There’s a lot of discussion of censorship swirling around the ID/evolution/online world right now, which I find very odd. Apparently the magazine Nautilus has closed a comment thread (without apparently deleting any comments) on the basis that “This is a science magazine, and our comments section isn’t the place to debate whether evolution is true”.
Accusations of “censorship” by “evolutionists” have been flying around for a while now, at least since the Expelled movie and it resurfaced regarding the withdrawal of the Biological Information: New Perspectives book from the Springer catalogue. And now, recently, Jerry Coyne has been named “Censor of the Year” by the Discovery Institute.
My own instincts tend against censorship, and although I do not think that all censorship is bad, I would certainly rather err on the side of too little than too much. Here, as I hope everyone knows, only a very narrow class of material is ever deleted, and only a very narrow class of offenses bring down a ban.
But what is censorship, and who, if anyone, is censoring whom in the ID/evolution debate?
Merriam Webster defines the verb to censor as
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages
So by this definition, any editing process that involves filtering out “objectionable” contributions or content amounts to “censorship”. But that merely passes the definitional buck on to the world “objectionable”.
For censor as a noun, it gives as its first definition:
1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as
- a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
- b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
So now we have the additional concept of material “considered sensitive or harmful”. And if we check the definition of censorship, Merriam Webster gives as its first:
we find that being “exercised repressively” is also key to English usage. So let me define, for the purpose of this post, to censor as:
- [to examine in order] to suppress or delete anything the censor considers objectionable, sensitive, harmful, especially when exercised repressively.
So to what extent, if any, are ID challenges to evolution actually subject to repressive censorship by pro-evolutionary institutions? And to what extent, if any, are evolutionary challenges to subject to repressive censorship by ID institutions?
And while I realise this is a sensitive subject, let’s try to discuss it with as little rancour as possible!
Yeah, that makes sense given that ~50% of USAmericans believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
It does seem rather odd that the United States, among developed countries, has the highest percentage of people doubting evolution, has never elected an atheist to high political office, has no prominent atheists at all except a couple of biology bloggers — and is yet the worldwide headquarters of atheism.
Egregious bullshit.
The only reason religion ever comes up in biology is because a near majority of Americans reject mainstream biology and geology. And a very large minority reject physics.
Gregory,
Lazy labelling – I’m not a USAmerican, I’m a UK…ian.
The relation I referred to holds within cultural groups. I did not suggest that the-entire-world-as-a-bucket is the relevant arena for the comparison. Indeed, for a proper analysis it would be essential to correct for cultural differences. Otherwise a huge nation consisting mostly of atheists, or another of mostly Christian fundamentalists, would skew the results with irrelevant noise.
Are you saying I’m wrong – that religious proclivity (correcting for cultural background) is NOT correlated with scientific literacy? Obviously, not looking for a survey, just an opinion.
It’s also a lazy argument.
Labeling, stereotyping.
Gregory’s atheist could easily be changed to Jew or nigger or any other epithet. Not only could be, but has been. I’m somewhat surprised that he considers this to be advanced and enlightened.
I don’t see your “variety of ‘censorship'” against theism here. (I certainly do see a majority of atheists, or at least a “vocality” of atheists, but that’s not the same.) Can you give me some specific examples so that I know what you’re referring to?
ToE says complex organisms evolved from single celled simple organism. If there are issues with this basic concept , then certainly there is problem with ToE credibility.
I think this is largely a myth perpetrated by those with an ideological agenda. Just in the US:
Some facts from her study:
I think that the predominance of atheists in the NAS has more to do with that particular cultural climate than anything else. Eckland says that scientists rarely went public about their faith to their colleagues fearing a negative reaction, which indicates an anti-theistic bias – probably one they had to consider during their academic career.
I think the correlation between higher levels of atheism in certain scientific fields in some countries is being mistaken as a causal relationship between “higher education” or “higher intelligence” and atheism. As Gregory pointed out with other countries, and as history shows, it is much more likely that anti-theistic cultural bias in higher education and in particular countries in particular fields is much more likely to be the reason for the disparities that actually exist from the general population.
Here are the numbers from Ecklund’s book:
But those are religious affiliations. Let’s take a look at religious beliefs:
So among elite scientists, atheists and agnostics comprise 64 percent, deists 8 percent, theists 28 percent. General public: 6 percent, 10 percent, and 84 percent.
That’s a pretty stark difference.
We had a big thread asking whether there should be a distinction between atheist and agnostic.
I think there is an important distinction, and apparently 30 percent of scientists do also.
Gregory lumps all nonbelievers together. Since he does not notice or care that some people spend time thinking about religion without believing, I can only assume he has some unexpressed reason.
I find it rather rude that someone talks so much about how other people think without having any curiosity at all about what they think.
The theory of evolution says that there is a material mechanism by which complex organisms could have evolved from single-celled simple organisms, and evidence that they descended from single-celled simple organisms.
In other words we have two independent theories: the theory of adaptive evolution by means of heritable variance in reproductive theory; and the theory of common descent.
Both are massively supported by data. The first has been shown to occur in lab, field and in silico. The second is supported by both morphological and molecular phylogenetics.
So we have the pattern of living things that, pace Meyer, hugely indicate common descent, and we also have a mechanism, which we know works, for populations adapting, evolving, and diverging over time.
What we don’t know are a lot of details of that mechanism, and how well it maps on to certain transitions. For instance, there is still a huge amount we don’t know about how variance is generated, and how variance-generation itself might have evolved over time. And we don’t know how the earliest cells came from non-living matter, or how they made some of key leaps, for instance to DNA-based heritability.
And it may well be that we find mechanisms so far unthought-of that are/were probably involved.
So of course there “are issues”. But there is a huge difference between, in effect, having a jig-saw puzzle that is already taking place very nicely, but with a lot of pieces still to fit, and a few pieces still to find, and saying: oh, we don’t have any pieces that seem to fit this part, so the rest of it must be all wrong.
Arguments that because the ToE can’t yet explain everything (and it never will, any more than the theory of gravity can ever account for the exact trajectory of a given piece of smashed crockery), therefore it is fundamentally wrong are, well, fundamentally wrong. And yet that is all ID has: for all the protestations to the contrary, ID never gets further than Designer-of-the-Gaps.
And the way science approaches gaps is to try to find mechanisms that account for them. It doesn’t give up and say: too complicated, must have been a Designer.
If IDists really thought that a Designer designed living things, there are loads of things they could do to derive testable hypotheses. But I’m forced to conclude that they don’t really think it. They believe it. And what they believe is that the Designer was God. And you can’t test God.
If I really thought that a Designer must have designed living things, the first thing I would do is try to find out what the putative designer’s designs told me about the nature of the designer. That’s what archaeologists do, that’s what forensic scientists do, that’s what SETI researchers would do if they ever got a candidate signal – all examples regularly touted by ID proponents as supposed rebuttals to the non-case thought to be made (but not made) by scientists that Design can’t be inferred from a material configuration.
As J.S. Haldane is said to have responded when asked what the study of nature told him about the Creator: “An inordinate fondness for beetles”.
Any objective conclusion (see the Pan-hoot thread) about a designer made from the observation of living things would conclude:
In other words, the “designer” has all the characteristics of an evolutionary process, and not many of the characteristics of an omniscient, omnipotent deity who created the universe in order to bring human beings into existence.
I think the only distinction is the social stigma of the word “atheist.” As I noted in that thread, if you don’t believe in a god or gods, you are an atheist. It’s a strict dichotomy, you either believe or you don’t.
The only reason people claim to be agnostic about gods but not about leprechauns is that the god delusion (hmm, great name for book) is so prevalent in our culture. I suspect there are people who claim to be agnostic about elves and trolls in Iceland, for similar reasons.
William J. Murray,
As I was careful to point out, correlation is not causation. And … I could be wrong. As a scientifically-inclined individual, I would be foolish to expect the world to conform to my worldview. Nonetheless it appears that the correlation holds. You provided evidence to support the conclusion that it doesn’t, then argue on causation as if it does.
So, there is no bias in the distribution, but actually there is?
20 second count. Well, then you should have said “*US* nonbelievers.”
There’s often not much between agnostics and atheists. And at least in the ‘western’ sense that applies to almost everyone here. A 70 yr-old atheist (like ‘petrushka’) is still sad and usually quasi-nihilistic, in most global contexts.
Censorship of that which acknowledges agnostic-atheist worldview despair is a likely card being played here at TSZ where nothing hopeful is offered. At least KN speaks honestly about this.
Patrick,
Similar stigma applies to the word ‘Creationist”. ID is weak Creationism, well short of the 6-day variety but always invoking some kind of deliberate interference of a non-human variety. Strenuous efforts are made to distance supporters from Creationsm’s negative associations.
Near true (“Single celled” isn’t a necessary part of the description), but it’s not the subject of every discussion of every aspect of the ToE.
Sounds like a proposal for a study to me? Why don’t you try and get some funding for this?
The problem is the first two words in the paragraph I’ve quoted.
What you think is of little consequence. If, however, you want to move your thoughts onto an objective level then propose and perform a study about anti-theistic cultural bias in higher education and put your claims about it onto a solid footing then you should do so!
As it seems to me the problem with ID in general is much “I think” and little “I showed”.
Gregory, learn the difference between censorship and non-participation.
WJM, who has no confidence in the objectivity of evidence, citing scientific studies again…
Please cite evidence of censorship of “that which acknowledges agnostic-atheist worldview despair” at TSZ.
Because if it has happened here, I want to know about it. It would be absolutely against the site principles.
It looks as if I might have to dispute that. According to Barry Arrington, mathematicians are people of faith. And I’m a mathematician.
Arrington also seems to be saying that God could not be omniscient, because of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.
The mind boggles.
Lizzie,
[my emphasis]
Didn’t necessarily happen. Just ‘likely’!
I would like to ask Barry if God is not omniscient, just how scient is He?
Is He perhaps, like a kid who lights a fire, not knowing where it will spread?
This is an amusing line of thought, coming from Barry.
olegt,
I didn’t say there wasn’t a difference. I said that the difference isn’t necessarily causal with regards to intelligence or education – by “education”, I’m not referring to the ideological pressures and biases in those most affected sciences, but rather the actual information and facts.
I think theism/atheism are, for the most part by most people, caused by cultural and or emotional considerations, and really has little if anything to do with education per se or intelligence.
I am not agnostic about the existence of revealed gods. That they are human inventions seems certain.
I am agnostic about the origin of existence and about other mystical stuff. I am of the don’t know and there’s no way to find out school. Call it a sense of wonder.
That post is quite bizarre. It’s as though Barry cannot conceive of a conclusion held provisionally, and subject to change in the light of more evidence. Or even that one might conclude that something is unknowable.
Which is sort of odd in a lawyer.
Ah.
Well, not on my watch.
Does LNC require faith?
The atheist/agnostic count came only to 25%, indicating that it is culture, not intelligence or education per se, that is responsible for the theistic/religious positions of scientists.
William J. Murray,
No-one, to my knowledge, has offered a causal argument. As I already said, I was careful to leave causal arguments to proper studies.
I simply noted the bias, which both yourself and Gregory have variously denied (“I think this is largely a myth perpetrated by those with an ideological agenda.”) and agreed (“I didn’t say there wasn’t a difference”).
It was originally a suggestion as to one possible reason (there are several others) why TSZ may be atheist-heavy.
Of course! Because that’s how causation works. Only one thing affects another thing. A > B. Bingo!
You might want to go and study causation before making statements that those that have may regard as foolish.
TSZ is atheist-heavy for an obvious reason; it was begun and populated by atheists, who then excoriated all non-atheists and made it clear that the “in group” held their views in contempt and that they were unwelcome here as anything other than an object to gleefully ridicule, dismiss and attack.
Liz may not operate that way personally, but she allows it to go on and so has set the de facto, practical mission statement for TSZ: skepticism of anything but materialism, atheism, naturalism, darwinism, scientism is joyfully engaged in. You have a clique of people here that believe similarly enough on major issues that they can enjoy a group thrashing of non-conformists whenever they pipe up with something outside of the approved group-think.
There are only certain kinds of skeptics that are embraced by the in-group at TSZ. This isn’t “the skeptical zone”; the is “The Skeptical About Things We Believe Are Not True” zone.
Big deal. Who isn’t skeptical about things they don’t believe to be true?
William. All but Joe (porn poster) Gallien are welcome here to frankly exchange views. Uncommon Descent does not allow that due to its totalitarian moderation policies. Perhaps there’s a reason that IDists shy away from more open venues? There is nothing to stop them flooding this place other than the strength of their arguments.
Correct me if I’m wrong but haven’t you spoken up defending the censorship at UD?
William J. Murray,
*shrug*.
Make your case. Let your substance trump their style.
It was begun by me. And the first people I invited were people at TSZ. Gil wrote an early OP.
No they didn’t. A few might have excoriated non-atheists, but several theists excoriated atheists. And either way, that stuff mostly gets moved to guano. And please do not equate “ID-opponent” with “atheist”.
There is no rule at TSZ against holding views in contempt. You yourself have frequently held the views of those you disagree with in contempt, and you are perfectly at liberty to do so.
Bullshit. Yes, there have been violations of the ruleset, and no, they have not always been moved to guano, but I’ve seen plenty of mudslinging, frankly, from both sides, and, if anything, I’m more prone to move anti-ID mud than pro. I’m aware that it isn’t much fun defending a majority opinion.
There is no “de facto mission statement” at TSZ. There is a “mission” statement, and that is the only one there is. I tend to encourage light-handed moderation precisely because I would rather err on the side of not censoring than censoring, but if there is a minority of ID proponents at TSZ it’s not for want of welcoming them.
That is inevitable in any forum for discussion. Do you think it’s any different at UD? The difference here is that here, those who differ my own position are not banned. Another difference is that I have a clear set of rules, and when I, or the other moderators, move posts, we make it clear why, and we do not delete them. I also give OP posting rights to theists, ID proponents, whoever wants to post. There’s absolutely no reason why the ID supporters at of UD, for example shouldn’t come here and outnumber the ID opponents. I’ve already given Barry OP posting rights. But one big difference between the two sites, worth noting, as they do have quite a lot in common otherwise is that this one is full of people who have been banned at UD, while UD contains a single person who has been banned here, and that banning had nothing to do with his ID views.
Actually, I’d say it was the “Skeptical About Things We are Not Persuaded By” zone. And that includes your views on evolution and atheism as much as it includes my views on ID and theism.
Precisely. As a friend of mine I like to quote used to say: “of course I think I’m right! If I thought I was wrong, I’d change my mind!”
My aim for this site is for it to be a place where people feel safe to change their minds. It’s not easy, but it’s my aim nonetheless. I’ve changed my own mind fairly radically in my life, as have you, William. We know it can be done. But it requires that we consider it possible that we are mistaken.
Let us lead the way 🙂
Absolutely. I am absolutely in favor of privately owned or operated venues censoring out that which they find harmful or detrimental to the purposes of the venue.
My point to Liz was, there’s a reason few outside of the group-think come here and participate, and then when leaving refer to it with common negative terminology. Outsiders experience TSZ differently than insiders, which is why they are not lining up to post here. How I experience TSZ is similar to what they say about it after visiting here and looking it over.
I’m probably the most skeptical person here, because I don’t accept any proposition whatsoever as true, other than “I exist”. I’m skeptical of all things, but not to the point of philosophical apoplexy. I elect to believe things only in the sense of acting as if those things are true, willing to dispose of them if something better comes around.
It doesn’t get much more skeptically practical than that. But yet, because i have decided it is in my best interests to be a theist instead of an atheist, I’m still the mocked and ridiculed outsider here. “Skepticism” is not the principle that binds people to this site.
It was more the ‘mind powers’ thing and ‘lack of big boy pants’ that got my ridicule, to be honest.
I’d suggest reasons there is narrow participation are:
[]Specialist and not widely popular subject matter
[] Those with opposing viewpoints are not interested in debate but in reinforcing a dogmatic worldview, so they hide in behind the walls of their heavily censored venues.
There’s a difference between open minded and gaping.
And there’s a difference between welcoming you to a discussion and agreeing with you.
I don’t see the problem. I’ve posted for years at places where I am reviled. I don’t ask for agreement. I only ask not to be banned for the content of my argument.
William J. Murray,
I don’t think those choices are the reason you are mocked and ridiculed. I think it’s your manner. We all play some part in generating our environment. You of all people must recognise that, positive-visualisation enthusiast that you are. I suspect that the response you get is the response you want to get.
Of course not. It’s common interest.
No, I’m pretty sure that if I had the same manner but was materialist/atheist and piled on to the attack when theists arrived,my “manner” would be not only tolerated but even appreciated/embraced.
You guys tolerate a bunch of stuff you know is crap from your own here. If I find someone’s manner disagreeable, I stop or limit my interaction with them. In any event, is mocking and ridiculing someone for their manner something that should be participated in or tolerated?
To quote….me:
“’m sorry but the guilt-trip bus left without me. If you’re going to pontificate on other’s morality, you’d best have your big boy pants on. Not being able to chuckle at your own expense might make things hard for you. These weren’t even close to the mean words I could have written.”
Also, Keiths is on the money: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=2926&cpage=2#comment-27956
Myrray, you have been mocked because when you first came here you said things to the effect that you could change reality. that is, make things happen by belkieving that they would happen.
That could well be a distortion of your intended meaning, but it is the meaning that many of us perceived.
So it wasn’t your manner that was mocked, It was you ideas.
I don’t know whether we misconstrued you, whether you presented yourself badly, or what, but that’s what happened. You are not completely out of the woods on that, even after several months.
When you come to an internet form you are marketing yourself and your ideas. If they aren’t appreciated, you need to try different approaches. And consider the possibility you may need to reformulate your ideas.
petrushka said:
You say that as if expressing that view should cause others to mock and ridicule, as if it somehow intrinsically justifies the mocking and the ridiculing. I suggest that that would only be true if those doing the mocking and the ridiculing felt so certain (unskeptical) of their own views that sufficiently divergent views somehow warranted mocking and ridiculing.
Manner or ideas, is ridicule and mocking the hallmark of a skeptic? Or of those so certain of their own views that the feel mocking and ridiculing is warranted for those views sufficiently divergent?
As if I have to justify my views in a way this particular clique finds palatable? I doubt I’ll be enough of a conformist to care that I’m in or out of “the woods” here, or at UD.
No, I’m not; no, I don’t; and the only reason I would have to reformulate my ideas is if they are not serving me well for the purposes they are intended.
I don’t care if my ideas are appreciated; nor do I care that I am mocked and ridiculed. As I have said before, I have all the love, appreciation and respect I need in real life. I don’t search it out on the internet.
I only pointed it (the mocking and ridicule) out in relation to a discussion about why more skeptics who are not atheists/materialists/naturalists/Darwinists don’t find this site appealing.
Richardthughes said:
Thanks for giving an example and providing a link (Liz’s assertions of guano-policing notwithstanding) of the very thing I was making a point about.
I can’t speak for others, but I am a scientific skeptic and most certainly not a philosophical skeptic.
I agree we err on the tolerant side, but I would still claim it’s fairly even-handed. And to be honest, I don’t think it’s worse that atheists get at UD before they are booted.
But. as I said, there is no rule here against pulling an argument to pieces. It’s the personal stuff I have rules about.
William, apparently the “very thing you’re talking about” is calling you out on your hypocrisy. No free pass, my friend.
Yes, if it is meant in the ordinary sense of the words, I think it is bait for ridicule.
If your intended meaning is that your beliefs affect your behavior and that your behavior changes the world, that could be true, but not particularly original.
William J. Murray,
So you are advocating I censor or censure people for their manner?
I merely offer the observation. I don’t find it disagreeable, but you are deliberately provocative. What you do with the info is your business – it is not a criticism per se; if it doesn’t matter to you it doesn’t matter full stop. But a common approach from UD is to enter fists flailing and retreat complaining about the reception – PaV, Brent, Mung come to mind. Gregory too, though he is a lone wolf.
There are those on the evo side (not here particularly) whose manner makes me cringe. I don’t usually criticise them for it, any more than I see you rebuke Joe, BA77 etc for the way they come across. Tu quoque. Your observations about how TSZ looks to the outsider apply to UD with knobs on – we’ve all spent time there.
Partisanship may be a part of it, but I think it as much to do with whether you are having a personal interaction. Most of my interaction is with people I’m debating with, almost inevitably that is the ‘other side’. I have little cause to stick my nose in a debate I’m not having in order to chastise a participant.
I was as civil at UD as I am here – not obsequiously so, but well inside tolerance limits. But banned I nonetheless was.
I do think there is great danger in Echo Chambers. I think that is a real problem at UD. More broadly, I think it’s a problem whenever one view gains dominance, even where that view is broadly well-supported.
My intention here was NOT to build an Echo Chamber, but a place where people would be prepared to have their ideas challenged, not echoed.
Which is why I particularly welcome people whose hold ideas that are different to mine, and why we have guano. Perhaps I should use it more, I dunno.
My posts do get posted twice everywhere and I don’t why.
It might indeed just be to stop a disruption and not a censorship. On reflection this occurred to me.
anyways the issue of censorship is a issue.
No. I was responding to the specific claim that it is my “manner” that elicits mockery and ridicule.
If you set up a wild west saloon operating without any rules that carry significant consequences, don’t be surprised when a particular gang takes over, becomes obnoxious and everyone else steers clear.