Elizabeth Liddle Runs Away

_{Barry Arrington

May 11, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Elizabeth Liddle has announced her departure from UD. If you miss her comments here, it is not because she has been banned. It is because she got caught in flagrante delicto, and this time she was unable to obfuscate her way out of it. I will elucidate.

In comment 2 to this post, I alluded to Liddle’s tendency to make diametrically opposing claims as the inclination strikes her. Specifically, I said:

Elizabeth Liddle also has problems keeping track of the sewage she spills into the UD combox, sometimes contradicting herself in the same thread:

EXHIBIT A:

EL @ comment 10 of prior post:

But he [i.e., Meyer] is no palaeontologist, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though . . .

EL @ comment 43 of same post:

I do not criticise Meyer because he is not a qualified palaeontologist. I don’t even criticise him because he, not being a qualified palaeontologist, writes a book on the palaeontology.

Elizabeth responded:

Barry, those two statements are perfectly consistent. Read them again.

I replied in the same comment:

OK; I read them again, including what followed each. In the first you criticized Meyer for not being palaeontologist. In the second you claim you never criticized Meyer for not being a palaeontologist. And in this comment you claim those two statements are “perfectly consistent.” Lizzie, get help.

Elizabeth’s last word:

I’m outta here.

Barry’s helpful translation from Darwinese: “I got caught. Then I got caught again when I doubled down. I will never admit I was wrong to do what I did, but it is too embarrassing to stay. I will slink back over to my echo chamber where they will cheer me on no matter what I say, even if it contradicts something I just said.

Comments

phoodoo; It would be easier to list sites that do it worse. Hmmm ... I can’t think of any for sure; Jerry Coyne’s WEIT maybe, but it’s been a while since I visited that one. sean s.sean samis_{May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Well what do you know, its clear that these guys are obviously wrong about everything just like Stephen Meyer.... https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150505-a-surprise-for-evolution-in-giant-tree-of-life/ NOT!Andre_{May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Sean, What sites on evolution and science facilitate reasoned discussion? Here lays out the science for all to see, and you can discuss it if it you like. Where do they do a better job of discussing evolution? Give an example.phoodoo_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth did not run away. She walked, slowly, head held high, secure in the knowledge that she was right and held the moral high ground. I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.Mung_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

If Elizabeth has chosen to walk-away from this blog, it's not hard to justify, Barry. You explained it yourself in your post called "The Meat of the Matter": "[Elizabeth] could go through a point-by-point rebuttal of [your] comments, but it would be pointless, because far from rebutting the central thrust of [her position, you have yet to] lay a finger on it." There are two kinds of discussion sites on evolution and science in general, those that encourage and facilitate reasoned discussion and disagreement, and those that are intended for ideological cheerleading. This site is one of the latter. That is not a criticism; this kind of site is all too common. But it is a reason for persons who want to exchange rational views on the topic instead to go elsewhere. There's little to learn here except to explore the depths of human depravity. Obviously, THAT is a criticism. sean s.sean samis_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

#71
DNA_Jock: I think most (sane) readers would interpret those two sentences as meaning just what your italicized phrases mean.
I strongly disagree, for reasons outlined.
DNA_Jock: No attempt to defend Meyer against Elizabeth’s critique, I note.
I don't think that is necessary.Box_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Did you miss the bit about his getting the actual predictions wrong? And the link she provided to her explanation of exactly how he got the predictions wrong? I think most (sane) readers would interpret those two sentences as meaning just what your italicized phrases mean. I agree it's tedious. No attempt to defend Meyer against Elizabeth's critique, I note. Yawn.DNA_Jock_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock,
DNA_Jock: Now might be a good time to re-read what she actually wrote.
If you insist ... this is getting tedious though.
Lizzie: But he is no palaeontologist, and apparently doesn’t see that as a problem. It is though, because he gets the actual predictions wrong.
Now explain to me why Lizzie does not, in effect, say: it is a problem that Meyer is no palaeontologist. Also explain where it is (only) said that: not being a palaeontologist puts him at risk making a mistake ? Or where does she (only) say: it may be a possible reason for him making a mistake ?Box_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock It was you never showed how PCD evolved......Andre_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

by unequivocally stating that it is a problem that Meyer is not a paleontologist—“it is a problem though”—Lizzie goes way beyond... [Emphasis added]
It is traditional, polite even, to quote people correctly when using direct quotation marks. Now might be a good time to re-read what she actually wrote. The 'problem', really, is that Meyer doesn't see his lack of expertise as a problem. It is though, because he gets the actual predictions wrong. [link to TSZ present in original]DNA_Jock_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Andre, What PCD argument? This one? Thank you for the reminder; that was fun.DNA_Jock_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Phoodoo Hats of to you nonetheless.Andre_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Andre, It was just the same old predictable stuff repeated nonstop. I also can't read it too long, but I enjoy knowing there is this resource to see the true nature of uncensored skeptics. I find it ironic that Mark Frank said he is leaving here, because comment could be censored at any time, and people aren't polite enough. So he prefers TSZ?? Where good manners abound? Lizzie seems to have the same complaint. "I like it at TSZ where people can say whatever nonsense they want. Why aren't they more polite to me at UD?"phoodoo_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Phoodoo Did the lot at TSZ ever refute my PCD argument? Hats off to you for being able to resist the bile there. I can't do that.Andre_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

I will save people the trouble of reading through Lizzie's winded objection to Meyer's book. It goes like this: "Well, does ID have a better idea? " To which the answer is clearly, "Sure, any."phoodoo_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Poor DNA Jock, Its so hard to admit when you are wrong isn't it? How long did it take you to try to find an error in his book somewhere, that isn't even an error at all. Keep up the faith Jock!phoodoo_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock,
DNA_Jock: What Lizzie said is not ad hominem fallacy, if Lizzie is not using the fact that Meyer is not a paleontologist to support the claim that he made a rookie mistake. Rather, she is using it to explain a possible reason for the mistake.
I congratulate you on your effort, but nope, by unequivocally stating that it is a problem that Meyer is not a paleontologist—"it is a problem though"—Lizzie goes way beyond saying that it is possibly a problem, or a "possible reason for the (alleged) mistake".Box_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Like I said all along (#36): what Lizzie said is not ad hominem fallacy, if Meyer has indeed made a rookie mistake—a mistake that no paleontologist would make.
Close, but no cigar. What Lizzie said is not ad hominem fallacy, if Lizzie is not using the fact that Meyer is not a paleontologist to support the claim that he made a rookie mistake. Rather, she is using it to explain a possible reason for the mistake. See my post 35. You are welcome to engage on the subject of whether Meyer made a rookie mistake, but only vjtorley seems to have even tried. And no, I do not count Mung's and your incoherent scribblings on the subject as engagement. I do get a laugh out of people like phoodoo who will happily use a press release from 1989 in order to defend Meyer's writing a whole book about the complexity of the cell and failing to mention that peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme. Comedy gold!DNA_Jock_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock,
DNA_Jock: When we say “Jack didn’t shut off the mains because he is no plumber.” We mean that Jack’s lack of plumbing education put him at risk of making this rookie mistake. It’s a necessary but not sufficient condition.
It doesn’t make sense to talk about being “at risk” of making a mistake, after it is concluded that a mistake has been made—“Meyer gets the actual predictions wrong”. So, allow me to rephrase that: we mean that Jack’s mistake was made possible due to the fact that he is no plumber. IOW Jack made a rookie mistake—a mistake that no plumber would make.
DNA_Jock: In precisely the same manner, it is not ad hominem fallacy to say “Meyer got the predictions wrong because he is no paleontologist.”
Like I said all along (#36): what Lizzie said is not ad hominem fallacy, if Meyer has indeed made a rookie mistake—a mistake that no paleontologist would make. To be clear: not only must you show that Meyer made a mistake, but also that the alleged mistake qualifies as a rookie mistake. Now I have stated that I rule that possibility out (post #36). And I see no effort by you to point out that Meyer made such a rookie mistake other than a referral to Lizzie’s incoherent scribblings.Box_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Colin @47 I might agree with you usually, but Lizzie not only has a site which is ten times more toxic to outside opinions than here, she actually brags about the fact that her site is not designed to be polite. I would say she pretty much encourages nastiness on her own blog. So I am not so sure she should be able to come here and claim she knows more about evolutionary theory than Stephen Meyer and get away with it, without comment.phoodoo_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

phoodoo, tone please. Remember the broken window theory. KFkairosfocus_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Sidney Altman, USA and Thomas Cech, USA for their discovery that RNA (ribonucleic acid) in living cells is not only a molecule of heredity but also can function as a biocatalyst. This discovery, which came as a complete surprise to scientists, concerns fundamental aspects of the molecular basis of life. Many chapters in our textbooks have to be revised. Many chemical reactions cannot occur without a catalyst. A catalyst is a molecule which can facilitate a chemical reaction without being consumed or changed. Virtually all chemical reactions taking place in a living cell require catalysts. Such biocatalysts are called enzymes. Until the results of Altman and Cech became known, all enzymes were considered to be proteins. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1989/press.html So when should we be expecting your Nobel Prize Jock? Should I tell them to send it to your hole ?phoodoo_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock, It should be quite clear that a philosopher of science whose PhD was earned on origin of life with relevant background going on to pen sustained best selling books on OOL and OOBP should have more than passing familiarity with core claims and evidences, comparable to utter ABC basics like before working on plumbing, lock off the pipes -- something I think I first consciously encountered at about age 4-5 when a bathroom faucet washer had to be replaced -- and no plumber was in sight. (And BTW, when I taught introductory control systems my first assignment, invariably, was go lift the lid on our friend John, with its float-ball level controller or more modern forms, on the firm belief that familiarity with a basic practical case was pivotal. Familiarity enough to do some fiddling as necessary.) This makes the issue of a lockout of those without the union's seal of approval regardless of actual knowledge content, highly comparable. I am sure you are familiar with the debates over closed shops and their consequences. KFkairosfocus_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

DNA Jock, The only hole being dug is the one burying you. Most enzymes are proteins, but that doesn't mean an enzyme has to be a protein. "Enzymes are known to catalyze more than 5,000 biochemical reaction types.[2] Most enzymes are proteins, although a few are catalytic RNA molecules. " From Wikipedia, your favorite source of truth. Also: Aminoacyltransferases Gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase Peptidyl transferase More: "Enzymes That Are Not Proteins: The Discovery of Ribozymes " "Most, but not all, enzymes are protein molecules, and even protein-based molecules can contain non-protein components." And: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwEgcH1zsXw Still: Enzymes "There are a few things to remember about enzymes. First of all, all enzymes are proteins (just about - there are a few exceptions but you will not come across them in this class)" http://www.austincc.edu/emeyerth/enzymes.htm Also: What are some examples of non-protein enzymes? - Quora www.quora.com › ... › Medical Sciences › Biochemistry And: www.dpcdsb.org/NR/rdonlyres/2CD13D36-0C47-4017.../Enzymes.pdf Enzymes are molecules (mostly proteins) that control the rates of specific reactions Its getting deeper Jock, you want to climb out yet? Sorry that your schooling stopped so long ago that you can't keep up with the latest discoveries. Enzymes are catalysts. Its a catalyst. Meyer never said it was a protein. But it just goes to show how ill informed, and low you will stoop to try to be right-even when you are wrong.phoodoo_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

DNA-Jock: on FSCO/I, I think this should be more than an answer: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fyi-ftr-sparc-et-al-vs-the-patent-reality-and-relevance-of-wickens-organized-systems-which-must-be-assembled-element-by-element-according-to-an-external-wiring-diagram-with-a/ . . . especially as we are dealing here with a descriptive phrase for a commonplace observational phenomenon with trillions of cases in point. If patent facts as common as the text strings in posts in this thread and the configuration based functionality of ever so many systems backed up by 40 years worth of recognising that this reality is relevant to OOL and OOBP does not help you, then your problem is not the merits. KFkairosfocus_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Are you aware that Meyer earned his PhD in Phil of Sci with a focus on life origins, and has linked background in history of sci? At one of the leading universities in the world.
Yes, I am aware. Thank you for the kind words about my alma mater.
If he is in error, it is appropriate to say that, but it is increasingly unseemly to suggest a closed shop lockout.
I don’t see the parallel.
So, far too much of the above comes across as a red herring led away to a caricature strawman loaded with ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the issue.
I thought you’d say that.
A good place to start afresh is with the commonplace reality of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I, and its only observationally known, analytically grounded adequate cause: intelligently directed configuration, aka design.
I’ll echo Winston Ewert here: has this “FSCO/I” thing been published anywhere other than your blog?DNA_Jock_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

phoodoo, You are in a hole: try to stop digging. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/enzyme Medical Definition of ENZYME : any of numerous complex proteins that are produced by living cells and catalyze specific biochemical reactions at body temperatures Are you claiming that peptidyl transferase is a protein, phoodoo? Wiki:
Peptidyl transferase activity is not mediated by any ribosomal proteins but by ribosomal RNA (rRNA), a ribozyme. This RNA relic is the most significant piece of evidence supporting the RNA World hypothesis.
Given the subject matter of "Signature in the Cell", calling peptidyl transferase a protein is a pretty huge mistake; I didn't claim it was the biggest one.DNA_Jock_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

Box writes:
DNA_Jock, From ‘every plumber shuts off the mains’ follows that being a non-plumber is a necessary condition for making the mistake of not shutting off the mains. So, it’s okay to say:
Jack didn’t shut off the mains because he is no plumber.
Here [BECAUSE] is used in a rather loose sense. As in: “the importance of a wedding ceremony escapes you, because you are not a woman.” If you wish to argue that a ‘necessary condition’ is not a ‘sufficient reason’, which I obviously agree with, and that therefor [BECAUSE] is inappropriate, then fine. [Emphasis added]
We agree absolutely; you are making my point for me. When we say “Jack didn’t shut off the mains because he is no plumber.” We mean that Jack’s lack of plumbing education put him at risk of making this rookie mistake. It’s a necessary but not sufficient condition. In precisely the same manner, it is not ad hominem fallacy to say “Meyer got the predictions wrong because he is no paleontologist.” Elizabeth had explained previously the exact nature of Meyer’s mistake. She never claimed that not being a P was a sufficient condition for the error. Please re-read my post #40 to see that it is the confusion between the strict, logical use of [BECAUSE] and that looser, colloquial use of [BECAUSE] that the source of the problem here.DNA_Jock_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock: Are you aware that Meyer earned his PhD in Phil of Sci with a focus on life origins, and has linked background in history of sci? At one of the leading universities in the world. If he is in error, it is appropriate to say that, but it is increasingly unseemly to suggest a closed shop lockout. Particularly, when in fact the base facts are actually admitted by EL in her attempted critique, namely that to get wide "morphological distance" on the usual branching ToL model, you have to first start with a v small one between sub populations then cumulatively build up descent with modification, per Darwin's phrase. The issue at stake is, this strongly points to a statistical expectation of a pattern dominated by transitional forms, rather than the RW one of finding dozens of top level body plan level differences in absence of observing significant numbers of precursors on a branching pattern, and seeing such top level diversification in a narrow timeline window on the usual dating techniques. An expectation that should be undergirded by observed demonstration of how chance small variations plus culling out of less successful varieties accumulates to descent with modification up to significant body plan feature level. After 1/4 mn plus fossil species with millions of samples in museums etc and billions more in situ, from the whole world and all fossil eras, it is no longer plausible to appeal to poverty of record in hand and want of exploration to date. Not after 150 years. The gaps are strongly present with the Cambrian as capital example. Likewise, observed demonstration of adequate causal capability is still conspicuous by absence. If you had one or the other, you could make a plausible case for the missing other half. But, you have neither. What instead we see is Lewontin's imposition of ideological materialism by the back door and reading all evidence based on that ideological imposition. And philosophers of science are well qualified to take that kind of issue up. So, far too much of the above comes across as a red herring led away to a caricature strawman loaded with ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the issue. Instead, to the merits we must go, and that points to the stunning predominance of gaps as one goes down looking for the sources of the branching patterns being put forth. And it gets worse once one looks to expectations of molecular level branching, given the divergence of different molecular "trees." The time has more than come to ask whether the epicycles are simply moving you into ad hoc patchwork territory to patch a favoured but fundamentally flawed school of thought. A good place to start afresh is with the commonplace reality of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I, and its only observationally known, analytically grounded adequate cause: intelligently directed configuration, aka design. Begin where Meyer did in his PhD research: origin of life, the root of the tree, in some warm pond or whatever other pre-life reasonable setting. Then, show us analytically and with adequate observations, how one plausibly gets from a chemical soup of realistic concentrations, to cell based life with an embedded, integrated von Neumann kinematic, code using self replicator. OOL, the root. Next, show us adequate cause for origin of body plans [OOBP] via chance variation and culling by differential reproductive success leading through descent with [increasing] modification, on to branching tree macro evolution. If you can toss in a suggestion or two as to how this then gets us to origin of rationally contemplative, language using, knowing mindedness, that would be a bonus. This is of course the essence of the longstanding, never adequately answered, UD pro-darwinism essay challenge; which had a 6,000 word suggested limit (feature length article). KFkairosfocus_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock, From ‘every plumber shuts off the mains’ follows that being a non-plumber is a necessary condition for making the mistake of not shutting off the mains. So, it’s okay to say:
Jack didn’t shut off the mains because he is no plumber.
Here [BECAUSE] is used in a rather loose sense. As in: “the importance of a wedding ceremony escapes you, because you are not a woman.” If you wish to argue that a ‘necessary condition’ is not a ‘sufficient reason’, which I obviously agree with, and that therefor [BECAUSE] is inappropriate, then fine.Box_{May 13, 2015
May
05
May
13
13
2015
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply