Posted on 11/02/2003 10:30:46 AM PST by PatrickHenry
But what the article said is that "An F indicates the texbook relies on logical fallacy, dogmatically treats a theory as an unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents published scientific evidence".
On those three things 7 of the 10 textbooks were ranked F as opposed to D. And I am willing to bet that of the 7 F's most or all treat theory as an unquestionable fact.
You may not like the stand the Discover Institute takes on ID, but you can't fault them for criticising textbooks for including pictures of faked embryos, fabricated evidence and discredited experiments.
Why would any honest scientist not agree with their position against these things?
Because I'm in an obnoxious mood.
ALL scientists endure what might reasonably be interpreted as technical redicule during peer review--that is the function of peer review, and it is appropriate. Science is not a popularity contest, it is a contest of ideas, with the prejudice, all else being equal, properly on the side of the established doctrines. Science is not some hollywood beauty show where we crown queen the most photogenic idea of the moment.
So you agree that scientists have to go through a rigorous defense of their ideas to establish them, and you cite some examples? Where in all this is your disagreement with my assessment of the situation?
They do have to go through a rigorous defense. But they are not always attacked based on scientific principles. Infrequently they are attacked based on assumptions and theories that have not been proven true. And when such is the case, they are unwilling to even consider the science.
My point is that with such a list having been called crazy and charlatrans by the "scientific community", could it be that the scientific community is doing the same thing with ID?
Instead of critically examining the claims as an alternative theory, they dogmatically conclude that this is religion and exclude it from scientific publication and circles. And in so doing, they refuse to even consider the claims or look objectively at the evidence.
O'k'a'y. J'u's't w'o'n'd'e'r'i'n'g.
What? Well, of course it's dogmatic and exclusionary. That's the point. If you want to establish a competing new thesis, you have to face down the old thesis, and the peer reviewers that are, ideally, the old thesis's representatives. You don't hire a thief to guard your building, just as you don't hire sympathetic scientists to peer review a technical article in a journal that is fundamentally devoted to critical review of new ideas and their supporting evidence. It would be, frankly, kind of braindead if the peer-review process were not dogmatic and exclusionary.
It works better if the apostrophe can change the pronunciation into something obnoxious. Perhaps I should have added an extra e so that it was clear I meant "pee'er" review.
Certainly you want people who can be critical of a new idea. But, it seems to me that you shouldn't have to face down the old theory, but rather show that the new theory is plausible as well. If two theories are plausible, science should consider them both, until one of them is disproven.
Instead of a scientific scholarly critique, in sometimes turns out to be ridicule that is neither scholarly or scientific, but tantamount to making fun of a fellow scientist and his work on the same scientific level as laughing at his pee'er.
Certainly one must have sizeable gonads to endure the ridicule heaped on anyone willing to present a competing theory to even the smallest part of evolution. But as the previous list shows, this behavior on behalf of the "consensus" is not limited to controversial areas like evolution but rather mundane science as well.
It often looks like a huge (hugh) exercise in groupthink or petty jealous responses of the "not invented here" type.
Mantra - ideology freeks !
vg ...
Perhaps you get confused. Most people past the age of twelve are pretty capable of handling a diversity of opinions and information without confusion. Not so with True Believers who use mental compartmentalization in order to avoid mixing disparate facts that might lead them to doubt their faith. The mental effort (largely subconscious) required to maintain the compartments ... often leads to --- an impaired intelligence. Mixing, after all, is what intelligence is all about.
66 posted on 11/03/2003 8:04 AM PST by Vercingetorix
In pre-publication peer reviews for well-established technical journals--which is where the rubber presently meets the road--yes, they pretty much are.
Infrequently they are attacked based on assumptions and theories that have not been proven true.
There is no case of a "proven true" theory in natural science. All theories in science are assumptions that have not been proven true, and potentially overturnable by some ambitious scientist undergoing peer review.
And when such is the case, they are unwilling to even consider the science.
Say what? You are not describing the peer review process for extant, well-accepted scientific journals.
My point is that with such a list having been called crazy and charlatrans by the "scientific community", could it be that the scientific community is doing the same thing with ID?
All radical new ideas meet resistance--so what? That's why we convene peer-reviews and give them their day in court--if they're willing to do their homework.
Instead of critically examining the claims as an alternative theory, they dogmatically conclude that this is religion and exclude it from scientific publication and circles. And in so doing, they refuse to even consider the claims or look objectively at the evidence.
Hogwash. These claims get looked at all the time. ID is far from off the table--I'm an ID'er myself. The accurate and pursuasive claims that it ain't science are methodological, not fundamental. ID ain't science because it ain't ponied up before the court, not because it's necessarily wrong. A strong contingent of pretty bright scientists, including some Nobel winners such as Fred Hoyle, think it's necessarily right. But hardly any scientists get confused by this distinction, just a large passel of vocal creationists and creationist look-alikes, and the scientifically naive school board members they try to flim-flam with this 3-card monti they've been taught by the Discovery Institute.
Oh, by the way, there's a large measure of yawn factor in the apparent disdane for ID. The thing is, it probably is so, but it probably doesn't help much, or change much. It moves all the same problems onto a larger stage (the universe, instead of this planet) and it still doesn't shed much light on the basic questions we'd like answered, in some manner full of tasty technical details than lend to credibility through testability.
Creationists imagine that ID might represent some sort of victory for their contentions--they will be sadly disappointed.
Sounds sweet, and I'm sure it appeals to most kindergarten teacher's sense of fairness. However, what we are doing in science these days is betting the working lives of hundreds of scientists, and a fair measure of the community's available resources on the fruitful outcomes of future scientific experiments that are now very expensive to do. Furthermore, we have a sort of vested interest, and assumed duty to our children, to set a course through scientific discovery that doesn't end up being a dead end that wastes generations of scientific effort. So we try to bet our best hands--not every hand we could possibly be dealt.
Ptolomaic astronomy still accurately predicts the behavior of the planets, it has not been demonstrated to be wrong, just comparatively mathematically unwieldy--should we be fair and give equal time to ptolomaic astronomy in our high school textbooks?
So it's about funding. That's exactly one of the criticisms of evolution. The scientific community is not impartial. Not only are large amounts of existing funding at stake as well as jobs, but the community rewards someone finanicially who can discover the oldest "X".
Between funding considerations and an enthusiastic rejection of religious values, the scientific community is too slanted in support of evolution.
I think you should take a look at the latest (November 2003) issue of Scientific American. The rewards for successfully bucking the tide far outweigh the rewards of being timid. Of course you also have to be right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.