Wednesday, January 16, 2013
What a Surprise!
David Klinghoffer is musing about his children, which has gotten him in trouble before.
This time it has lead him to this rather amazing admission:
Science has an antidote for confirmation bias, however. Because scientific results are subject to review by the scientific community as a whole, made up of people with diverse philosophical and scientific viewpoints, confirmation bias tends to be weeded out. To paraphrase (a little) philosopher of science David Hull, 'Scientists rarely refute their own pet theories. But that's all right. Their fellow scientists will be happy to oblige.'
The IDers, however, don't have or, truth be told, want that diversity of opinion. That's why they have their own in-house "journals" where ID advocates "peer review" the "work" of other ID advocates, which is then presented in churches or other religious institutions like Biola University.
The whole "science" of ID is based on the hope that wishing hard enough will make it so.
This time it has lead him to this rather amazing admission:
The whole project of ID and its close relative the scientific critique of Darwinian evolution, while certainly no proof of anybody's idea of God, lend powerful support to theistic belief. The great religious traditions prompt us to expect evidence of creative purpose in nature, and there it is.Real scientists have a term for that: "confirmation bias." One of the basic mechanisms of confirmation bias is that, consciously or unconsciously, when you expect ... or in the case of theists, strongly desire ... to find evidence to fit your pet hypotesis, you quickly seize on evidence that confirms your beliefs and ignore the evidence that does not fit with or even contradicts it.
Science has an antidote for confirmation bias, however. Because scientific results are subject to review by the scientific community as a whole, made up of people with diverse philosophical and scientific viewpoints, confirmation bias tends to be weeded out. To paraphrase (a little) philosopher of science David Hull, 'Scientists rarely refute their own pet theories. But that's all right. Their fellow scientists will be happy to oblige.'
The IDers, however, don't have or, truth be told, want that diversity of opinion. That's why they have their own in-house "journals" where ID advocates "peer review" the "work" of other ID advocates, which is then presented in churches or other religious institutions like Biola University.
The whole "science" of ID is based on the hope that wishing hard enough will make it so.
Comments:
<< Home
The whole "science" of ID is based on the hope that wishing hard enough will make it so.
One more time:
So ID could also stand for "In your Dreams!"?
One more time:
So ID could also stand for "In your Dreams!"?
So ID could also stand for "In your Dreams!"?
Either that or "I Doodit" as in[cough] self-stimulation.
Either that or "I Doodit" as in[cough] self-stimulation.
It's like they're not even trying anymore.
Of all the DIers, Klinghoffer has always been the one most likely to spill the beans. But I think they have resigned themselves to never getting ID per se into public schools and have to be satisfied with, as Klinghoffer calls it, "its close relative, the scientific critique of Darwinian evolution," i.e. all the old creationist arguments stripped of the "Designer" just as they originally stripped God from "Creation Science." Their biggest problem is getting the rubes to go along with the nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Of all the DIers, Klinghoffer has always been the one most likely to spill the beans. But I think they have resigned themselves to never getting ID per se into public schools and have to be satisfied with, as Klinghoffer calls it, "its close relative, the scientific critique of Darwinian evolution," i.e. all the old creationist arguments stripped of the "Designer" just as they originally stripped God from "Creation Science." Their biggest problem is getting the rubes to go along with the nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Have you noticed that Uncommon Descent has become non-stop atheism-bashing lately? I mean, seriously, that's all they do now.
Have you noticed that Uncommon Descent ...
I confess that I have long lost interest in UC. I use to keep a not too close weather eye on it when Dembski was posting regularly but when he turned it over to his merry band of syncophants I thought there were better things to do with my life. Now I count on others to alert me to the egregious results.
I confess that I have long lost interest in UC. I use to keep a not too close weather eye on it when Dembski was posting regularly but when he turned it over to his merry band of syncophants I thought there were better things to do with my life. Now I count on others to alert me to the egregious results.
It's not terribly interesting. I keep up with it, and sometimes post under a pseudonym, but the regulars are, at this point, not even terribly interesting people to talk with. A few have some knowledge of philosophy, theology, history, etc, but even they are not interested in so much as considering alternative viewpoints.
Post a Comment
<< Home
