Shoveling Guano at TSZ

Is a full time job.

At which the current batch of admins has dismally failed.

But then, it was never their job in the first place. They’re admins not baby sitters.

So why don’t they restrict themselves to administration and stop pretending to be moderators?

262 thoughts on “Shoveling Guano at TSZ

  1. Oh, wait, I remember this from before.

    It does exist, (FSCO/CSI/Whatever) but you don’t have an opinion in it, your only opinion is that it exists not that it actually is fit for purpose or anything.

    I claim I have an engine that can propel me to speeds faster then light. Do you agree that I have such an engine? Do you agree that I have such an engine without seeing a demonstration? As that’s what you are doing here by claiming these metrics exist (not work, exist) as if they don’t work they don’t exist!

  2. William J. Murray: As far as I know, IDists do not make that claim. They claim that evolution is in some way directed by intelligence, but they don’t assert that intelligence to be non-human.It appears to be non-human because it appears to have been originated and developed long before humans existed, and it appears to be well above our current pay grade in terms of ability,

    It seems well below it, too. Humans aren’t largely limited to using vertically-inherited information like most larger life-forms are.

    but that doesn’t necessarily mean that humans are not the ones who did the designing.

    The fact that it isn’t like human design, but like the results of unintelligent evolution, suggests that humans didn’t design life.

    It all depends on the conceptual framework one is using to make their models with. It’s certainly not my personal assertion that it was not humans that did the designing.

    Which is how useless ID gets as it ignores specificity of cause and effect. Analogize life with human creations, while ignoring all of the differences in results, and think that you’ve done science.

    Glen Davidson

  3. Kantian Naturalist: Oh, I see — in a million years, humans evolve into Time Lords, travel back in time to create life in order to guarantee their own evolution. I think I saw that episode!

    Note the role of “doesn’t necessarily” here. Once the bar for rational acceptability has been lowered to include all logical possibilities, there’s nothing left to distinguish science from science fiction.

    KN: sarcasm and ridicule usually isn’t your style. I’m sorry to see you contributing to the problem here. But, that’s what happens when moderation lets ridicule become the norm.

    I would expect that you, as a professional philosopher, would be familiar with the philosophical notion of backward causation.

    Physicist John Wheeler believed that we, as observers, backwards cause the fine tuning of the universe and other sequences of events. His ideas have been supported (not proven) experimentally via delayed choice and quantum eraser research.

    There is also the hypothesis that our existence is essentially a simulation that is being run by humans that have already advanced well beyond our current technology.

    So no, I don’t rule out that humans are responsible for the purported artifacts of design IDists point to.

  4. I’ve never seen William ridicule anything or anyone, ever. Oh, hang on …

  5. William J. Murray:
    Elizabeth,

    No, I meant when moderation lets ridicule become the norm.

    I just think that misplaces the primary agency. Ridicule would not “become the norm” (actually I dispute that, depending on what you mean by the norm) unless people posted ridicule. Not moderating against ridicule does not cause ridicule to become the norm.

    And I do not think we should moderate against ridicule. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument.

  6. “I don’t rule out that humans are responsible for the purported artifacts of design IDists point to.”

    It is clear, Murray, that you don’t speak for or on behalf of the IDM and that your ‘ideas’ about IDism do not accurately represent official IDism from the Discovery Institute.

    This is the kind of statement that makes your position so fuzzy & funny. As a quasi-theist of no particular variety, i.e. as an independent, autonomous anti-institutional ‘religious’ person, it’s unclear why you think anyone should ‘agree’ with you or even take your words seriously (more empty words than pretty much anyone else at TSZ).

    IDists actually do point to ‘purported artefacts’ that humans could not have ‘designed.’ This is their origins of life, origins of biological information and human origins focus. Human beings couldn’t have ‘designed’ any of those things, which are at the core of IDism. Your self-distorted interpretation of IDism is a joke.

  7. Gregory, I get the sense from many of your posts that you find it important, or at least useful, to pigeonhole everybody. There are U.S. Atheist Philosophists, and Official IDists, YECs, etc. And belonging to any of these groups seems to be, in your view, a bad thing.

    But in your post about William above, you also make his NOT belonging to any particular group a bad thing. To wit:

    As a quasi-theist of no particular variety, i.e. as an independent, autonomous anti-institutional ‘religious’ person, it’s unclear why you think anyone should ‘agree’ with you or even take your words seriously (more empty words than pretty much anyone else at TSZ).

    I infer from this that to receive your imprimatur there is but one choice to be made: make formal application to whatever group YOU belong to (I confess I don’t know what that is). Then, if officially accepted (presumably after passing the required exams), you’re OK.

    That’s jokey, I know, but I have a serious question in there. Group-think is apparently bad on your view, but so is independent-think. But doesn’t that just leave Gregory-think?

  8. William J. Murray,

    So you find the hypotheses that we are a simulation (run by humans???) or that an advanced race (of humans???) somehow reached back and caused their own ancestors to exist, to be more persuasive than the hypothesis that modern life results from a non-intentional winnowing of genetic alterations?

  9. walto, that isn’t even beginning to not know what you’re talking about. My views are quite standard. Abrahamic theism is embraced by more than 1/2 of the world. As an atheist, you slur when you should instead ask and think. Murray’s quasi-theism is simply distorted stuff and his ‘defense’ of IDism counts for very little because it is not actually IDM-IDism, but his own strangely fangled ideology that he is ‘defending’ here. And you TSZ folks, intent to oppose *any* theists, somehow get a charge out of challenging his curious quasi-theistic views, which are sadly nevertheless an outlier.

  10. William J. Murray: KN: sarcasm and ridicule usually isn’t your style.I’m sorry to see you contributing to the problem here.But, that’s what happens when moderation lets ridicule become the norm.

    I would expect that you, as a professional philosopher, would be familiar with the philosophical notion of backward causation.

    Physicist John Wheeler believed that we, as observers, backwards cause the fine tuning of the universe and other sequences of events.His ideas have been supported (not proven) experimentally via delayed choice and quantum eraser research.

    There is also the hypothesis that our existence is essentially a simulation that is being run by humans that have already advanced well beyond our current technology.

    So no, I don’t rule out that humans are responsible for the purported artifacts of design IDists point to.

    An abject lesson in the differences between open minded, skeptical and tragically gullible.

  11. Gregory: Abrahamic theism is embraced by more than 1/2 of the world.

    So, I may take it that that’s the good group?

  12. Elizabeth: Can you lay them out, simply?

    I’d think that any worldview encompassing half the population of the planet would have to be pretty vague. There is a world of difference, e.g., between George Fox’s version of Christianity and Isis.

    ETA: Furthermore, since the group likely comprises most of the members of the ID and YEC followers, (nevermind Catholic, High Church, Hasidic Jew, Low Church, and Shiia), I don’t see how one can frown on any particular sub-group based on its differences from the larger set.

    But as Gregory says, I don’t really know what I’m talking about here, so I should let him respond himself.

  13. Mung:
    You must be thinking about that other Mung. Don’t be a Gregory.

    You’re right Gregory, that was uncalled for. I apologize.

  14. Gregory said:

    …it’s unclear why you think anyone should ‘agree’ with you or even take your words seriously (more empty words than pretty much anyone else at TSZ).

    Except I don’t think that. I don’t expect anyone to take me seriously, nor do I think they “should” agree with me. How anyone here takes me, and whether or not they agree with me, is absolutely of no concern to me.

  15. Yeah, I don’t believe any of that either, William. (Sorry if this violates the “good faith” rule.) Nobody would argue, argue, argue, if they didn’t care if anybody agrees with them.

  16. OMagain: I think the trouble you and your ilk often have is if something cannot be provided spoonful by spoonful it’s a “literature bluff”.

    Um, yes. I have that book. What makes you think we don’t read books on evolution?

    I mean, if I am going to be any kind of reasonable “evolution denier” I ought to at least know what it is I am denying, right?

  17. Allan Miller said:

    So you find the hypotheses that we are a simulation (run by humans???) or that an advanced race (of humans???) somehow reached back and caused their own ancestors to exist, to be more persuasive than the hypothesis that modern life results from a non-intentional winnowing of genetic alterations?

    The way I interpret the hypothesis is that whatever humans actually are and wherever they originally existed/currently exist, they (we) are now running simulations that we inhabit for whatever reasons we have to enter into and experience these “virtual” worlds. That doesn’t mean they “went back in time” to cause their own origin, but rather have simply designed the history and sequences in this simulation in order to experience this kind of world. Actual humans might be eternal entities living in an eternally existent universe not driven by the kinds of laws we experience here. Again, that’s my interpretation of the hypothesis.

    And, I didn’t say I found any of it “more persuasive”. I said, I don’t rule it out, so when I talk about ID, I don’t necessarily mean “non-human” ID.

  18. walto:
    Yeah, I don’t believe any of that either, William.(Sorry if this violates the “good faith” rule.)Nobody would argue, argue, argue, if they didn’t care if anybody agrees with them.

    Then I have motivations that fall outside of your ability to fathom, walto 🙂

  19. “I don’t expect anyone to take me seriously”

    Why then on God’s green earth do you speak?

    I’m all for having a laugh. But the nonsense you spew is unprecedented (and confused quasi-theism disturbing) in ‘defense’ of IDism, which you don’t actually properly represent.

    “humans are responsible for the purported artifacts of design IDists point to.”

    This is simply false according to the Discovery Institute.

  20. I speak because to not speak is to cease to exist. I listen because to listen is to acknowledge that others exist.

  21. Gregory: Why then on God’s green earth do you speak?

    For my own benefit.

    I’m all for having a laugh. But the nonsense you spew is unprecedented (and confused quasi-theism disturbing) in ‘defense’ of IDism, which you don’t actually properly represent.

    Why are you concerning yourself with it? I don’t claim to be representing any official ID ism or the Discovery Institute.

  22. Alan Fox: You should consider the possibility that people can change their views and opinions in the light of persuasion and presentation of evidence. Maybe Mung is still on the fence regarding evolutionary theory and how good a model it is as a predictor of reality.

    In general terms I think common descent of all life is a reasonable working hypothesis and I don’t find this to be in conflict with my belief in God and Jesus Christ.

    I would hope that people here at TSZ would know by now that I say a great many things with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.

    So take that for what it’s worth. 🙂

    Does the common descent of all life rise to the level of fact? I do not say that I know it to be a fact. Am I being inconsistent? Does that make me an evolution denier?

  23. “For my own benefit.”

    Entirely self-serving goal.

    “I don’t claim to be representing any official ID ism or the Discovery Institute.”

    Check.

    Then come up with another name for the confused independent quasi-theistic ideology you promote instead because you simply muddy the waters in pretending you represent “Intelligent Design” BY USING THOSE EXACT SAME WORDS. Please stop piggybacking.

  24. Gregory: Entirely self-serving goal.

    Check.

    Then come up with another name for the confused independent quasi-theistic ideology you promote instead because you simply muddy the waters in pretending you represent “Intelligent Design” BY USING THOSE EXACT SAME WORDS. Please stop piggybacking.

    I don’t see that William claims to represent any such thing, Gregory.

  25. Gregory said:

    Entirely self-serving goal.

    Yes.

    Then come up with another name for the confused independent quasi-theistic ideology you promote instead because you simply muddy the waters in pretending you represent “Intelligent Design” BY USING THOSE EXACT SAME WORDS. Please stop piggybacking.

    That’s a reasonable request. How about my using the term “intentionality” and “intentionalism”? Or does that infringe upon an already-claimed terminology?

  26. After all, I stopped using the term “biological automaton” and “materialism” based on problematic issues here when employing those terms. I can accommodate Gregory’s request. I don’t really care what terms I use as long as they help with the communication.

  27. William J. Murray: That’s a reasonable request. How about my using the term “intentionality” and “intentionalism”? Or does that infringe upon an already-claimed terminology?

    Yeah, it does, but….who cares.

  28. tbh, I think it’s much better terminology. Even though Dembski explicitly excluded “intention” from his definition of “intelligence” I don’t, myself, think that it makes sense to exclude it, nor do I agree with his grounds (that it’s not a scientific question).

    The core argument, surely, is between those who think that life was intentionally designed by some intention-capable agent, and that the evidence supports this inference, and those who think that sure, it is the result of an intelligence-like process, but one that is not intentional – to use Dawkins’ adjective, a “blind” (i.e. lacking foresight and thus intention) process.

    The only problem I see with the term “intentionality” is that in philosophy it means something a bit different (and pretty incomprehensible frankly, at least to me).

    “Intentional Design” seems a better term than “Intelligent Design” as capturing what most ID proponents seem to be proposing.

  29. “How about my using the term “intentionality” and “intentionalism”?”

    Yes, imo that would solve the problem appropriately. I take it that you mean “intentional design”? That you would promote “intentional design” instead of “Intelligent Design”. Is that correct?

  30. Elizabeth: The only problem I see with the term “intentionality” is that in philosophy it means something a bit different (and pretty incomprehensible frankly, at least to me).

    Right, philosophers generally use intentionality and intentionalism to refer to “aboutness” or being OF something. So, e.g., words are intentional as are thoughts. Other things, like rocks and thumbs are not intentional in that way.

  31. Elizabeth,

    Murray hasn’t answered yet.

    And Lizzie, frankly, with your ‘freedom evolves’ ideology, you really can’t be trusted to agree on anything (for more than a moment).

  32. Gregory: Yes, imo that would solve the problem appropriately. I take it that you mean “intentional design”? That you would promote “intentional design” instead of “Intelligent Design”. Is that correct?

    Yep. Sounds like a plan.

  33. Elizabeth,

    Cuz yur ‘agreement’ may jus magikally ‘evolve’ (cf. master category: change) into sumpin else ‘by nature’, regardless of yur own fri will? 😉

    Dennett’s philosophistry has damaged you, Lizzie. You became an atheist. Sooner or later it’s time to wake up.

  34. William J. Murray,

    The way I interpret the hypothesis is that whatever humans actually are and wherever they originally existed/currently exist, they (we) are now running simulations that we inhabit for whatever reasons we have to enter into and experience these “virtual” worlds. That doesn’t mean they “went back in time” to cause their own origin, but rather have simply designed the history and sequences in this simulation in order to experience this kind of world. Actual humans might be eternal entities living in an eternally existent universe not driven by the kinds of laws we experience here. Again, that’s my interpretation of the hypothesis.

    And, I didn’t say I found any of it “more persuasive”. I said, I don’t rule it out, so when I talk about ID, I don’t necessarily mean “non-human” ID.

    If I had the faintest idea what any of that actually meant, in terms of explaining why we perceive physical humans, I might be in a better position to rule it in or out.

  35. Gregory:
    Elizabeth,

    Cuz yur ‘agreement’ may just magically ‘evolve’ into sumpin else ‘by nature’, regardless of your own free will?

    Well, no, that doesn’t follow. I know you like to use the word “evolution” in lots of different senses, but Dennett used the word in the biological sense. And in the biological sense, populations evolve, not individuals. He did not argue that an individual person’s “agreement” or “freedom” “evolves” – he argued that our capacity to be free – and, specifically, to take moral responsibility for our actions – evolved.

    So the fact that I found his book compelling has no bearing at all on the question as to whether I can be relied on.

    Dennett’s philosophistry has damaged you, Lizzie. Sooner or later it’s time to wake up.

    You have no evidence at all that it has “damaged” me, Gregory. You assume it has, but you seem to have a) misread his book (if you’ve read it at all) and b) made assumptions about you that are not supported by any evidence you have provided.

  36. Allan Miller,

    Here are some more hypotheses.

    1) The existence of life is beyond the probabilistic resources of the universe, but fortunately there are local fluctuations where very improbable things happen. The OoL was one such fluctuation. They don’t happen very often, so no use looking for ’em.

    2) Life as we know it resulted from the natural and unremarkable behaviour of molecules in a particular (but as yet unknown) physicochemical environment, ultimately forming a replicator which, owing to the dynamics of competitive replication, became better and better at it, and at the same time (in a small but self-important clade) more elaborate.

    3) Life cannot change without the involvement of an Intentional Agent.

    4) The world is run by fish.

    Which can we ‘rule out’, and why?

  37. Elizabeth: The core argument, surely, is between those who think that life was intentionally designed by some intention-capable agent, and that the evidence supports this inference, and those who think that sure, it is the result of an intelligence-like process, but one that is not intentional – to use Dawkins’ adjective, a “blind” (i.e. lacking foresight and thus intention) process.

    The only problem I see with the term “intentionality” is that in philosophy it means something a bit different (and pretty incomprehensible frankly, at least to me).

    I think that what philosophers are talking about, when they talking about the intentionality of thought, is intimately related to intentional action. There is, however, a very important difference: the intentionality of thought and of language consists of acts or activities, not of actions. When I order a coffee or buy some milk, the action is mine; I can assigned responsibility for doing or failing to do something that I have chosen to do.

    By contrast, very little of our thinking is voluntary. Though I can choose what to think about — “today I am going to solve this problem!” — I think that, for the most part, Nietzsche was right when he observed, “A thought comes when it wishes, not when I wish, so that it is a falsification of fact to say that the subject I is the condition of the predicate think” (if one can look past Nietzsche’s anthropomorphizing his own thoughts!). From this it follows — rightly, I think — that one cannot be held responsible for what one thinks, but only for what one does.

    I worry that “intentional design” is as redundant as “intelligent design”. (What would “non-intentional design” be? What would “non-intelligent design” be?) What is really at stake here — sticking with the design theory as a testable explanation, and leaving to one side philosophical and theological concerns — is the following claim of Biological Design:

    it is highly probable that the origin of life on Earth, and perhaps also several of the major evolutionary transitions in the history of life, were the result of intentional actions performed by at least one intelligent agent.

    or, if one prefers, the claim of Cosmological Design:

    it is highly probable that the laws of fundamental physics and the values of the physical constants were the result of intentional actions performed by at least one intelligent agent.

    I take it that that’s the core claim, and everything else that design theory does is just a matter of calculating the probabilities.

  38. “You have no evidence at all that it has ‘damaged’ me, Gregory.”

    No, but you are now an apostate, Elizabeth, by definition. That is considered as spiritual damage.

    This is evident in your anti-theism and pro-atheism. The fuzziness in your ‘philosophy’ is quite obvious (wow – atheist ex-reform Jewish KN showcases postmodern philosphistry at TSZ and you celebrate it!?). And I doubt you would be so fuzzy if you had kept on that Catholic road, free from the ‘acid’ Dennett preaches.

    I’ve read Dennett’s book. His ‘freedom evolves’ thesis is incredible (in the literal sense). But not a few flimsy philosophical people (especially USAmericans) have been suckered in by it. I doubt you ever had a strong basis of Catholic faith, Lizzie, if Dennett was all it took, and in the meantime you have said you don’t even consider your marriage ‘holy matrimony’, though the Catholic Church does. You seem not to even remember what you said (in front of not just people) on that day. Darwinian acid strikes (musical-architecture) cognition again?

  39. Kantian Naturalist: What would “non-intentional design” be? What would “non-intelligent design” be?

    Evolution, probably. Unless we take the word “design” to mean, implicitly “intentional”, as in “was it by accident or design?”.

    But if we take it to mean “optimised to fulfill a complex function”, then it can happen both intentionally (“I must invent some way of detecting electromagnetic signals”) or unintentionally (the evolution of, say, sight).

    I’m not sure that your Nietsche quote doesn’t simply beg Dennett’s question. We surely decide what to think about all the time – it’s often what is called “executive function”, in cognitive terms, anyway. We direct our attention voluntarily, and sometimes involuntarily. Right now I’m investigating the patterns of brain oscillations associated with entirely voluntary cognition! Controlling for exogenous factors.

  40. Gregory: That is considered as spiritual damage.

    Weasel passive spotted. WHO considers it “spiritual damage”? Not me. I consider it spiritual healing, actually.

    Gregory: The fuzziness in your ‘philosophy’ is quite obvious

    It may be “obvious” to you, Gregory, but unless you can give a ferinstance, then you don’t make a very persuasive case.

    Gregory: I’ve read Dennett’s book. His ‘freedom evolves’ thesis is incredible (in the literal sense).

    OK, so, keep going. Why do you ind it “incredible”? Why not try to persuade me of its incredibility, rather than merely asserting it?

    Gregory: I doubt you ever had a strong basis of Catholic faith, Lizzie, if Dennett was all it took

    Doubt away, Gregory – without actual data your doubts are worthless. But as it happens, you are wrong.

    Gregory: you have said you don’t even consider your marriage ‘holy matrimony’

    No, I did not say that. IIRC I said my views on the nature of holiness had changed.

    Gregory: You seem not to even remember what you said (in front of not just people) on that day.

    Oh, indeed I do remember.

    Gregory: Darwinian acid strikes (musical-architecture) cognition again?

    What the hell is that supposed to mean?

  41. Gregory:

    I’ve read Dennett’s book. His ‘freedom evolves’ thesis is incredible (in the literal sense).

    Lizzie:

    OK, so, keep going. Why do you ind it “incredible”? Why not try to persuade me of its incredibility, rather than merely asserting it?

    Yes, Gregory, why not pepper your insults with an occasional substantive argument? We would genuinely appreciate it.

Leave a Reply