment that is willing to compromise some elements of the truth in order to accomplish the bigger goal.

Just how far that goes has come into very stark relief as we see the GOP doing it's best to look the other way over the potential involvment of their President with what is historically one of the most significant adversaries of the US. Given the historical platform of the GOP on communism, Russian and China - who would have ever believed so many of them could hold their tongue and even be convinced to support those that may well have crossed a significant line in that regard. And yet - here we are!

Jim

[Joel]

I didn't see Chrawnus anywhere defend ingenuousness.

Did you see him defend you?

He was defending me against an allegation.
It's as if you accused a defense attorney of being "so set on defending crime" (as opposed to the attorney arguing that the accused is innocent of the crime).

Are you referring to the Wedge Document? I've read it. Not only does it not contain an admission of lying,...

Please provide the quote(s), if otherwise. It's possible I missed or forgot something.

... it provides no explanation for why they would want to propagate their ideas at all if they believe them to be false.

You're misrepresenting again.

No-one claimed they believed their ideas to be false - only that they published blatant lies in support of those ideas.

One last point: If you have read the Wedge Document, then you didn't need to ask this:since the purpose is explicitly stated: "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. ... To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

The purpose is to promote creationism, and they tell lies - including the frequent lie that the ID movement is irreligious - to try to achieve that purpose.

As a reminder, what we are discussing is HMS_Beagle saying in post #136, "Professional ID-Creationists are propaganda merchants. They publish blatant lies which they know are blatant lies".

I interpreted him to mean that they publish ID-Creationism while knowing that ID-Creationism is false. It didn't occur to me that he meant anything else.

If I understand you here (and please correct me if I'm mistaken), you would say (and HMS_Beagle meant to say) that they do believe in ID-Creationism but are knowingly lying about certain tangential things in an attempt to persuade people of what they believe to be the truth about ID-Creationism. (I say tangential, because they couldn't be things essential to ID-Creationism, or else then they would know that ID-Creationism is false.) If that's the case then I gladly acknowledge that I misunderstood what HMS_Beagle said.

I think a good practice of discussion is to rephrase one's understanding of what the other person has said, so that the other person can know either that I understood correctly, or that I misunderstood, so that the misunderstanding can be corrected. But instead of correcting any misunderstandings, I just get accused of twisting the other person's words and being duplicitous.

When I expressed confusion about why the Discovery Institute would want to publish/propagate Creationism (which is also anti-materialism) even though they believe Creationism to be false, he could have said something like, "Oh, I see where you've misunderstood me. Allow me to clear up the misunderstanding." Instead I got accused of "dishonest trolling". I suspect the same is true in the other cases where HMS_Beagle accused me of dishonesty.

Merely pointing to the Document including the quote you gave didn't clear up the misunderstanding, because I thought we were saying that they knew their anti-materialism/theism/creationism was false and so even that quote would leave unanswered the question why they wanted to overthrow what they believe to be true and replace it with what they believe to be false. Thank you for your other comments here that have corrected my misunderstanding.

[Joel]

How can you possibly argue that rejecting every scientific result ever produced isn't anti-science?

Because I would say that science is a methodology of questioning and testing/observing, and not that (e.g. results) which is produced by the methodology. It then would follow that someone who embraces the methodology (even just in isolation) cannot be said to be anti-science.

Trusting the LIGO data involves implicit trust of numerous people. Which I would think goes beyond the bounds of mere empirical physical science.

No, it really doesn't. As we've noted repeatedly above, the LIGO team has described in exacting detail, through dozens of papers, the theoretical underpinnings of their work, the process they're using to identify signals, the hardware they've built to embody that process, the software that monitors its output, etc. And it's not trusting any one person. The LIGO team has hundreds of physicists and engineers on it. Each of the dozens of papers they've published has been peer reviewed, and are based on and/or extended by independent researchers in hundreds of other papers. And the funding setup has meant that the whole thing has been evaluated multiple times under different National Science Foundation administrations. And independent teams in India and Japan have examined the concepts and chosen to build very similar hardware.

I'm not trusting "numerous people". I'm trusting the entire process of science (not to mention my own ability to evaluate the LIGO design). If LIGO screwed up, then there's very little in physics that can be trusted. And i trust that because it's been shown repeatedly that it works.

Fair enough, there is a process of people correcting and checking one another, so as to tend toward eliminating errors and things overlooked by anyone. I agree that that is an important epistemological tool. I think where we disagree is on whether that is the essence of science, such that to not make use of it would be anti-science, as opposed to an important tool in conjunction with science.

Trusting that process does require a minimal level of trust of other people (or maybe "trust" is too strong. maybe "non-paranoia"). You have to not be afraid that the others have not conspired to deceive you. And there are some systemic problems that can and have arisen before in academia. And thus I can imagine a hypothetical person who is paranoid (perhaps irrationally) in that arena, who yet embraces questioning and testing, and I find it difficult to classify them as anti-science.

An question we could maybe ask is whether one can separate trust in the process of interpersonal checking-and-correcting from trust in the results that the particular instance of that process has produced. It seems more difficult to separate those. If you retain some mild level of skepticism of its results because they aren't infallible, that seems like it would be the same as saying that the process is not infallible, and to the same extent.

You keep speaking as if empirical science doesn't already involve a broader epistemology than simply doing experiments personally.

I think that's been my point--that I'm defining science more narrowly, and you more broadly. But whenever I've tried to say that in more detail, I seem to get accused of misrepresenting your position. I think broader epistemological processes/methods/etc are are useful and important aids to science (as I've been defining it). I suspect even more broadly, that all the fields of study (science and otherwise) and their particular methodologies are also important useful aids to each other, and as checks and corrections to one another, in a much broader system of aiding, checking, and correcting. Though I don't think that implies that it is all science. But it may just come down to a matter of differing definitions. And that we should have more carefully agreed upon definitions at the beginning of our discussion?

The history and philosophy of science would both tell you that you're mistaken here.

That's possible. I don't think so, from my understanding, but I admit I may be wrong.

As I recall, the originators of Empiricism of the 16th/17th centuries (such as Francis Bacon) advocated extreme skepticism. They advocated rejecting all of what has come before, and starting with a blank slate. It was not that there was no testing/observation before. They weren't the first to think of observing. The new thing about their philosophy was not introducing testing/observation, but (a) the exclusion of everything but observation, and (b) an extreme skepticism, ignoring everything that came before. Thus they seemed to not think it would be sufficient for the process of Empiricism to correct errors in the existing body of knowledge. They thought they had to first wipe the slate clean.

What would you think of a person who just doesn't have the time right now to examine the LIGO data (or to first develop the expertise required to interpret the data, etc), and thus suspends judgement? Is it anti-science to refrain from making a judgement prior to examining the data?

I don't find this an interesting question. If you have to split so many hairs and define so many unlikely hypotheticals just to get to a situation that you think might be illustrative, then it should tell you something more than any answer to your question could.

I don't think it's an unlikely hypothetical. I think it's the position that virtually all laymen find themselves in. I suspect that today it is a position that everyone finds themselves in with respect to something, as nobody has the time to gain sufficient expertise in every area sufficient to adequately understand all data, let alone the time to examine all data that exists.

[Joel]

I'm beginning to wonder if there's some confusion derived from Joel focusing on "empirical science". It's an odd term, given that it's redundant (all science is empirical). But he seems to want to define that as specifically testing a hypothesis against empirical evidence. And claiming that anyone who's willing to do that in at least some contexts cannot possibly be considered anti-science.

I'd suggest that what he's talking about is actually just empiricism. It's a part of the larger structure we consider science - the structure that's produced all our understanding of the natural world, and served as the foundation for our technology. But it's only part, as I and others keep emphasizing.

So, it's entirely possible for someone to be pro-empiricism (the narrow activity) and be anti-science (the larger process, or the results derived from it). Since the question is about anti-science, then the larger process is what matters. But Joel seems to keep arguing about the narrow activity, then conflating that with "anti-science". Which is why this argument has gone 22 pages of nowhere.

I've commented on (and agreed with) most of this in my previous post. I'll add that I can certainly understand that the word "science" is used in different senses. Yes, I've been trying to restrict my usage of it to empiricism. And I've added "empirical" sometimes to be more clear (even though that's redundant with my usage). We could go to an even broader meaning than yours. My understanding is that up until the 20th century, "science" meant "knowledge". And "a science" meant a field of knowledge, which could include natural sciences, social sciences, history, mathematics, and even theology (insofar as it is believed to be a field of knowledge). Even today that can be found as the primary dictionary definition (e.g. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t). And in this broader sense, not all science is empirical. Different sciences are best suited to different methodoligies (not just what is now called the "scientific method"). But it's become common to use "science" narrowly, to refer to empiricism, or to the natural sciences as a collection. These too are definitions given in that dictionary.com link.

Also interesting is that natural science used to be called natural philosophy. I suspect the shift was due to Empiricists trying to distinguish themselves from other philosophies.

[TheLurch]

I've commented on (and agreed with) most of this in my previous post. I'll add that I can certainly understand that the word "science" is used in different senses. Yes, I've been trying to restrict my usage of it to empiricism.

Empiricism and science are not synonyms. Your decision to treat them as such, and not to state up front that you were doing so, has wasted a lot of people's time, including your own.

[TheLurch]

Because I would say that science is a methodology of questioning and testing/observing, and not that (e.g. results) which is produced by the methodology. It then would follow that someone who embraces the methodology (even just in isolation) cannot be said to be anti-science.

Pretty much by definition, someone who rejects everything produced using a methodology cannot possibly be said to embrace it.

I mean, if i claimed "nobody has ever produced beer", can i possibly be said to embrace the art of brewing?

I think that's been my point--that I'm defining science more narrowly, and you more broadly.

Right. You're trying to use science to mean empiricism, which nobody else does. It's why we have two different terms, why we talk about a scientific method (which is broader than empiricism, since it involves models and theories), and why people talk about a scientific revolution, not an empirical revolution.

And, critically, when people use the term "anti-science" (the ostensible subject of this discussion), they do not mean "anti-empiricism". They mean rejecting the scientific method or the results produced by it. People who reject vaccines because they think they cause autism may not be anti-empiricists, but they are most definitively are anti-science, because they are rejecting overwhelming evidence generated through scientific approaches.

As I recall, the originators of Empiricism of the 16th/17th centuries (such as Francis Bacon) advocated extreme skepticism. They advocated rejecting all of what has come before, and starting with a blank slate.

That's because everything that had come before was based on Aristotelian reasoning, rather than by comparison to the natural world. Galileo was an empiricist who rejected Aristotelian dictates; but he was also a scientist who paid attention to and accepted the work of his peers and predecessors. See the difference?


Look, if you want to say "by this definition that i and only i use, i've made it so that people who believe in a flat earth are excellent scientists", i'm not able to stop you. But it's a pretty hollow victory for you, don't you think?