A friend writes, “The following paper [in Frontiers in Physics] makes ID the basis of a case study in the diffusion of knowledge. Behe and Meyer are prominently featured:”
Slow-down or speed-up of inter- and intra-cluster diffusion of controversial knowledge in stubborn communities based on a small world network
Here’s the abstract:
Diffusion of knowledge is expected to be huge when agents are open minded. The report concerns a more difficult diffusion case when communities are made of stubborn agents. Communities having markedly different opinions are for example the Neocreationist and Intelligent Design Proponents (IDP), on one hand, and the Darwinian Evolution Defenders (DED), on the other hand. The case of knowledge diffusion within such communities is studied here on a network based on an adjacency matrix built from time ordered selected quotations of agents, whence for inter- and intra-communities. The network is intrinsically directed and not necessarily reciprocal. Thus, the adjacency matrices have complex eigenvalues; the eigenvectors present complex components. A quantification of the slow-down or speed-up effects of information diffusion in such temporal networks, with non-Markovian contact sequences, can be made by comparing the real time dependent (directed) network to its counterpart, the time aggregated (undirected) network, – which has real eigenvalues. In order to do so, small world networks which both contain an odd number of nodes are studied and compared to similar networks with an even number of nodes. It is found that (i) the diffusion of knowledge is more difficult on the largest networks; (ii) the network size influences the slowing-down or speeding-up diffusion process. Interestingly, it is observed that (iii) the diffusion of knowledge is slower in IDP and faster in DED communities. It is suggested that the finding can be “rationalized,” if some “scientific quality” and “publication habit” is attributed to the agents, as common sense would guess. This finding offers some opening discussion toward tying scientific knowledge to belief. (Public access) – Marcel Ausloos, School of Management, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Can someone interpret this, please?
It figures: The first time someone tries studying the ID community, they produce unreadable results.
Maybe they daren’t produce readable ones? Who knows?
Re communications networks: ID types are readily identifiable to each other because we carry pocket-size canettes of No! TrollTM spray. Seriously, to study ID communications (as opposed to simply making a point about them that readers and funding sources wish to believe), one must penetrate a number of private networks, where communication is very swift indeed.
Too swift, probably, for many would-be students of the topic. Or their funding sources.
See also: Why we have a News desk
Follow UD News at Twitter!