Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Christine Shellska: “Discovering the Discovery Institute” (NOT)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An entire PhD dissertation about the Discovery Institute is being put together by Christine Shellska. Her claim is:

I argue that the Discovery Institute has “rebranded” creationism as ID, and that its strategies include attempts to disrupt the translation of evolution into education and the broader public.

Discovering the Discovery Institute

Some problems with her thesis:

1. “creation science” was the term used in the book Pandas and People and later changed to “intelligent design”. Even presuming purely for the sake of argument the change to from “creation science” to “intelligent design” was for nefarious purposes, that name change cannot be attributed to the Discovery Institute since they weren’t the publisher this work or any other such work (at least that I know of).

2. “creation science” even as used in Pandas and People is not the same as the “creation science” that was the subject of the Edwards and Aguillard Case which effectively banned the teaching of “creation science”. There is a problem of equivocating what “creation science” actually means:

From Wiki:

The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in “creation ex nihilo”; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed “baraminological” kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[6] As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[4]

whereas in the earlier version of Pandas and People creation is:

Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc

So arguably, the “creation science” in Pandas and People is not really the same “creation science” in the Edwards and Aguillard case. And in fact, elements of the modern version of Intelligent Design can be argued to be “anti-creationist” (which is my next point).

3. There has definitely been a strong paper trail that ID is different from tradition creationism as creationism is defined by Edwards vs. Aguillard. One only need look at the relevant literature to see the distinctive differences and disagreements. For example, the celebrated ID work Privileged Planet is based on a very different cosmology than Young Earth Creationism. This can’t be attributed to some sort of “rebranding” or stealth creationism. In fact, some YECs would argue that Privileged Planet is anti-creationist in as much as YECs argue the stars and planets were created, not evolved! So to be accurate, ID (as described in Pandas and People) has been rebranded to have some anti-creationist elements. These nuances are not mentioned in her work so far, but it is not too late for her to make corrections (if she is willing).

Again, Christine says:

I argue that the Discovery Institute has “rebranded” creationism as ID, and that its strategies include attempts to disrupt the translation of evolution into education and the broader public.

If she said “disrupt the translation of the falsehoods of evolution into education and the broader public” that would be a more accurate statement. Even assuming purely for the sake of argument that the motivations by the Discovery Institute are nefarious, there are evolutionary falsehoods going into education and the broader public that are called out in the scientific literature but prevented from reaching educational institutions and the broader public.

Her work doesn’t strike me as being malicious so much as being deeply misinformed (She confesses she relies on Josh Rosenau and PZ Myers for her information.) From her writings, she seems temperate and polite. There is no hint of the sort of invective that is usually put forward by Darwinists. However, her thesis needs to account for some nuances. If she hasn’t already, she would do well to actually interview the leaders of the Discovery Institute! I mean, after all her dissertation is about the Discovery Institute. Scholarship would demand better standards than rehashing second-hand biased information from Josh Rosenau and PZ Myers.

Comments
PS: I wrote of Newton's Principia, published c 1688.kairosfocus
August 3, 2012
August
08
Aug
3
03
2012
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Sergio: ID has no specifically theological goals as it is not a theological project. Creationism, evidently driven by biblical-theological concerns [e.g. I just saw an ICR page: "Biblical. Accurate. Certain"], is. Oddly, atheistical reconstructions of science are also driven by anti-theological concerns. Actually, to a significant degree, Creationism is driven by a need to respond to such atheistical agendas in science and society. Which is a plainly legitimate basic concern. But that means that Bible-based Creationism is more than science. It is also specifically Christian apologetics. One can and indeed in significant cases many have done good science in that context, but that does not mean that the theological concerns and efforts are absent. To cite a case in point, in the most important book of modern science, especially in his general scholium, Newton took on two theological projects, first a vindication of theism as a frame for science, and at a more subtle level, the defense of some peculiar distinctives he held. That is a matter of history of science, and of broader philosophy directly linked to it. In the book that laid out the epochal Newtonian system of the world. By contrast, ID does serve some philosophical-ethical objectives, of discovering sound principles of investigating our world, drawing responsible conclusions based on observable evidence, and seeking truth about origins without the sort of distorting censorship that Shellska and others of like ilk would impose through a priori materialism. (Cf 34 ff above for key clips from her presentation, and for responses.) Indirectly, the concerns of ID serve the principles of unity of truth and the concept that if God is author of the world and is Truth himself, genuine discoveries will point to God. That this last seems to be so, is inadvertently testified to by the censorship of science in service to atheism that ever so many wish to impose, and their notion of a dangerous Divine Foot in the door. Newton and others knew better: God's world would be one of order and organisation so that science seeks to in effect think God's creative and sustaining thoughts after him. Whether or not the individual scientist is conscious of that or agrees with it, so long as s/he does not impose an ideological censorship. And, in order to stand out as signs pointing beyond the usual course of the world sustained by God by way of pointing beyond that course to something unusual, miracles would have to be very rare relative to the course of events that make up our world as a going concern. KFkairosfocus
August 3, 2012
August
08
Aug
3
03
2012
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
sergio, I D may serve that purpose, but that is not what it was designed for. According to IDers, it was designed only to contribute good science, without any connection *at all* to religion, theology or worldview. No, I D was not designed to "fulfill Bible promise of revealing God from Creation" because it is a 'science-only' theory that is not based on Scripture; it is devoid of religious committments (Dembski 2004). Yes, it seems to me that the I D M(ovement) works hand-in-hand happily with 'creationists' to achieve its goals. scordova is one example, as he is a creationist who has been affiliated with IDEA clubs and active promoting I D at universities, etc.Gregory
August 2, 2012
August
08
Aug
2
02
2012
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
does not I D serve purpose of glorifying God the Creator? does not I D fulfill Bible promise of revealing God from Creation? to me it seems I D work hand-hand with creation science to achieve goals. sergiosergiomendes
August 2, 2012
August
08
Aug
2
02
2012
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
Joe, johnnyb, thank you for clarification. much investigating needed. sergiosergiomendes
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
My problem with her thesis begins with this: "to disrupt the translation of evolution into education and the broader public." Doesn't make sense. Not sure it's even grammatical. "the field of education", maybe? And not "evolution" itself but "scientific evolutionary thought", maybe? Shouldn't someone writing at the PhD level be really good at precise, rigorous expression? Especially when it's a thesis statement?RkBall
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Maus: I have gathered and presented above evidence from Shellska's presentation which indicates ideological agenda, bias and irresponsibility before evident facts and issues that have more than one side. Indeed, she is an example of a priori materialism and scientism. Were she a more eminent person, she would be fit to join the list with Lewontin et al. She may identify networks of interaction to her heart's content, her conclusions are plainly driven by agenda serving question-begging and even falsely accusatory a prioris. I have no confidence in the work I have seen. She has not adequately sought to find the material facts and a view that is objective in the sense that it is as free of personality and bias as possible, is grounded on a fair treatment of the full range of accessible and material evidence and is for good and defensible reason credibly true -- corresponding with reality by saying of what is that it is, and what is not, that it is not. KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Maus: What do you mean when you say "objective"? KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: "The criterion of patently obvious absurdity on denial eliminates all but certain properly basic propositions." As a first course, certainly. Peano's Axioms are rather minimal as well. So are the consequences, to be sure; but it is a bootstrap for later things. "Warrant is whatever provides good objective grounds so that a responsible person would use the so supported claim in serious contexts" Which simply returns us to the notion that warrant is not objective. For certainly neither Induction (Most variants) nor Abduction are objective. "The discussion is a bit adrift from the fairly serious main issue." Then we'll come full circle to keep it on topic with some Devil's Advocacy. Certainly it is the case, by the definitions provided, that Shellska has warrant to hold that the Discovery Institute has simply rebranded the issue. Good warrant to hold that the scordova's (Go scordova! Didn't realize you wrote the post.) objection about Edwards & Aguillards position as a No True Scotsman. Good warrant to claim that DI is attempting to refute evolution, or at least hamper uncritical acceptance of it. And that she has good warrant not the least from using ANT as an objective manner to evaluate social and semiotic relations to identify central actors and clusters of actors. Indeed, by the use of ANT then we have good warrant in stating that Shellska was, in fact, modelling communications issues in and between peer groups.Maus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Maus The discussion is a bit adrift from the fairly serious main issue. I think a quick note on a key point is all I should try, lest the main issue gets lost. Clipping:
I submit again that belief needs no justification and that any given assumption is suitable both for hypothetical uses and issues of belief without any special distinction between those cases. But we’re no closer to a firm definition of what a ‘warrant’ is and what ‘evidence’ it can provide. I can only assume that you disagree, by silence, that a ‘warrant’ is empirical demonstration or that a ‘warrant’ is abductive reasoning. And if neither of these then I’m out of ideas (and caffeine) as to how to square the notion of objective grounding with something other than these options.
Warrant is whatever provides good objective grounds so that a responsible person would use the so supported claim in serious contexts. It can be a proof relative to first plausible axioms and trusted derived results, if we deal with a mathematical topic, or certain logical ones etc. It can be inductive support which enfolds abduction. It can be credible testimony. It can be record that passes the Ancient documents rule, etc etc. What is needed is a recognition of the reasonable degree of support for a claim of a given kind (neither too loose nor selectively hyperskeptical.) And, I am implying that it comes in degrees, so that we have strong form knowledge [warranted, essentially certainly true beliefs that are not going to be provisionally held -- including self-evident truths that help us assess truth claims, such as error exists and four key laws of thought . . . ], and weaker forms such as in scientific contexts, courts of law, board rooms and classrooms, common sense contexts etc [warranted, credibly true but held to a provisional and appropriate degree for the decisions in hand]. In some cases the latter can amount to moral certainty. Belief, for a responsible person, needs the appropriate reason to be held. And, knowledge is a species of belief. In practical argument, one should seek to have prudent, reliable, sound convictions. For instance, I am morally certain of the existence and active reality of God. For just one instance, I would be dead 40+ years now, apart from a miracle of guidance in answer to my mother's desperate prayer of release. I am similarly morally certain that I have met this God in the face of the living, risen Christ. I am historically certain of the basic story line in the NT, and particularly concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead in fulfillment of prophecies in OT of Messiah, and with over 500 witnesses some 20 of which are identifiable. In that context, I am historically certain of the authenticity of the NT. I am morally certain that for the everyday world Newtonian physics provides an adequate model. I hold it to be a model at this stage not properly a theory. Quantum and Relativity have good empirical warrant, but are provisional. String theory seems in some respects over the border into speculative philosophy. Some empirical testing is indicated. In this context I underscore the issue of objectivity in warrant. I trust this helps clarify. KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Maus: Quick note. More later. The criterion of patently obvious absurdity on denial eliminates all but certain properly basic propositions. Notice, exemplar no 1, "error exists." KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: "Self evident propositions are true, are seen as true once we understand them, and on attempted denial lead to patent contradictions." No offense meant, I was simply covering the bases given my understanding. But it seems still your thrust is on a different line then what I was after. In essence it seems you permit any deductively provable notion, while I'm after only those that lie under the others. Fuzzy threshhold to be sure, for either position. Specifically in the following: F/N 2 -> Yep, software engineering is the exact same problem. But with indemnity clauses. And while I agrree that it is not a necessary contradiction to hold both beliefs (The generality Gettier) it is part of the history JTB. Though, I do not understand the argument of a 'pivotal case' for warrant. Aside from that, it is certainly the case that any rationale or mental scaffold is bankrupt if it refutes itself or if reality refutes it as a matter of necessary absurdity. Cf Reppert -> I disagree with the analysis for a number of reasons. It's valid under certain priors but it makes an unwise judgement with respect to naturalism by resting on a false dichotomy. Too long and far afield to deal with: AI, recursion, etc etc. Negs and Imags -> I think we agree on this one in that negative numbers as a concept of a deficit are intuitive but as numbers qua numbers, it requires first that we understand the counting numbers. The prior statement should have us on the same page then. As for the rest of the difference, if we have 3, then 2 must be prior to it, ... I'm sure you now the paraphrase and the intention for it. Self-reference in Evolution -> It is certainly the case that circular nonsense is leveraged as purported 'evidence' of evolution. Of course, that's only the beginning of the morass that has been made of things in the championing of orthodoxy. But it is also the case that some people take evolution as self-evidently true. As well as Materialism, Nihilism, Catholocism, Ismism, or anything else imaginable.[1] I submit again that belief needs no justification and that any given assumption is suitable both for hypothetical uses and issues of belief without any special distinction between those cases. But we're no closer to a firm definition of what a 'warrant' is and what 'evidence' it can provide. I can only assume that you disagree, by silence, that a 'warrant' is empirical demonstration or that a 'warrant' is abductive reasoning. And if neither of these then I'm out of ideas (and caffeine) as to how to square the notion of objective grounding with something other than these options. [1] A quick footnote here. I take any number of things as self-evident which are only self-evident to myself. But lacking any manner in which to demonstrate such notions to others I necessarily lack any manner in which to properly demonstrate it to myself as well. Which is to state that I believe, but do not have knowledge of. So far as that goes.Maus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Maus: Cf Reppert here in the already linked, expanding on the point Haldane made:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause [--> physically] the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts [--> i.e. their logical implication] . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
This is but one of several ways to see the same basic problem. Evolutionary materialism has a serious problem of self referential absurdity. KF PS: I am contrasting complex numbers to natural ones and to positive reals. Negative numbers are also counter-intuitive. That something is useful is not the same as that it is self-evident. The very name imaginary tells us just how non-intuitive sqrt (-1) is. Remember, if you multiply a ne3gative no by itself, you get a positive, and a negative number is already a stretch beyond where people are naturally inclined. Irrationals, transcententals and transfinite numbers are all useful too, but they are not in the same conceptual class as 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . [It may help you to know that I used to teach my students to spot poles in the left-1/2 of the complex frequency domain from observable damped oscillatory behaviour.]kairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Sergio - I think Joe's point was that what is interesting (and worthy of a PhD dissertation) is not the DI's communication strategy, but the fact that so many evolutionists (shortened to evos) find it necessary to lie about their identity in order to make points. At UD we have had people who posted under multiple different names just to agree with themselves. I don't know if this is a widespread problem, or if it happens the other way around on evolutionary biology websites, too. But anyway, I think that was his point. I apologize for all of the jargon. We've been having a lot of these conversations for years, and the same people and same issues keep coming up, so sometimes we forget to stop and explain the issue for people who are new to the discussion.johnnyb
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
segrgio- See sock puppet. Proliferation would be a rapid or excessive spread or increase and the dissertation would be the paper that discusses this phenomenon.Joe
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Joe, "someone should write a dissertation on the proliferation of evo sock puppets " confusing to me your meaning here. what are "evo sock puppets"? relate to "proliferation" and "dissertation"? thank you. sergiosergiomendes
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
mike1962, nice point! sergiosergiomendes
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
OK wait- someone should write a dissertation on the proliferation of evo sock puppets and their impact on communicating ideas.Joe
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
KF46, It turns out that it is not at all "artificial", any more so than other features of number theory. Phase relationships exist through out nature, and imaginary numbers nicely handle them. It may not have been "obvious", but there is nothing contrived, forced, "unnatural" about them. As many thing in mathematics, imaginary numbers were something "there" waiting to be discovered.mike1962
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
M62: I am not appealing to magic, but to the artificiality of the construct. This is by contrast with that which is self-evident. KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
KF: What is the sqrt(-1)? Does this make sense? Why, does positing an artificial value then allow us so much of an ease in Math and enable a world of dynamic analysis?
Because so-called "imaginary" numbers are a natural fit when dealing with phase relationships. There is nothing at all magical or mystical about them.mike1962
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
F/N 2: The better paradox would be to assert, no complex software is 100% bug free. We can know that software is highly reliable, whilst being open to bugs remaining and that bug fixes can induce bug cascades, so we live with imperfections. So, that I, editors etc have done due diligence does not guarantee no errors in a book, once we recognise our finitude and fallibility. So to say in a preface that remaining errors are my responsibility is not in contradiction to the truer form, we have searched and could find no more errors, so far. But, on humbling track record we are confident there is with high reliability at least one we have missed, probably more. The first being liable to be announced after the first printing, per the "under enough eyes bugs become shallow" principle. Which takes us back to: error exists, painfully familiar from red X's on sums at school. But that secures only commonplace understanding. It is in the hypothetical denial that we immediately produce a contradiction, at least one of which must be false, that shows the absurdity here. And the significance comes in that certainty of warrant for a pivotal case. Thus truth exists, and knowledge exists though we may be mistaken by virtue of the point we firmly know. Systems that contradict the reality of truth and knowledge on warrant then fail and must rest on errors. KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
F/N: Maybe I need to contrast a case. What is the sqrt(-1)? Does this make sense? Why, does positing an artificial value then allow us so much of an ease in Math and enable a world of dynamic analysis? It can be mocked and dismissed or brushed aside, but it opens new vistas that we can then use to get to somewhere else, including the astonishing result 0 = 1 + e^pi*i. But sqrt(-1) is not self evident like 2 + 3 = 5. for this last, once we understand what a two-set, a 3-set and a 5-set are, and that add means join, we see it is so, must be so and denial is absurd at once. KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Maus: Pardon, but self evidence is not the same as question-begging ideological credulity. Self evident propositions are true, are seen as true once we understand them, and on attempted denial lead to patent contradictions. That is why I gave the example. The sort of a priori Lewontinian materialism I have contrasted shows itself as actually self-refuting, though such is not obvious (or the position would have been untenable). One has to go around the loop until the problems emerge and that may require technical analysis to see. For instance, that happened with Marxism. KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: "I simply note on the Haldane point that your view deconstructs itself." An unforced error of excess brevity on my part. The following notes should clear up the point I was after. "Josiah Royce’s “error exists” is self evidently true." Quite so. The similarly situated Preface Paradox ties things better for 'warrant', JTB/Gettier, and my remarks on Haldane. "My own inclination is that the dismissal of the concept of self-evidence was one of those little errors at the beginning that marked a watershed and breakdown of our worldview as Westerners." We take terribly different positions on this point. To my mind the current notion of scientific orthodoxy is simply the presentment of what is 'self-evident' to the select cadre of Wise Men. This being the same sort of 'self-evident' that you seem to profess. Just that yours is Wrong since yours is a heresy according to the Right People. Where the Right People are defined as those that receive governmental assistance in the from of funding and regulations regarding pedagogy; from governments that are charged with staying out of such philosophical disputes. My own position on self-evident is the 'painfully obvious' and related to: "One pivotal issue is that warrant denotes cases of objective grounding, not just subjectively having a right to a belief that on unrelated grounds happens to be true, as per the classic Gettier examples." There are three broad classes of Gettier problems. Those that rely on hasty recognition (Barns). Those that rely on unsound reasoning through irrelevant implications (The originals). And those that rely on a correct generalization that happens to be not be the case in some case (Lighting a match). Though, as points of painful obviousness, generalizations are generalizations. And correlation is not causation, so reasoning about necessity based on the material conditional, entailment, Ex Falso, Reductio, etc. is going to go South as a common matter. But these are flaws of the account Philosophy has of its own manners of reasoning and there's little to be done about it save laugh or cry. The interesting condition is that of hasty recognition; which goes to Royce, the Preface, and 'warrant'. In any condition of recognition can you ensure that you have had enough access this time to be reasonably certain of your recognition or judgement? And have you repeated that task enough times on the same object, relation, or condition so as to rule out spurious errors. But then to state this or accept this is to simply state that 'warrant' is the newest rebranding for "don't tell, show" that comes along every three to four centuries. The last two, of course, being Methodological Naturalism. Which, once debased, was replace with The Scientific Method. Which is now debased enough that the time is ripe for the next new term to differentiate the same thing we've always meant from what the sophists have done to the last definition. But if this is not what is meant by 'warrant' then warrant cannot be other than objective consequences and speculative causes. But that's merely abductive reasoning in the classic sense, and as Bacon was about in the Novum Organum, that got us the philosophical side of the Scientific Method. Itself being no different than anything else going back through Aristotle. But that again just gets into Laplace (Memory serves, may have been Poincare) and reasoning backwards by Bayes, and all the same assorted problems. But if 'warrant' is meant to be the painfully obvious then it means that we must start from what we can do ourselves. Recognize objects, and realize that by recognizing it we cannot not recognize them in the same breath. Count pebbles. Draw circles and lines. Count pebbles in a circle. And so forth. Or: All those things we need to do to avoid hasty recognition in the Gettier cases. I take no issue with 'warrant' being simply the newest incarnation of "don't tell, show" and I take no issue with 'warrant' being Bacon's approach to abduction. Though, in the latter case, it still remains a process of reasoning backwards by intuition. Guided intuition, but intuition nonetheless. Or, if you're in Crick's camp, absinthe or other hallucinogens. But such a notion of 'warrant' can be no stronger than any plain notion of abduction. Which gets back to Haldane and the final death of brevity. Haldane's thesis is that if he cannot personally believe his beliefs are capital-T True then he cannot believe his mental processes are the consequences of atoms. Which is simply Royce and the Preface Paradox again. But that has terribly little to do with what Haldane's thoughts are a consequence of; it is a general statement about every belief. With specificity to Haldane's brain it is only relevant if he has prior knowledge. But chasing that down the rabbit hole simply gets into Cartesian Doubt and Solipsism. Which is fine for what its worth. But it neither necessitates that chemicals are logical or not. But what is necessary is that 'logic' is no more than our expressions of reasoning to one another. And if you do not have any replicable practice in expressing your reasoning then certainly you're in a Gettier issue. Or a basement somewhere. The irrelevant connection here being related to Gettier's original cases rather than the examples the followed. Far too long but I hope that cures any errors I introduced by avoiding length.Maus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
PS: One pivotal issue is that warrant denotes cases of objective grounding, not just subjectively having a right to a belief that on unrelated grounds happens to be true, as per the classic Gettier examples. Bayesian revision of beliefs is a whole ball game to itself. My own inclination is that the dismissal of the concept of self-evidence was one of those little errors at the beginning that marked a watershed and breakdown of our worldview as Westerners. That is why I point back to the concept of things that are true, and on inspection are seen to be undeniably true once understood in light of our experience of the world, on pain of immediate and obvcious absurdity. "Error exists," is probably the most simple case I can find. It is true, as is the consent of mankind -- just think about sums in school as a child. But also, if we try to deny it, we find ourselves with such a contradiction as immediately shows it undeniably true on pain of absurdity. This entails immediately that truth exists, warrant for truth to objective certainty exists in at least some cases, strong form knowledge exists for such cases, and anything that denies these possibilities is absurd. That cuts a pretty wide swath across a lot of current thought. We may then proceed form there. Notice how I do so here on. KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT
Maus: I simply note on the Haldane point that your view deconstructs itself. Truth and warrant for truth become very serious issues indeed, in our reasoning, or our whole system of rationality collapses, which was H's underlying point. If you follow the links you will see much more, I cite H as an early in a nutshell. Follow instead the implications of the assertion that Josiah Royce's "error exists" is self evidently true. This I contend gives a way forward. KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
F/N 4: S should be aware that secular and secularIST are not equivalent terms. A secular institution is one not controlled by a Church. A secularist entity in our day is one controlled by an anti-God perception of the world. It is possible to be secular and to make reference to God. On a related point, the focus of the US Constitution in Amdt 1 (passed with the main document and as a condition of its acceptance, as part of the Bill of Rights insisted on by the public) was to secure freedoms, and in part by ruling out the existence of a church of the USA, a federal level landeskirke. There were state level established churches in I believe 9 of the founding 13 states, though across time these were disestablished. In short, the establishment of religion clause (properly understood) blocked a Church of the USA, by contrast with the Church of England's tendency to want to impose itself over Scotland etc. In short, we see here an extension of the 1648 Westphalia principle of the religion of the specific territory follows that of its ruler, to republican circumstances. And BTW, both the US DOI of 1776 and the Constitution of 1787 are secular documents, but make favourable reference to God. The former four times, including in the pivotal 2nd paragraph, the latter in its overall grand statement structure, in which a purpose was to secure the blessings of liberty to the US in the year of our Lord 1787 (which implies a risen Christ as living Lord). Blessings of liberty takes on a very interesting colour in light of US Congress calls for times of prayer, penitence and thanksgiving from May 1776 and December 1777 on. The US Congress -- yes, the CONGRESS -- very explicitly preached the revolution as a specifically Christian revival movement. Cf here on for examples. KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: Good stuff, I'll bullet point the same for the responses in the sake of brevity. 1.2 -> No argument against the notion. But neither is it dispositive of the other camp. It's a system with feedback no matter the case so we should not expect much in the way of analytical functions or curves. 1.5 -> I take this as an objection to Rationalism. If so, great. If not, great. Though if the latter case then I'm uncertain if you're speaking to logical impossibilities or some other notion. 1.8.1 -> Methodological Naturalism does not preclude the supernatural. It precludes an pretense to the demonstration of causes that have no physical, and thus instrumentally verifiable, causation. This largely intersects the previous mention of Rationalism. 1.8.2 -> Thomas Kuhn deserves mention here. 1.9 -> Agreed generally with this point and the statement that JTB is not necessarily knowledge. Hairy topic, so this will be brief to the point of being likely obtuse. If it can be communicated one to another with demonstration and with nothing said beyond the needs of the demonstration then it satisfies the notion of 'warrant' as described. But 'warrant' as used fails to distinguish itself (to the limit of my awareness on it) from JTB upon any well defined notion. Efforts to distinguish one from the other make common misuse of Bayesian notions and clairvoyant reaching or other implicit priors snuck in the backdoor. If none of this is relevant, then have at and ignore. 2.1 -> Lewontian Materialism is Metaphysical Narcissism cloaked as Methodological Naturalism. No objection. Broadly, if it's empirical it's science, if it is not it is philosophy. 2.3 -> Red Herring on Haldane's part. There's no reason to suppose any beliefs are capital-T True. They are personally useful or unuseful. Requires prior knowledge of what it unknown. 2.4 -> Johnson's point is the same as what I'm after in response to 2.1.Maus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
F/N 3: Slide 28 (strawman):
ID Spin on Materialism • It is a threatto morality! • Nazism! Stalinism! Eugenics!
1 --> The basic problems with materialism as a phil view have already been highlighted and/or linked, i.e. it is self-referential, and incoherent in accounting for the credibility of the human mind, in many ways. 2 --> In addition, there are longstanding moral concerns about materialism's inherent lack of a worldview foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT, which opens the door to nihilism and its notion that might and manipulation make 'right.' 3 --> Arguably, S is carrying out such an exercise in manipulation, through she probably is unaware/ unduly dismissive of the underlying issues. 4 --> A key source for such is Plato's warning in The laws, Bk X, c. 360 BC, not DI c 1996 on, and the relevant first exemplar is Alcibiades and co as influenced by the then avant garde sophists of Athens. 5 --> As for the influences of Darwinism and the milieu it helped foster on social darwinism, the eugenics movement, stalinism and the like, this is a matter of well documented historical record, not debate clip dismissals. 6 --> For instance cf chs 5 - 7 of Darwin's Descent of Man to see his own social darwinism. Galton, his cousin founded eugenics, and CRD's family for decades was closely involved. Eugenics was only discredited after, following WW II, the Nazi abuses were evident to all. Horrific abuses continued to the 1950's at least, in countries all around the world, including Canada as D O'L has pointed out regarding native american peoples. 7 --> A reading of the thought in Germany from Haeckel on, and culminating in Mein Kampf -- the struggle therein being darwinian, with no more piry for inferior "races" that in anticipation will not be "favoured" in the "struggle" for existence than cats have for mice or foxes geese [I allude here to the subtitle of Origin and to a very specific passage in MK] -- will suffice to show the warrant for the influences that say Weikart has highlighted. There is a well known testimony on the influences on Stalin as well. 8 --> In the case of Germany, it should be noted that Hitler seems to have absorbed the propaganda and milieu of the WW I German military machine, and followed the examples set in the now notorious Rape of Belgium [the area in which he served and seems to have fathered a love child by a young French girl . . . ], and the earlier massacre of native peoples in Namibia by German overlords. In the case of Belgium, the people of Zaire may be pardoned a thought or two that Belgium received what it had earlier dished out in that part of Africa. 9 --> In short, there is significant reason to be sufficiently concerned to point tot he inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism, and to indicate how it repeatedly opens the door way for nihilists and opportunists. For the past 2400 years. 10 --> However, this is a science in society point, not the focal issue of whether it is appropriate to impose materialism on science as a controlling a priori. This issue needs to be settled first, then materialism as ideology and as a potential gateway to great harm, can be addressed as a second order question. Which, note, is the approach I have taken. KFkairosfocus
August 1, 2012
August
08
Aug
1
01
2012
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply