December 11, 2010
-
Did kenedwards5 lie to JT about having a degree in science?
In my opening speech, “Be a Challenging Diplomat” in a debate with zerowing21, I pointed out why firebrands should be angry that their conventionalized anger often gets in the way of reality and sabotages communication. Phil Plait from BadAstronomy blog was criticized for not giving specific examples of how his infamous “Don’t be a dick” speech actually applied. I provided other examples, but did not focus on JT specifically in the debate. Fortunately (I guess), it appears a recent online exchange of his has provided some rather cliche’ examples of where I see firebrands overdoing it (which is my main criticism of a tactic of moral condemnation which can be used justifiably).
This is what I said, quoting wiki on the effects of anger:
Unlike other negative emotions like sadness and fear, angry people are more likely to demonstrate correspondence bias - the tendency to blame a person's behavior more on his nature than on his circumstances. They tend to rely more on stereotypes, and pay less attention to details and more attention to the superficial. In this regard, anger is unlike other "negative" emotions such as sadness and fear, which promote analytical thinking.
And so, over on JT’s blog, we can see that JT has some firebrand-like stuff to say in his post “How science and academia work”:
On top of that, lately BD2 has been vomiting up manufactured pride at how she's so proud of her sources (which are unscrutinized web sites, one of which even has the sinner's prayer at the bottom). [...] most religions remain chained to a time when our understanding of the world was completely inchoate both scientifically and morally. [...] It is a simple enough concept to grasp, which makes it a little sad that so many amateur wannabe apologists don't grasp it.
To which one Christian, kenedwards5, replies:
You seem to know so little about science, academia or religion. So why write about them?
In my debate with JT, I also quoted Tribalscientist saying:
A 1992 communications study by a leading researcher in the field of aggression and communication – Dominic Infante – looked into situations where argumentativeness and verbal aggression occurred together, and found that the more aggressive the speaker, the less credible they were deemed to be and less able to appear to present a valid argument[11].
Prophecy confirmed, right? JT is not entirely to blame since obviously kenedwards5 has been very vague. Should we take it on his authority that JT doesn’t know much about what he’s talking about?
JT seems to have a reasonable message at the heart of his post, despite the firebrand packaging. The world of science and academia is most characterized by sustained, well-rounded scrutiny by many knowledgeable people. It is designed to be like that regardless of its failings. When there is a consensus that comes out of that process, that is a strong indicator that the arguments supporting that position are probably the best we can hope for at this point in human history. As non-experts we can’t hope to do better even if that consensus gets overturned at some point in the future. Shouldn’t we be responsible and listen to their conclusions and at the very least grant them a higher priority over our ignorant intuitions?
That is the conversation that they should be having for the sake of everyone, imo. What should non-scholars and non-scientists do with appeals to authority? And further, what should other scientists and scholars do with the authority of other scientists and scholars on the many difficult and complicated areas of knowledge that they will never have the time to personally investigate? That’s a delicate issue and has come up several times in my extensive review of the back and forth online discussion between Christian reviewers and the non-believing contributors to the anthology: “The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.” See here, here, and here.
If Christians have something responsible to say about the topic to non-experts on the authority of experts when it contradicts the Christian worldview (other than trust your arbitrary Christian feelings), I have yet to see it. When science somewhere crosses the domain of religion and religion appears to lose on that point, why should ordinary folk listen to religion? Why not the current consensus of experts? Is it because we should trust God’s authority instead? Well which god? Which religion? And how exactly should we understand the authority of say the Bible since there are many competing views and no Christian consensus on the matter?
How can an ordinary person be expected to figure this out if it comes down to listening to enough of the actual debates on all the issues this huge battle of worldviews inevitably brings up? We can’t all be experts on everything. If the Christian god wants us to be responsible with our ignorance, he does not appear to expect us to be Christians. Just because that battle of worldviews happens to be one of my personal focuses in life, I don’t see how everyone can be expected to do that job. The reality of science and technology is very easy to verify. If you want to know the reasons for their conclusions, it is possible to investigate. Obviously the modern world of experts have to have something going for it. Worst case scenario, we might have to end up disregarding all intellectual authorities if we just don’t have the time to be experts on the topics. Um, okay, but I don’t think we should be going out on religious limbs rather than admitting we just don’t know enough about a given topic to have beliefs worth defending on it.
Anyway, kenedwards5 claims this:
I have degrees in both science and theology. My advice to JT would be to talk to people with a little less academic learning and a little more sense! You are very naive if you think the two go together! I have actually met people in the wilds of africa with far more sense than in some of our western places of learning! At colleges and universities I have noticed that common sense often isn't very common!
JT decides that Ken is probably lying about his credentials because he thinks no genuine scientist would put down the accountability factor in science and they wouldn’t play up the folk wisdom of Africa. Who would want to look that dumb? And yet JT is quite familiar with other examples of say Francis Collins publishing his infamous triune waterfall conversion story. That silly religious story doesn’t reflect at all on Collins’ ability to do genetics, does it? But JT wants to call kenedwards5 out anyway:
A degree in 'science', eh? Didn't feel like going for a particular discipline (you know, the kind that universities tend to give out).
I lost a friendly firebrand vs. diplomat bet with JT because the terms were that if Ken did not provide his credentials or simply vanished and was never heard from again, I would accept that as a win for JT. But that’s just the bet. In reality, this is an understandable reaction from kenedwards5:
again I smile at your condescending naivity. 'I will give you a chance'. As if it matters to me what someone like you think about me! Just who do you think you are? You really have got one on yourself! It's really laughable and if you think I'll give details away on a site like this! Sorry but I'm not that stupid!! Just one hint - for goodness sake stop thinking you are the centre of the universe. And try and broaden your mind somewhat by considering other opinions different to your own. [emphasis mine]
A Christian with a degree in physics who gets really lame when defending the relationship between the two and perceives a firebrand atheist as a threatening individual who may have ulterior motives is simply not an extraordinary claim. Lo and behold Ken appears to have exactly that kind of philosophical position. A Christian who is willing to lie in order to justify their faith does at least strike me as a more improbable claim than not (though not that improbable). Even if this particular Christian is lying, he might as well not be since I don’t think JT can hope to argue there aren’t perhaps a million more scientists who are Christians who get irrationally defensive about the relationship of science and religion just like the “lie” describes.
Another aspect of the problem is that JT has insulated himself methodologically from getting to the truth of the matter. If you are always on the war path, people with different values than you have are not going to trust you. It doesn't make a lot of sense to blame them for reacting normally from their perspective to what you are doing. Habitual mockery and ridicule are risky. And as JT conceded in the debate, you damn well need to make sure you are actually right. And JT’s argument from silence is not strong. I’m not the only person who has noticed.
My diplomatic prediction is that kenedwards5 mind will not be changed. He probably has a degree in some science and he probably just doesn’t trust JT with personal information. Ken will not be marginalized. He will persist in “trolling” JT’s blog until he gets bored of it and probably not because of anything JT does. JT will look kind of bad. Most atheists who already agree with JT will continue agreeing with JT (on the actual topic and also JT’s version of the politics), and most Christians who already disagree with JT will continue to disagree with JT (on the topic and politics). Perhaps some Christian who just so happens to be closely aligned with JT’s values will see the light regardless of whether kenedwards5 has a science degree or not and will change their beliefs just because of successful political theater. That may happen eventually if JT does this kind of thing often enough. But on the other hand (and more significantly) the divide between believers and nonbelievers has been reinforced. Atheists walk away somewhat embittered because of kenedwards5's lame defense of NOMA (as though science has never once had anything to say about a single Christian claim). Christians walk away somewhat embittered because of JT’s accusations and general pejorative rhetoric. No real progress on anything important is actually made.
And so my message here is that conventionalized anger is not a tool of communication that serves the skeptical community well. Informal social controls in context of the internet are a poor way to get your message across the ideological divide. Diplomacy is a universal virtue when spreading the proverbial seed of your message to the four winds. Many different kinds of people are listening in and they are all at different points in their intellectual journeys. We are not some nearly like-minded tiny insulated tribe out on the plains where in-group cajoling or “jeer pressure” might actually work out much more often than not. Our ideological differences are intensified because of the nature of the internet just as much as our ignorance of one another is intensified because of the nature of the internet. A worst possible construction-a-thon on each other’s character and intelligence born out of ignorance and stereotypes is simply not ever serving the conversations that need to happen. Perhaps most importantly, we condition ourselves to get things wrong and are just as subject to the down side of impression management theory as everyone else.
Be a challenging diplomat instead.
Ben
Comments (26)
Ah, but cursing and personal attacks are so much more fun!
Frankly, I think you're actually right about the correct road to convince people... I just am not a big enough man to take that road.
"It[science] is designed..."
Show me where there is any design to science. I'm talking about accepted prescription as to how science ought to be done. Note that this is a question that is part of the domain of philosophy of science (PoS). Show me where PoS has prescribed how science ought to be done. If anything can be concluded about the methodology of science, it's that it seems that anything goes, a la Paul Feyerabend.
JT is totally ignorant and incompetent about PoS and incorrigible in his ignorance about it. I don't know about Ken Edwards.
On second thought, JT is ignorant and incompetent about logic generally. That's why I call him "Zerobrain."
@GodlessLiberal - The key is to take the high road until someone shows themselves to be incorrigible and unreasonable. This has nothing to do with the content of their arguments, and may not apply to all topics of conversation, but has to do with deliberate ignorance and failure to engage arguments. Of course, someone may abandon incorrigibility, at which time it is incumbent on us to return to the high road. I see you as incorrigible on a number of topics myself, so I may not always take the high road with you.
And so my message here is that conventionalized anger is not a tool of communication that serves the skeptical community well.
Agreed
@GodlessLiberal - But at least, as far as I've seen, you don't essentially troll people into saying something where you feel more at ease with "cursing and personal attacks." If you give them a chance, you're actually giving them a chance.
A long time ago I liked JT because he seemed rather diplomatic, but, that was a long time ago.
This is a very good argument, and the approach you advocate is much more humble. It appears morally superior, and as you point out, it tends to avoid the errors that can arise in from the firebrand approach. I just have a few additional comments to make:
I have shown numerous times where JT's firebrand has lead him into stupid.
You mention NOMA. While I agree that there are times they do overlap, the recognition that they often do not, and that there is a problem with one position when they do end up overlapping, is precisely that we are recognizing NOMA. I have elaborated on that point elsewhere when Deconstructing Dawkins.
@soccerdadforlife - Feyerabend's anarchic view of the philosophy of science was always the odd man out. His attitude was never widespread. I would find it hard to believe if he actually accepted it or just walked that path to highlight what the extreme position did present. I'm not saying he was absolutely wrong. He made great contributions; however, you're name dropping like his position was the last word on the philosophy of science. That's Bullshit.
Furthermore, many have argued that the philosophy of science has prescriptions for the sciences. People criticized Lakatos specifically for not offering such prescriptions. But this is neither here nor there because it is questionable whether the philosophy of science is supposed to have a prescriptive nature in the first place. I think it is an easy argument that one can be such a philosopher without it. This demand of advocacy is not necessary for the philosophy of science. Nevertheless, people still accept that there is a structure to science. If there wasn't, then the content of the philosophy of science would have very little to say beyond describing specific instances of scientific practice. Any general theories, and there are many, would be meaningless. Since the large body of literature is against you there, I'll just say you don't know what you're talking about beyond possessing a biased view of science. I'm not even going to bother elaborating this point, for the "design of science" exists, and it is coextensive with the very science we observe. And no, this does not mean science is unified (absolutely), but there is structure; that is enough.
@bryangoodrich - Bullshit. Feyerabend's analysis was swallowed whole by Laudan. Feyerabend was the odd man out, not because of some failure in his his analysis, or because of some supposed anarchism (where you follow many illiterates), but because of his blistering attack on the incompetence of his philosopher critics. Feyerabend's impact on PoS has yet to be fully recognized, partially because many of the people who felt his barbs are still influential in PoS. Mill is central in Feyerabend's thought, not some philosophers espousing epistemological anarchism. http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43838 To find out the real scoop on Feyerabend, you have to read his student, Gonzalo Munevar, not Feyerabend's critics. http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/page/index.html/_/interviews/gonzalo-munevar-feyerabend-and-beyond-r42 You're full of shit.
People accept that there is a structure to science, along with many other urban legends. It's up to you to show a structure, not blindly mouth some pretentious dogma. The large body of literature? Ha. Carnap? Haha. Popper. Hahaha. Obsolete. You obviously haven't read any major works from the Stanford School (e.g., Nancy Cartwright or Ian Hacking). So, to call me ignorant is really lame. Go read.
@soccerdadforlife - I haven't read Cartwright or Hacking? Did you read the bibliography of my last paper? It is Cartwright's work I plan to follow in my career! And what do you mean that Feyerabend's analysis was swallowed whole by Laudan? He rejected Feyerabend's analysis, and your first link states as much. It is in Laudan's book "Beyond Positivism and Relativism" that he counters Feyerabend, amongst others. Though, I do have to agree with the author on that link: Laudan's misunderstandings were ridiculous. Nevertheless, it is as I said. Feyerabend did not hold any convictions to his rhetoric. As your link demonstrates, "always remember that the demonstrations and the rhetorics used do not express any 'deep convictions'." The fact remains, Feyerabend's analysis was presenting epistemological anarchism. That is not Feyerabend's position, however. As the quote above indicates, he is simply making the stronger point to make his point. His aim is, as is shown on the link, to express that every set of rules has its limits. Feyerabend never said there are not a set of rules to which we can appeal, and that is the structure we intuit. As I said, I have neither the time nor interest to get into those details. Your Bullshit response is not an argument; its name dropping. Feyerabend does not support your conclusion, so acting like he's the God of the philosophy of science and the discussion is over just shows you don't know shit for fuck when it comes to the subject. Telling me to read is lame. I have read an article every day on the philosophy of science for the past month. But sure, I'm just ignorant. That must be it.
If you actually knew Feyerabend's work, you would quote me his writing, not some article about Feyerabend. Show me some original shit and I'll show you someone that actually did some scholarly research.
In fact, I might add to my above commentary, Feyerabend did not contribute much with his criticisms. I say that precisely because Feyerabend's criticisms only applied to those rationalist positions of the positivists and strict falsificationists (which Popper was not). While the positivists made significant contributions, they themselves caused their own demise. No one really could expect them to have captured the complexity of science in their restrictive models. (Hausman does a good job presenting this in summary form in his introduction to the 2nd edition of his Philosophy of Economics.) Nevertheless, these rationalist forms of scientific method have been beneficial to our understanding of science, and they have paved the way for much of the early content in contemporary philosophy of science. Today none of that is particularly significant beyond capturing ideas, but this transition had little to nothing to do with Feyerabend (good luck proving otherwise). Feyerabend was reacting to the dogma involved with taking those rationalist programs too seriously. That is all. His major contributions were with regard to the more sociological aspects of scientific method, and this is where he was influential. In particular, he influenced people to recognize the lack of criteria that one could espouse regarding rules for theory acceptance. He argued that people were driven to acceptance by the influence of their beliefs, peers and rhetoric to which they were presented. McCloskey did an excellent job extending this thesis with regard to rhetoric in her influential papers in economics. The point still remains, your tossing Feyerabend's name around to counter Ben's statement regarding the design (structure) of science is empty, for Feyerabend has little to say in that regard. Feyerabend's critique was very precise, and to what it was about is with no regard to Ben's statement or anywhere else someone talks about formal views of science, to which you have played this same card before.
How can you follow Cartwright if you don't understand her? What was her major work? What was Hacking's major work? Have you read them yet???? Do you understand their ideas from some reliable secondary source, which would be an acceptable alternative?
Regarding Laudan and PKF--I was referring to the demarcation issue as to what Laudan swallowed whole. (I think that Laudan probably also bought into PKF's notions about theory choice.)
So you modified your opinion about PKF's epistemology. Well done. Against Method was especially directed at the Lakatosian position (research programmes) in particular, not against only positivists generally. You are mistaken about its primary target. Yeah, I'm getting picky. I think that Lakatos would have agreed with PKF's arguments against the rationalists. Too bad he died before he could write his part of the book!
You appeal to intuition about structure in science. Intuition also led to inductivism, which has failed, so it is an uncertain guide. Your very notion that some general structure called "science" exists that can be studied by philosophy is controversial, for that would imply that the demarcation question is interesting and tractable. Your assertion that there is structure in science is tautological. Popper and Laudan thought that, rather than some having structure, science is an arbitrary collection of heuristic events.
Clearly, you think that merely waving your hands and asserting that science has a structure constitutes an argument. Saying that you don't have time to support your statements is inadequate. If you don't have time, you should keep quiet, not throw firebrands.
You need to be able to follow the conversational threads in philosophy and put together various articles belonging to the same thread, not merely read some articles at random and think that they stand alone. Check this with your professors if you don't believe me.
I enjoyed this post.
I like that you use logic instead of cursing and insults to argue. Good for you for being different!
JT is usually a good guy - he and I have different beliefs (he seems to attack my religion the most of all), and yet we can still argue without exchanging harsh words. This "Ken" guy doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
Rebuttal coming after I get back from Arkansas.
JT
What are kenedwards credentials compared to JT's? Or is that not an issue? If they are inferior to his, that might be a valid reason to question whether or not he is "qualified" to comment (....on Xanga ?)
If JT does not have a science degree, I'm not sure why the wager was even an issue especially given the venue.
He might have a degree, but if he does, it's from one of those unaccredited universities that teaches creationist nonsense. I can tell from talking to him that he would be laughed out of any respectable university.
@Zerowing21 aka JT has stated on multiple occasions that "mindless forces" are responsible for the creation of the universe. If it's one thing my degree in electrical engineering has taught me it's that mathematics is the language that expresses the universe.
Anyone who has studied mathematics (JT obviously hasn't) knows that it is not mindless, but highly ordered and logical. Consequently, the universe that mathematics expresses is also highly ordered and reasonable (as opposed to JT's "mindless")
So for JT to conclude that our ordered, reasonable universe came about due to "mindless forces" is a more irrational leap of faith than that of any person who accepts that Jesus arose from the dead.
As a result JT has no credibility. It's obvious that he knows nothing of science or mathematics and simply uses them as a veneer to cover his irrational adherence to atheist religion.
In my discussions with kenedwards5 on religion, I have found that he is an inveterate liar. So I have no doubt that he would say anything he needed to say to @Zerowing21 to get a leg up in the credibility department.
Neither JT nor kenedwards5 are able to reason out the positions they hold. Consequently, discussions with them devolve into irrelevant babble.
I also object strenuously to the assertion that being a firebrand somehow makes one unable to reason properly. More likely this assertion is the product of politically correct elitists who can't stand common folk getting involved in arguments.
Political correctness is simply a technique to cut off debate by establishing a totally arbitrary standard and then demanding that everyone fit the standard. Anyone who does not fit the standard is then proclaimed to not have any credibility.
In these types of discussions having the ability of sound reasoning is credibility enough.
Ken tries to sound intelligent through being vague, just ignore him.
@TheThinkingPerson - I love how you assume you are an authority to determine this sort of thing. Where did you get your PHD from, again? Which accreditation organization do you belong to?
@schallerbrandon - This comment really has little to do with the post at all!
I am on @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace's side on this one. "In these types of discussions having the ability of sound reasoning is credibility enough."
@TheThinkingPerson - Creationist nonsense???? You need to get both of your neurons to fire at the same time. Keep trying.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Well, as long as we're criticizing, I've found you to be really lacking in the epistemology department--even at a fairly low level. You seem to know absolutely nothing about basics like the law of evidence destruction (i.e., how that natural forces act on physical "evidence," so that the longer the forces act, the more the "evidence" changes, making inferences more uncertain the older the "evidence" is).
As regards logic, your arguments tend to be riddled with fallacies. Maybe you're trying to find out who can spot them--just giving you the benefit of the doubt.
@schallerbrandon - I have yet to hear you say anything intelligent at all. I wonder if you even know what "intelligent" means.
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
JT
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - Just because mathematics is "highly ordered and logical." Does NOT indictate Design by some higher Purpose this is called a LEAP OF FAITH. I DO have a background in Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics therefore you CANNOT say I haven't studied higher order mathematics.
Sorry to see the order and pattern of mathematics as PROOF of some divine nature is purely faith nothing more. and to attack JT as not having studied math is infantile and rude because YOU DON'T kno0w that for sure... This is why he and other like him are now Firebrands as Ben put it, because of simpleton lame assed attacks like this.
"So for JT to conclude that our ordered,
reasonable universe came about due to "mindless forces" is a more
irrational leap of faith than that of any person who accepts that Jesus
arose from the dead."
Gravity, Strong and Weak Nuclear, and EM ARE mindless forces, there is NO intelligence in these forces they just act as they should to assume them intelligent or existing because of intelligence is either ridiculously ignorant, or simply another leap of faith...
There is MORE evidence for the existence of universes beginning then the is for ANYONE to have risen from the dead without aid from medical assistance. so equating the two as such is again infantile and obnoxious in this case...
BD please please please choose your wording much more carefully, you are making yourself (electrical engineer? Really?) look ignorant darlin.
@Zerowing21 - very sorry you are constantly being attacked by this mentality...
@Volizden - I'm not sorry. It justifies my frustration and let's me hold up another person as an example that faith makes people worse, not better.
JT
@Zerowing21 - I said that Wrong, I meant to say I am sorry you are getting attacked by the ass-tastic wonders of biology that make bad references and assumptions in their critiques...
OH hell I just realized there would be a major lack of entertainment if these people did not exist...
Glad you are feeling better BTW, Hope DG is feeling better by now as well... Sorry I didn't comment sooner I got caught up in WOW with Jon this weekend. Its been 6 months since I lasted Played an MMORPG and totally got sucked back int his weekend ROFL
Comments are closed.