Just out of interest … this word gets bandied about a lot, mainly by evolution opponents hereabouts. They seem to use it when a word with multiple meanings is used. The accusation tends not to be withdrawn even when the intended meaning is unequivocally clarified – a bizarre situation where someone commits to a meaning and is still equivocating!

A typical definition is “The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself”. There is a veiled hint of dishonesty – making an honest mistake with alternative definitions of a word is not strictly equivocation as defined there. That is, it is not merely ‘using ambiguous language’, still less ‘confusing two definitions of one word’, but purposefully being vague or misleading. But the use of the word rarely seems appropriate to me in the contexts in which it is used – generally, even the charge of ambiguity is unjustified, let alone nefarious motive. Numerous derails are provoked when one party says ‘you are equivocating’ and the other says ‘no I’m not’. I almost invariably find myself siding with (or being) the ‘no I’m not’ party (or, for self-referential funzies, “maybe I am, maybe I’m not”!).

Is this a quirk of American English (Americans forming the majority of opponents in these discussions)? Or is it a meme that has been unconsciously passed from one to another among the evolution-skeptical fraternity? Or something else?

For discussion on emergence, reality, objectivity, etc:

Simply put, liberals/progressives are the ones who, IMO, are going to utilize these services the most. So, yeah, the fewer babies they get to raise, and the earlier we can stop them from voting, the better. On the conservative side we have the Duggars and highly religious people breeding like crazy and clinging to life for every breath they can take – which puts and keeps more conservatives in the voting pool longer.

So, as a pragmatic political matter, I say let ’em abort their young and kill themselves off to their heart’s content.

Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial

Continue reading →

“Safe and sane” fireworks nearly continuous explosions since sunset here … at least I’m not hearing any gunfire.

Happy birthday to a nation conceived in liberty.

The case of a christian cake making couple refusing to make a wedding cake for lesbian couple in Oregon has made the news recently:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/02/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-fined-same-sex-wedding_n_7718540.html

That’s the HuffPo’s account, a publication that I find to be quite a crappy rag, made worse by endorsement of all things Chopra and Woo. There is much celebration of the ruling in some liberal circles, and I’m going to put a few general thoughts here before I continue:

• There are anti-discrimination laws in Oregon.
• The cake makers violated those laws.
• The couple should have a nice cake.
• Don’t pick a career that will conflict with your religious views (faith healing MD, Amish Arline Pilot, etc)

That being said, $135k damages for not getting a fucking cake?? And against a small business of people who don’t have the same religious views as me but seem pretty decent otherwise. Sure they could learn a little tolerance and empathy, but couldn’t we all? Speaking of which, here is a list of the ‘physical harm’ caused by not receiving the cake. (quick side note, I’m sure that friction with non-accepting factions of society is terrible and persistent and I wish it didn’t happen, but this is about NOT GETTING A CAKE):

“Mental Rape”? “Loss of appetite” and ‘Weight gain”? 88 symptoms in total. Have a read.

I think liberals need not hold up these folks as champions of equality. I’m calling bullshit on the monetary damages and the symptoms as well.

I wish the lesbian couple had forgiven the christian cake-makers, instead showing them their shared humanity and the positive values they can hold. Instead we fan the flames of the culture war and give the religious right something legitimate to gripe about; I can see no way that the damages are legitimate or that the ruling is in any way proportionate / fair. Legals scholars (we have a coupe I think) – please correct me if I have misunderstood any of this.

Same sex marriage is a constitutional right for all USAians, regardless of the homophobic, religiously-motivated bigotry in 14 state legislatures.

Chief Justice Kennedy writing the 5-4 decision:

Continue reading →

At UD, Barry has written another hypocritical OP criticizing former NBC anchor Brian Williams. I have some questions for him:

Barry,

Given your own deception and dishonesty, why are you so concerned with the deception and dishonesty of Brian Williams? Are you angry that he’s encroaching on your territory?

When will you explain what happened to Aurelio Smith’s comments, and why it happened?

Will you ever explain why you deleted this entire thread?

How do you reconcile your abysmal behavior with your claim of “having a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires”?

He has reified the abstract concept of gravity and attributed casual [sic] powers to the reified concept. It is easy to fall into that hole, and we should all watch out for it.
—Barry Arrington, June 18, 2015 at 3:10 pm

I hear from intelligent-design proponents that information is neither matter nor energy, is conserved by material processes, and is created only by intelligence. Would you please explain how they determined that intelligence is real, and not merely an abstraction? I’d like to see you contrast it with gravity.

Professor Hills and Professor Stephen Butterfill, from Warwick’s Department of Philosophy, created different descriptive models to explain the process behind the rat’s deliberation at the ‘choice points’.
One model, the Naive Model, assumed that animals inhibit action during simulation. However, this model created false memories because the animal would be unable to tell the differences between real and imagined actions.

…

“The study answers a very old question: do animals have a sense of self? Our first aim was to understand the recent neural evidence that animals can project themselves into the future. What we wound up understanding is that, in order to do so, they must have a primal sense of self.”

“As such, humans must not be the only animal capable of self-awareness. Indeed, the answer we are led to is that anything, even robots, that can adaptively imagine themselves doing what they have not yet done, must be able to separate the knower from the known.”

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-self-awareness-unique-mankind.html#jCp

In the wake of the Rachel Dolezal scandal, some voices on the right are trying (predictably) to draw a false equivalence between Dolezal and Caitlyn Jenner.  Why criticize Dolezal for assuming a black identity, they ask, if we praise Caitlyn Jenner for assuming a female one?

My answer: I criticize Dolezal for lying.  Dolezal lied repeatedly and Jenner didn’t. It’s that simple.

Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

The page is quite good, but I’d like the Math Gods that write here to give their thoughts on the relative strengths and applicability of the various models (T test, Chi squared and F-test / Anova)

I’d also welcome discussion on the null hypothesis and what that rejection of it does and doesn’t entail.

Questions welcomed, Design detectives feel free to contribute.

I thought about it. But decided not to.

First, as I have said, I think the boycott of UD is irrational. So why should I respond by doing something equally irrational? I shouldn’t.

Second, I think debate should be encouraged not discouraged. Boycotting the main site for the oppositon is hardly conducive to that end. To borrow a phrase from Elizabeth, there’s something asymmetrical here.

And third, I’m the real skeptic here. Unlike you poseurs.

Lots of interesting subjects raised in the UD is Dead Thread.

What is a body plan?
the capacity of the human mind to see what it wants to see
Is biology even science?
Is fantasy better than real life?
Where does the energy come from to move the goalposts?
If everyone accepts ID, why can’t it be science?
Materialism is dead matter
Is the flagellum manufactured or replicated?
is a self-replicating automaton even possible?
If not then entire machine metaphor needs to go. Or is it dead too?
In what sense are physical laws materialist?
Are crop circles made of crops?
Can you spell epistemological verificationism?
What is a genome?
The Multiple Designer Hypothesis

Don’t feel slighted Tom, I figure you’ll start your own thread when you get to it. 🙂
Unlike Gregory. Is there anything that is NOT designed?

Lots of folks on both sides of the ID divide have strong feelings about prominent New Atheists, particularly the “Four Horsemen” – Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens – and Jerry Coyne.

Here’s a thread in which to air your criticisms of them, or defend them, or a bit of both, as the spirit moves you.

A look at reasons not to have open and honest dialogue (Comments open)

KF has picked up on my previous thread here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-part-10-in-reply-to-rth-your-fyi-ftr-posts-are-a-bad-idea/

And to his credit he highlights my reasons why I think closed comments monologues do not represent an open and honest way to explore an issue.

I cannot find any of the points refuted but he instead suggests that “The central problem with this is that it (tellingly) brushes aside highly relevant context of abusive threadjacking and insistent accusations/insinuations in response to a thread here at UD that began: “Let’s discuss . . . “

Here is the link to that:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/design-inference/lets-discuss-elizabeth-liddle-i-do-not-think-the-id-case-holds-up-i-think-it-is-undermined-by-want-of-any-evidence-for-the-putative-designer/

KF claims that “An article that, from the opening words, was an invitation to civil discussion. Which, was met with a threadjacking stunt.”

That’s an interesting take. “…an invitation to civil discussion.”

I hold, as I think does EL and other objectors, that a fair venue is a prerequisite for a fair discussion. A place where people’s comments will not be altered and deleted. Discussions represent an investment of people’s time and UD has, shamefully in my opinion, broken trust with its participants by editing, shouting over and completely deleting the entire history of posters.

This is something that when we see it in history that most people find abhorrent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union

And UD as ID’s premier website does itself and its readers a disservice in engaging in it, without acknowledgement.

Having a good debate is helped by having the best venue possible and this is now clearly TSZ as it has a transparent and honest moderation policy, one that has very recently protected KF’s pseudo-anonymity. There is nothing stopping KF posting here unless he fears an honest playing field where he can’t arbitrarily control dialogue. It is the best venue for the reasons above.

If KF finds comments ‘not on topic at’ TSZ, he can simply ignore them. I think many people find massive holes in his FSCO/I concept (Dr. Ewert clearly being one of them) and this would provide him a forum to put his ideas to the test.

Should other entities in the world or on the ‘net be giving KF a hard time then he has TSZ’s sympathies and a statement that we do not endorse or support that sort of thing. There is no reason to try and link those events with TSZ unless you’re looking for an excuse not to have open dialogue.

So the ball’s in your court, KF. FSCO/I, or any other topic you choose.

From the Thinking about Free Will thread:

If self is the [physical decision-making] system…and the system is all the component parts that collect sensory input etc…does that mean if I lose component parts of myself that I am no longer myself? If I lose my arms, eyesight, hearing, etc…am I somehow less of a self?

Which parts of the system are self and which parts aren’t? And why?

Continue reading →

While I do not accept Elizabeth’s analysis of what divides us, I do share her desire to engage in a manner that values dialogue over diatribe.

Elizabeth:

So how to heal the rift, rather than drive the Wedge in further? It was always part of my vision for this site that we would try to do the former rather than the latter. It’s not easy, and we have not always been successful. But I am not despondent.

I don’t believe the rift can be healed. I believe the wedge is being driven in by multiple sides and it’s not possible to prevent the various sides from taking swings at it and driving it in further. Claims of “she hit me first” are childish at best, and unproductive.

So how to proceed. Well, first, I suggest a mutual respect. I think the desire for this is expressed in the site rules, in which respect each other becomes respect the rules, because the rules are worthy of respect, because we are each worthy of respect. Is that circular?

Think before you respond. Do I have something of substance to contribute? Is it possible I do not understand? Am I sure I am not misrepresenting the opposing view? Reduce trollish behavior.

Seek to understand. Dismissiveness is not a virtue. What are the propositions? What is the argument? What is the evidence?

ok, so far i’ve probably not said anything that anyone can disagree with, lol! This demonstrates that I am never wrong.

I do believe that in a past life I suggested a “book swap” approach. You pick a book then I pick a book. That went nowhere.

So what interests the regulars here at TSZ? Is ANTI-ID the general purpose of this site? I have lots of anti-ID books. We could look at their arguments.

I can’t promise that I’ll have time to engage deeply in any given topic, but I did try to come up with a list of topics of potential interest:

Biosemiotics
Causation
Code Biology
Genetic Algorithms
Materialism
Organisms and Artifacts
Philosophy of Science
Scientism

Other suggestions?

Governor Shumlin (reluctantly) signs legislation to remove philosophical or “personal belief” exemptions from vaccination law.

A 2012 version had allowed parents to claim a philosophical or so-called “personal belief” exemption for their children but required the parents to review “educational materials” before claiming it.  There was no way to enforce the educational mandate. There is no doubt that strategy did not work: areas of the state remain below 80% immunization rates necessary to protect the vulnerable population, those with compromised immune systems or too young to be vaccinated.  Meanwhile the rate of philosophical exemptions filed by parents of kindergartners climbed from 5.1% to 5.9% in 2014, and dense pockets of vaccine non-compliance in some communities provide the ideal environment for an epidemic to take hold.

Vermont was one of the three worst states for cases of whooping cough.  The record number of cases in 2012 should have been enough to get the 2012 bill turned around, but it wasn’t until the recent US outbreak of  measles that the Vermont legislature took a stand for public health.

It’s important to note that Vermont still retains a “religious” exemption from vaccination, as do 46 other states, and medical exemptions as do all 50 US states.    It doesn’t seem possible to predict parental response to vaccination requirements with regards to “personal” versus “religous” exemptions, but the data are certainly clear that allowing only medical exemptions gets vaccination rates up to 99.7%.

It’s nice not having measles in Mississippi.  Now, maybe it can be nice not having measles in Vermont, either.

,