[Mb-civic] Response to Ian Alterman's critique of Michael Butler's blog.

[George R. Milman]

Dear Ian,
 
Being curious about your critique of Michaels blog, I asked that he pass it
along so I could have a look.  With your indulgence, I will give you my
unsolicited response.
 
First, I highly recommend that you read in its entirety Judge Jones’ opinion
in the Dover School case
(http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688d.pdf).  In case you
don’t want to go directly to the horse’s mouth, though, for the CliffsNotes
version (argumentative, but accurate) see
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/dover.html.  Also, for its
expressed wisdom generally, including an explanation of the difference
between “scientific theory” and the word “theory” taken from every day usage
(they are chalk and cheese) see
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/pine.html.
 
Here is a portion of the explanation from that CSICOP article: 
 
“As I define “scientific theory,” it is a great, overarching, explanatory
scheme which explains a vast number of phenomena; which makes connections
between phenomena that would otherwise be perceived as having nothing to do
with each other; which makes wild, off-the-wall predictions which
nonetheless turn out as forecast; which is supported by an overwhelming
amount of evidence and has been tested countless times in countless ways
without being falsified; shows consilience to a truly remarkable extent; and
which is, for all practical purposes, universally accepted by the scientific
community. A scientific theory has content, in spades. By this definition
(and powerful arguments can be made against any other) there are only about
a dozen scientific theories that I can think of right off the bat, and no
scientific theories have ever existed which are not currently accepted.
Examples would be the modern atomic theory, theory of plate tectonics,
Einstein's theories of relativity, the microbe theory of disease, the
heliocentric theory, the modern synthetic theory of evolution, the
gene/chromosome/DNA/RNA theory of inheritance/protein synthesis.  (If you
can think of more than a dozen, please let me know—I’m interested in coming
up with an exhaustive list.)”
 
I would be greatly interested in your comments on these two pieces,
specifically including the parts with which you find fault.
 
Additionally, I urge you to pick one—any one—of the “scientific” assertions
touted by the so very, very wrongly named Discovery Institute, and then
defend it based on your own understanding.
 
Dr. Behe is, frankly, a charlatan (see the attached 12 page excerpt of the
Dover opinion if it actually comes through as an attachment, or see pages 24
through 35 of the opinion itself if it does not).  
Behe has suckered countless scientifically illiterate people into believing
that ID meets the standards necessary to be called Science, yet in his own
sworn testimony in the Dover case (see attached) he admits that he claims
that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to
which one believes in the existence of God.  It appears, meaning no
disrespect, that you are not up to date on the philosophies of logic and
science (no shame in that; how many are?), since you have not been able to
unscramble the dishonest, blatheringly “technical” writings of the so-called
ID “scientists”—accepting instead what fits your religious belief system.  
 
For example, what you see as “strange,” about particle state simultaneity,
(thereby making it okay for you to go with what is clearly a faith-based,
fundamentalist belief that there is “science” in ID “theory”) is only
strange if you don’t know about the rapidly accelerating understandings and
growing sophistication of physics and mathematics.  And to say that Darwin’s
theory “. . . posits that ‘weak’ or ‘negative’ traits are ‘weeded out’”
betrays a narrow understanding of the subject.  To use the genetically
inherited disease example betrays a “new world” time bias and a lack of
understanding of geologic time and, consequently, of the eons-long process
that is the backbone of the Theory of Evolution.
 
I realize that it is a somewhat unkind suggestion (because while immensely
fascinating and informative, it is truly a slog to get through, and you,
like I did, will probably find a good deal of it too technically demanding
to fully understand unless you have at least a Ph.D. in Biology) that you
read (or at least read Chapter One of) Stephen Jay Gould’s The Structure of
Evolutionary Theory.  If you are truly committed to arguing in support of ID
and to the anti-scientific thinking that must of necessity accompany it,
this is a must—-particularly when you have elected to pass along selectively
misleading quotes from Darwin.  Gould is widely misrepresented as being a
doubter about evolution theory.  That is a slander of the highest order, as
you would know if you read his numerous works on the subject.  Gould’s fine
tuning of how evolution works—his theory of punctuated equilibrium and his
revolutionary classification scheme to name a couple—is anything but a
rejection of Darwin’s theory, nor is Darwin’s own later “principle of
divergence,” itself almost on a par with natural selection (some would say
equal in importance) either an indication that he was uncertain about the
substance of his idea or something that could give comfort to Intelligent
Design (Reconstituted Creationism pure and simple, as demonstrated in the
record.  (Again, see the Dover opinion’s exhaustive analysis.)).
 
The first paragraph of Gould’s book cited above:
 
“In a famous passage added to later editions of the Origin of Species,
Charles Darwin (1872, p. 134) generalized his opening statement on the
apparent absurdity of evolving a complex eye through a long series of
gradual steps by reminding his readers that they should always treat
“obvious” truths with skepticism.  In so doing, Darwin also challenged the
celebrated definition of science as “organized common sense,” as championed
by his dear friend Thomas Henry Huxley.  Darwin wrote: “When it was first
said that the sun stood still and world turned round, the common sense of
mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox Populi, vox
Dei [the voice of the people is the voice of God], as every philosopher
knows, cannot be trusted in science.”   


 
That quantum physics might be beyond your understanding is no reason to
apply the out-dated and illogical “common sense” model in support of a
“Science” that is neither falsifiable nor replicatable.  To use the
expression “peer reviewed” in the context of published works in support of
ID is unenlightened.  You have obviously chosen to ignore the modern-day
parallels with Galileo’s epic run-ins with the Inquisitors of the Catholic
Church in the 17th century (as alluded to in the Gould quote).  I could go
on and on with similar examples, although that one is pretty rich and hard
to top.
 
If you take a keenly objective look at the so-called peer reviewed
publications in which the Discovery Institute cited “top scientists in the
world” have published, you will find that many, if not most, are the kinds
that require the author to pay to be published.  There is peer review and
there is peer review.  See the following from Wikipedia:
How it (peer review) works.
Peer review subjects an author's work or ideas to the scrutiny of one or
more others who are experts in the field. These referees each return an
evaluation of the work, including suggestions for improvement, to an editor
or other intermediary (typically, most of the referees' comments are
eventually seen by the author as well). Evaluations usually include an
explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often
chosen from a menu provided by the journal or funding agency. Most
recommendations are along the lines of the following:
• to unconditionally accept the manuscript or proposal,
• to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways,
• to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission
• to reject it outright.
During this process, the role of the referees is advisory, and the editor is
under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees.
Furthermore, in scientific publication, the referees do not act as a group,
do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each
other's identities. There is usually no requirement that the referees
achieve consensus. Thus the group dynamics is substantially different from
that of a jury. In situations where the referees disagree about the quality
of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision.
Traditionally reviewers would remain anonymous to the authors, but this is
slowly changing. In some academic fields most journals now offer the
reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not; papers sometimes contain,
in the acknowledgments section, thanks to (anonymous or named) referees who
helped improve the paper.
At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically
falls to an editor. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews
from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a
willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies
typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the
arrival of applications.
In some disciplines, such as computer science, there exist refereed venues
(such as conferences and workshops). To be admitted to speak, scientists
must submit a scientific paper (generally short, often 15 pages or less) in
advance. This paper is reviewed by a "program committee" (the equivalent of
an editorial board), who generally requests inputs from referees. The hard
deadlines set by the conferences tend to limit the options to either accept
or reject the paper.
Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close
colleagues, relatives, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the
editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual
editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they
consider qualified to referee their work. Authors are sometimes also invited
to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they
may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of
conflict of interest).
Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because academic writing
typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialties, and
may not be experts in any of them, since editors may be full time
professionals with no time for scholarship. But after an editor selects
referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to
disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific
journals, to each other. Policies on such matters differ between academic
disciplines.
Scientific journals observe this convention universally. The two or three
chosen referees report their evaluation of the article and suggestions for
improvement to the editor. The editor then relays the bulk of these comments
to the author (some comments may be designated as confidential to the
editor), meanwhile basing on them his or her decision whether to publish the
manuscript. When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews
for the same manuscript, the editor often will solicit one or more
additional reviews as a tie-breaker.
As another strategy in the case of ties, editors may invite authors to reply
to a referee's criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie.
If an editor does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a
rebuttal, the editor may solicit a response from the referee who made the
original criticism. In rare instances, an editor will convey communications
back and forth between authors and a referee, in effect allowing them to
debate a point. Even in these cases, however, editors do not allow referees
to confer with each other, and the goal of the process is explicitly not to
reach consensus or to convince anyone to change their opinions. Some medical
journals, however, (usually following the open access model) have begun
posting on the Internet the pre-publication history of each individual
article, from the original submission to reviewers' reports, authors'
comments, and revised manuscripts.
After reviewing and resolving any potential ties, there may be one of three
possible outcomes for the article. The two simplest are outright rejection
and unconditional acceptance. In most cases, the authors may be given a
chance to revise, with or without specific recommendations or requirements
from the reviewers.
While I certainly have not looked at all of them, I urge you to see how many
of the “peer reviewed” publications used by the “world famous scientists”
have the kind of general policies for authors that, for example, the journal
Science specifies in the following:
General Policies
By submitting to us, authors implicitly agree to a number of editorial and
publishing policies that are central to our mission. While many of these
policies are associated mainly with original research published in Science,
philosophically they underlie our approach across all of our publications. 
• Any reasonable request for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify
the conclusions of the experiments reported must be honored.
• Informed consent was obtained for studies on humans after the nature and
possible consequences of the studies were explained.
• Care of experimental animals was in accordance with institutional
guidelines.
• Before publication, large data sets, including protein or DNA sequences,
micro array data, and crystallographic coordinates, must be deposited in an
approved database and an accession number provided for inclusion in the
published paper, under our database deposition policy.
• Authors retain copyright on most content, but agree to grant to AAAS an
exclusive license to publish the content in print and online.
• Authors agree to disclose all affiliations, funding sources, and financial
or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of
bias.
• The paper will remain a privileged document and will not be released to
the press or the public before publication (for more information, please see
entry on our embargo policy).
• By submitting a manuscript, the corresponding author accepts the
responsibility that all authors have agreed to be so listed and have seen
and approved the manuscript, its content, and its submission to us. Any
changes in authorship must be approved in writing by all the original
authors.
• We will not consider any paper or component of a paper that has been
published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere. Distribution
on the Internet may be considered prior publication and may compromise the
originality of the paper or submission. Please contact the editors with
questions regarding allowable postings under this policy.
 
And, finally, I leave you with a definition that I think aptly applies to
“Intelligent Design” and to the activities of the Behes and the Discovery
Institutes of the world:
Doublespeak.
The language of disinformation is a subset of euphemisms. In the words of a
leading text on the subject: "Doublespeak is language that pretends to
communicate but really doesn't. It is language that makes the bad seem good,
the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least
tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility,
LANGUAGE THAT IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS REAL OR PURPORTED MEANING.  IT IS
LANGUAGE THAT CONCEALS OR PREVENTS THOUGHT; RATHER THAN EXTENDING THOUGHT,
DOUBLESPEAK LIMITS IT."  William Lutz, Doublespeak 1 (1989). (Emphasis
mine)  

In the language of doublespeak, poor people are "fiscal underachievers";
street people are "non-goal-oriented members of society"; prostitutes are
"sexual-service providers"; graffiti sprayers are "wall artists"; and
students whose grades are borderline are "emerging students."

Although doublespeak is commonly associated with George Orwell=s 1984, the
term he used in that book was "Newspeak." But the idea is the same.

For good treatments of doublespeak, see Lutz's text cited above or several
earlier works: Mario Pei, Words in Sheep's Clothing (1969), Double-Speak in
America (1973), and Weasel Words: The Art of Saying What You Don't Mean
(1978); William Lambdin, Doublespeak Dictionary (1979); and Hugh Rawson, A
Dictionary of Euphemisms & Other Doubletalk (1981).
 
If you choose to respond I would be grateful.
 
Sincerely,
 
George Milman
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Dover Area School Dist - partial opinion.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 6105062 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060104/6675aa41/DoverAreaSchoolDist-partialopinion-0001.pdf