Uncommon Descent: Back to Banning?

Couldn’t resist the tribute to Denyse?

The new open policy at Uncommon Descent appears to have stalled somewhat. In trying to post a comment this morning I find it disappears. I tried on a couple of threads to no avail. Going on past behaviour, I suspect Barry Arrington has found having an open venue even less appealing than a blog dying from lack of traffic. Of course I could be wrong and will be ready to eat my hat if it turns out to be a glitch.

In the meantime, this is what I had to say (I tried to comment immediately after R0bb’s comment)

Echoing Astroman and R0bb,

Could we have a definition of CSI (complex specified information) which enables a distinction between designed and non-designed entities? It seems core to claims being made currently by Barry and others that there is some substance to ID as an intellectual pursuit.

If it is indeed a quantifiable concept, please tell us how to measure it.

Any, absolutely any, example would do for a start.

From R0bb’s link, Ewert writes:

At her blog, The Skeptical Zone, writer [neuroscientist] Elizabeth Liddle has offered a challenge to CSI that seems worth considering. She presents a mystery image and asks for a calculation of CSI. The image is in gray-scale, and looks a bit like the grain in a plank of wood. Her intent is either to force an admission that such a calculation is impossible or to produce a false positive, detecting design where none was present.

But as long as we remain in the dark about what the image actually represents, calculating its probability is indeed impossible. Dembski never intended the design inference to work in the absence of understanding possible chance hypotheses for the event. Rather, the assumption is that we know enough about the object to make this determination.

Ewert seems to say calculating CSI is impossible unless you know whether the entity in question is designed or not. Seems to render the effort somewhat pointless! Surely someone can do better than this.

Mind you, I must have been doing something right if Barry has indeed “suspended” posting privileges”. I see Keith is still posting there.

ETA Seems some hat-eating may be in order. Commenting from another IP using my phone still works.

ETA2 I’m no longer able to post from other locations, so I guess that’s it.

ETA3 User name and email address now not in their data base so that’s definitely someone actively deleting my account details.

107 thoughts on “Uncommon Descent: Back to Banning?

  1. Richardthughes,

    And lo, it came to pass, he was booted. By pure coincidence, someone else turned up shortly after, one ‘Joe’. His behaviour is beyond reproach.

  2. KeithS –

    fancy asking KF if he’s banned / deleted accounts / deleted any posts recently, and if so shouldn’t he inform the UD community in posts rather than allow the perception that there is a free and fair exchange going on to perpetuate?

  3. Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings: ““Joe, it strikes me, that you can fall off the wagon one time too many. At least, you have shown a pattern of getting back up, but there are obviously limits to all things. KF”

    And here are few examples of Joe falling off the wagon, just from a comment thread in a single OP:

    “#51: “keith s is either the most ignorant or most dishonest person to ever grace Uncommon Descent.”

    #52: “thorton the ignorant just ignores that as if its ignorance is a refutation.”

    #53: “keith s misrepresents Theobald and he is too stupid to realize it.”

    #55: “No, moron, YOU need to show they could have evolved via unguided evolution. Science does not prove negatives you ignorant troll.”

    #56: “His ignorance fuels his arrogance.”

    #58: “keith s is too stupid to grasp that, also.”

    #67: “thorton the coward continues to conflate people’s personal biases with ID. How very small-minded of him”

    #77: “keith s has proven to be an ignoramus- willfully so. He doesn’t appear to know or understand anything but dishonesty.”

    #79: “William- thorton lives for willful ignorance. If it wasn’t for ignorance and dishonesty thorton wouldn’t have anything to put on his CV.”

    #118: “Timmy Horton uses a hammer for a drill cuz it’s the only tool he knows how to use.”

    #126: “Holy crap keith s is a delusional psychopath….Geez keith s, are you really that dimwitted and desperate?”

    #128: “And thorton chimes in with his usual lies. Seeing that all you can do is lie, why even bother, timmy?”

    #141: “thorton thinks that languages can arise without intelligent agency involvement- what a deluded loser.”

    #161: “LoL! Cowardy keith s never take his objections to Axe. Why does keith s think his cowardice and ignorance refute Axe?”

    #166: “keith s- what is that ignorant fake argument supposed to prove beyond that you are deluded and desperate?”

    #220: “thorton has yet to ask a serious question about ID. thorton is too stupid to do so.”

    #259: “phoodoo- thorton is proof that humans and apes are related- at least his family, anyway.”

    #268: “timmy, it’s time to change your diaper and take a nap.””

    I am comforted by the fact that he has a pattern of getting back up. Because I would certainly hate to think that someone could be this offensive all of the time.

  4. acartia_bogart: I am comforted by the fact that he has a pattern of getting back up. Because I would certainly hate to think that someone could be this offensive all of the time.

    Only because consistency would be hard work.

  5. Box’s (wrong) argument against KeithS’ bomb is essentially an argument against ID itself:

    “I explain that you make a category error when you compare a designer – a free agent – with a trillion-sided die.”

    Design vs Chance.

  6. phoodoo,

    A request to address the argument, not the argument here? As enforced by Who, Alan?

    As enforced, in the spirit of our absent but gracious host’s request, by yourself. If you wouldn’t say something to someone’s face, why send it through the intertubes? Some of the pro-evolution commenters go too far, I’ll be the first to admit.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.