If Uncommon Descent (UD) is not suffering from our departure, then why has the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture stooped to lame promotion of the site? I’m referring to an ID the Future podcast, “Eric Anderson: Probability & Design.” It begins with Casey Luskin singing the praises of UD.
[Eric Anderson…] for the past year has been a contributing author about intelligent design at the great intelligent design blog, UncommonDescent.com. So, quick plug for Uncommon Descent. If you’re an “ID the Future” listener and you’ve never checked it out, go to UncommonDescent.com. And it’s a great ID blog, kind of like EvolutionNews.org. It has many participants, and many contributors, of which Eric is one of the main authors there.
And it ends with Casey Luskin steering listeners to UD.
And I would encourage our listeners to go check out the blog Uncommon Descent. That’s Uncommon, and the last word is spelled D-E-S-C-E-N-T, dot com. So “descent” like you’re going down into something. So UncommonDescent.com.
Well, it doesn’t quite end there. Anderson, whose “main focus is analyzing the logical and rhetorical bases of arguments to help people understand the strengths, weaknesses, and underlying assumptions used in the debate over evolution and intelligent design,” closes by tacitly characterizing us as illogical fools:
Well, I’ll just add that when we look into some of these arguments — this is just one example of an argument, that we’ve analyzed today — but when we have critics put forward arguments against intelligent design, what I’ve typically noticed, and found upon closer scrutiny, is that when you parse through it, you find that it actually underscores the whole validity of the approach that’s been taken by the major proponents of intelligent design, in formulating a careful approach to design detection.
Anderson lives up to Jeff Shallit’s characterization of him, revealing that he is laughably far behind the curve. He’s not worth my time. And there’s something wrong if you think that he’s worth yours. Then again, he was about the best choice Luskin had for the interview.
UD degenerated into a madhouse long ago. Barry Arrington has done everyone a favor, having finally gone too far, and given us a clear reason to do what we should have done already. I know that some of you are itching for him to post something that permits you to rationalize a return to UD. Please work to kick your UD habit for good.
I offer as “methadone” the Discovery Institute releases on ID, including the news feed Evolution News and Views, the podcast series ID the Future, and the YouTube channel DiscoveryScienceNews. There’s also the DI’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, with prime pickings for the philosophically inclined. Now, I know that you get no rush at the thought of this. None of the big fish would argue (and argue about arguments, and argue about arguments about arguments) with you. But you would get a rise out of the UD minnows — a fix, though not what fully feeds your habit. For a change, they’d be responding to you, rather than you to them. Wouldn’t that be an improvement?
To close on a positive note, I want to emphasize how amazing it is to see the travesty of discussion at UD shut down. To be honest, I didn’t think you could do it. You have my sincere thanks for exercising the discipline that you have.
I saw the announcement of the podcast. But I didn’t listen. As you say, Eric Anderson is not worth the time.
I did listen to a more recent podcast this morning. Well, I listened half way, before I concluded that it was not worth the time (as I had guessed before I started).
Yes UD is a pretty sad site at the moment.
If UD is starving, is TSZ feeding on a rotting corpse?
Hear, hear! Screw the lid on tight and let the echo chamber destroy itself. They’ll be eating their own soon enough.
Surströmming is an acquired taste.
That was worth something, at least.
I doubt that Luskin’s listeners have that far to descend, though.
Glen Davidson
I get the feeling the DI isn’t doing all that well either. Meyer and Behe have shot their respective wads, Dembski has been missing in action for years, Axe and Gauger keep doing their best Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber routine. Even Attack Gerbil Luskin is pimping his latest ID Creationist trash for sale in every article he writes.
Maybe Howard Ahmanson has finally realized he’s getting zero ROI for the dollars he’s been tossing to the DI clown circus and has decided to cut his losses. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when Gerbil has to find a real job. 🙂
Although the decline in any real debate at UD may have been accelerated by the TSZ boycott that was triggered by the unpersoning of Aurelio Smith, Itwas well on its way prior to this event. Barry (or KF) had already banned all but a few ID opponents.
Since the amnesty, the number of bannings at UD have exceeded the number that occurred prior to the amnesty. What has changed is the tactic used to ban people. Prior to the amnesty, Barry would insert an editorial comment into a person’s comment such as: ???? Will no longer be joining us. As annoying as this was, at least it was transparent. Since the amnesty, the bannings have been silent. Even Aurelio’s deletion, as reprehensible as it was, has still not been acknowledged, or explained, by Barry. There is a phrase for this. But calling someone a pathetic snivelling coward goes against Elizabeth’s rules. So I won’t do it.
Hey, it gets addictive.
Glen Davidson
I guess one of the things that puzzles me is that Salvador is a known offender of the ideals you all claim to hold dear.
He would actually change what someone wrote. Not add a comment to their post, but actually change the content so as to make it appear as if they had written something other than what they had written. He would also delete a post he did not care for, for the sole reason that he did not care for the person who wrote it.
But he’s welcome here at TSZ.
Tom, when was the last time you were banned from UD and have all your posts at UD ever been deleted?
Isn’t it time you all got over this whole Barry deleted the posts of a sock-puppet thing? And you call UD an echo-chamber. Can it get any more “holier than thou”?
The bigger problem, is that there is very little worth commenting on at UD.
A bunch of KF rants (comments closed anyway).
A bunch of misunderstandings of science by O’Leary.
Cornelius thinks that miracles are a problem for evolution — I wonder what he has been smoking.
Anyone have a list of Eric’s published papers on evolution? Does he meet UD’s stringent qualifications?
I could certainly get over it if Barry acknowledged that it happened, and promised that he wouldn’t do it again. And followed through with it. But we both know that this will never happen. Which, to quote KF and Barry, “speaks volumes”.
Are you seriously suggesting that UD is the best place to discuss these issues? It might surprise you to know that most of us would agree with you. UD is the best place for these discussions. However, when it is moderated by someone who bans all opposing views, deletes comments, edits comments, inserts comments within those of others, and resorts to name calling at the drop of a hat, it makes it difficult to take it seriously.
And it doesn’t help that there is not a single ID proponent (not one) who will point this out to Barry. Could you link me to any comment in which you have questioned Barry on his behaviour? Just one? If not, your criticisms of TSZ moderation are of no validity. I hope you enjoy your (lack of) stimulating discussions with Barry, Denyse, KairosFocus and Joe (especially Joe).
I think the bannings are based on numbers rather than behavior. Barry likes to have just the right ratio of IDists to evolutionists. The remaining opposition is pretty effective.
Perhaps no one there knows enough to realize this.
So don’t comment. Or limit yourself to asking what the OP has to do with ID. Personally I’ve never found myself disagreeing with someone who has nothing to say, and I often wonder myself what an OP has to do with ID
But a boycott? Based on what, a perceived injustice blown all out of proportion into an irrational fear?
Neil, when was the last time you were banned from UD? Are you currently banned from UD? Do you fear that if you post there all your posts will be deleted, and if so, why?
I really think this entire crusade against UD is irrational. Can someone here explain it to me in a way that makes it seem the rational thing to do?
Tom English, why have you become an advocate encouraging people to stay away from UD? Is this advocacy something recent? In fact, when did TSZ become an advocacy site for anything, other than skepticism?
Because it would take a miracle to prevent evolution from occurring?
Otherwise, I just can’t fathom how more causal possibilities makes evolution less likely. Or what Behe’s “evolution” would be without the miracles. And isn’t Behe supposed to be the example that shows one can be evolutionist and ID?
Anyway, if they’re ever trying to convince a court that ID is science, Corny will be a great witness. Against the claim, but like Corny’s able to think that far ahead.
Glen Davidson
Not even going to ask if you were banned from UD, lol.
Were all your posts deleted? Do tell.
I’m not criticizing the moderation policy at TSZ. I’m not even sure how you could have arrived at that conclusion.
Even if I never criticized Barry it would not follow that a criticism of the moderation policy here at TSZ would be invalid. That’s just stupid talk. Irrational.
Joe’s been banned. Right about the same time as AS. Silly person.
Does that happen there Mung?
Is that the honest and right thing to do?
I’ve been banned four times, always with the same name I use here. Each time it was for making an unacceptable argument. Never for language or name calling.
No I am not suggesting that UD is the “best place” to discuss these issues. But your expressed incredulity is difficult to take seriously given your statements that say that UD is the best place for these discussions.
uD seems to me to be doing great. it has varied and great threads. In fact some many posts one can’t get involved because so much discussion.
There are not enough origin blogs/forums on the internet. We should encourage everyone.
If you have posting problems then just be more aware of how one puts things.
I have trouble everywhere but learn to be careful and very articulate.
People are nasty and dismissive of others deep opinions.
Everyone kind it up.
UD welcomes everyone but respect the host like one is in their home.
… Like agree with ID and don’t criticize?
I’m trying to figure out which of these claims needs to be taken seriously.
Barry bans all those with opposing views? Simply not believable.
I already said that Salvador changed people’s comments. And yes I complained to the moderators, which would include Barry. You want I should go dig up the posts?
I already said that Salvador deleted comments. And yes I complained to the moderators, which would include Barry. You want I should go dig up the posts?
And yes, I pointed out to Barry that he had unjustly banned Joe G, which he acknowledged and reversed. You want me to go dig up the post?
So your little “no one ever criticizes Barry at UD” is just too bogus to merit serious consideration.
And oh, lest I forget, Ilion criticized Barry for sucking up to Elizabeth. Now that’s irony for you.
So you fail, Acartia. I have criticized Barry in his role as moderator at UD.
Mung:
From the OP:
My particular experience commenting at UD is irrelevant, but there you have it.
No, I haven’t been banned. I haven’t posted there recently, because there were no topics of particular interest.
Tom English,
How many times have you been banned from posting at UD?
Have all your posts at UD ever been deleted?
Do you have an objective reason for your advocacy for a boycott of UD?
I want you to think back to the last time you asked me for an honest answer.
Mung,
Mung is immortal because *he* has never been killed!
Neil Rickert,
Have you ever been banned from UD?
Have all your posts at UD ever been deleted?
Yes please.
No, I remember that exchange. Barry finally did the right thing by banning Joe for being repeatedly over the top abusive and you defended him on a timing technicality.
What I don’t remember is you defending me, or DiEb’s, or Piotr, or Rich, etc. etc. etc. when Barry banned us. And none of us were close to being as abusive as Joe. In fact, none of us were abusive at all. I guess that must have been an oversight in your part.
No idea what this even means.
I engaged in an voluntary absence from UD of my own free will because I realized [from the comment of friend] that I was losing my objectivity.
Is that your reason? Lack of objectivity?
Acartia,
Your claim was without merit, you admit it was without merit.
So abusiveness is the new goalpost? Really? Why?
Ask me, Mung!
March 18th.
Yes.
Yes, because
1) it happened to me once already,
2) Barry is even more dickish than DaveScot was,
3) it happened to Aurelio Smith, and
4) Barry is too impulsive to restrain himself, despite the fact that it makes him look like an idiot.
Aurelio Smith was a sock puppet of Alan Fox. All the posts of Alan Fox were not deleted, only the posts of his sock puppet.
What is the name of your sock puppet?
Or should I ask what are the names of your sock puppets?
Careful Mung, your morals are showing.
Mung,
Yes, I’ve had many sock puppets at UD, but not a single one at TSZ.
Why? I’ve never needed one here, because people don’t get banned for disagreeing with the blog owner or the moderators.
Open discussion is encouraged at TSZ and suppressed at UD.
Uncommon Descent in Numbers – 2nd edition
Moved a comment that seemed to breach the rules to guano.
Lots of stuff I’d like to comment on but no time till late tonight or tomorrow.
ETA Especially how I came to be Aurelio Smith. I hope Mung can stick around!
Click on the link I gave you, and read. Now that Barry has gone to an extreme, nothing less bad counts against UD?
Most of the posts at UD are atrocious. 0’Leary’s… inaccuracies are not always due to her gross ignorance of math and science. She actively deceives. I know, because I sometimes check to see what she’s done with her sources. As for the other posts, they usually ignore the current state of ID, and rarely represent the past well. Contrary to what Luskin said, Uncommon Descent is not a “great ID blog.” I genuinely hate to see brilliant people arguing, year after year, about utter garbage. It’s obsessive-compulsive for some (they know who they are). I’d like to divert them to the Discovery Institute, where they can do some real damage.
It’s not really puzzling, Mung. The whole point of this site is to provide a space where people who disagree with each other can discuss the things they disagree about. So obviously I welcome contributions from people I disagree with.
That is why violating the “game rules” of the site is not a banning offence. The only grounds for banning here are violation of the rules about porn, malware and outing.
I want something as near to a free-speech site as we can manage, while weeding out of discussion (but not out of sight) comments that address perceived personal motivations and characteristics rather than the substance of people’s arguments.
It’s not entirely consistent or successful, but it seems to work not too badly, and I encourage anyone from UD who wants to discuss ID, or indeed anything else, to come here, where they know exactly how to be safe from banning, be given the opportunity to post OPs, and the discussion chaired, but not filtered.
As I’ve said before, there are symmetries between the ID critic and ID proponent positions, but there are also profound asymmetries, and one of them is the reluctance of the “Big Guns” of ID to engage with debate, and the reluctance of even small guns to tolerate much in the way of dissent; this is very different from the ID critic “side” which tends to welcome engagement and seek it out (a vast field of dead sockpuppets are testimony to this).
And IMO critics are no more vulgar or disrespectful of their opponents than ID proponents.
But the rule here is that everyone is supposed to try not to be.
I don’t know if it’s active deception, Tom. I think she often just doesn’t understand what the source is saying. She’s sometimes even posted a retraction. It’s terrible journalism, but I’m not sure she actively misrepresents. I think she just googles words and C&Ps parts of her catch without reading between.
That is irrelevant, Mung. If you want to be lawyerly about this, “Aurelio Smith” was not a sockpuppet (usually a term denoting an internet username used to get round a ban) but a pseudonym, used for an invited OP.
Lots of people use pseudonyms on the internet, including, of course, you.
And what was deleted was the entire output Alan posted under the pseudonym underwhich he had written the invited OP, and thus the entire corpus of his posts relevant to discussion of that material, for no other apparent reason than vindictiveness, as most of the posts were clearly deemed perfectly acceptable at the time they were posted (and indeed some remain, trapped in the amber of other people’s quotations of them).
Undoing history is Orwellian, whether someone is posting pseudonymously or not.
There’s nothing much fruitful interacting with a bunch of conspiracy theorists, Darwin-haters and anti-intellectuals. UD has become a cess pit of bigotry and blaming. It is a horrible, venemous example for Christians to follow, where censorship pressures conformity to the UD ‘party line’.
VJTorley is one of few people with sense of proportion, which is why he openly capitalises ‘Intelligent Design’. There is no hiding or double-talk from him that this really is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview topic. Unfortunately, he has tied his theology too tightly with IDism (as do many, many IDists, e.g. stcordova) and compromises the DI’s minimalist ‘strictly scientific’ meaning.
I was banned at UD, without explanation, and posts were erased. I had even started a thread there, at the invitation of nullasalus, which was diverted, as usual by the ‘theologian’ Timaeus, apologist for IDism. I tried again a couple of times, same thing happened. TSZers are entirely accurate when they say that UD is a closed-minded echo chamber for IDists.
That said, what I’ve found over the past 12 years studying the IDM sociologically is that the hardest people for IDists to face are theists who reject IDism because there is always at least a trace, and often much more than that, of religious apologetics that runs in the IDM. Atheists, of course, recognise this too. IDists, however, just can’t seem to understand how *EVERY* religious monotheist wouldn’t lay down with joy to admit IDism is the ideology that is ‘best in the West’. But this is exactly the puzzle they both haven’t figured out and don’t appear even to want to address; they want to ‘culture war!’ with atheists and agnostics to create a new USAmerican revolution in science and society!
Mung is obviously no different.
I asked you for an honest answer on YOUR thread – non-IDist design theorists and theists who reject IDism. And you ignored the question. Yet again.
Would you care to explain why? Is this how you convince yourself of being honest; by evasion?
In April 2013, David Klinghoffer at ENV offered a challenge to “Darwinists” to come up with a response to the Boston Marathon bombing. I provided one.
I sent it twice.
I heard nothing back.
Even when ENV makes a show of inviting a response from the “opposition” they do not actually want one, apparently.
According to Google Scholar, Dr. V.J. Torley has never published a paper — not while in grad school, and not during the eight years since completing his dissertation (on philosophy of mind).
In my opinion, there is at least self-deceit in someone who holds forth on as many different topics as Torley does. Much of his output is well written dreck. He tilts at neuroscientists and cognitive scientists and biologists and cosmologists and mathematicians, not because he has substantive knowledge of their fields, but (evidently) because he can, with his manner of argument, impress people in his camp who know less than he does.
Do you suppose that Torley might play the free-ranging maverick genius to an easily impressed audience precisely because he’s gotten nowhere with his peers? In any case, his high-toned effusions do nothing to redeem UD. I say again, no matter how honest he thinks he’s being, he’s not being honest with himself.
Hi Tom,
You say that Casey Luskin has “stooped to a lame promotion” of Uncommon Descent” because of your departure. Why do you think he was promoting “Umcommon Descent” in February, before your departure?
So are you saying that you prefer the sass and yap of a shyster to the deafening silence of a well known author / senior fellow of the Discovery Institute (and a thread with 823 comments)? You provoked an enormous amount of discussion, even though Klinghoffer didn’t participate.
It’s going to take more than inclusiveness and freedom of expression to draw conservative Christians and Jews here. We need less discussion of what they’re already discussing at UD, and more origination of discussions that appeal to UD and ENV readers. It’s impossible to discuss posts at ENV, and I see that as an opportunity for TSZ.
P.S.–Regarding what you said about death, I’ve commented several times at UD that the notion of life having meaning makes no sense. I mean. I stand to full height and do it. Nothing does it to me or for me.
Tom English,
Yes, I’m aware of vjtorley’s lack of publishing record and have called him out on it already. He holds a PhD, which makes him relatively rare among IDists at UD. If he only wishes to post his long-winded IDist defences at UD, that’s up to him.
I don’t think its fair to say ‘he’s not being honest with himself.’ I suppose you think you are a self-honest person. That’s not really something I’m interested to discuss publically, especially about someone I haven’t met. Torley seems like a decent guy to me, who is married and teaches English in Japan, rather than applying his PhD in other ways.
The last exchange I had with him, he decided he had to stop corresponding with me because I was challenging the notion that one had to believe in “Intelligent Design Theory” to be a Christian. I don’t think they do, but apparently he does. He felt this was getting too close to his religious beliefs and that was not something he would discuss online.
Aside: It’s the same thing I’ve asked to stcordova and Mung here, to which they’ve not answered. Nevertheless, the voices of theists that reject IDism are growing steadily stronger. BioLogos, of course, has been at this for a couple of years, but one rarely sees them referenced here (as if ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ doesn’t apply) b/c TSZ is mainly a lair of atheists and BioLogos is a theistic foundation.
At least VJT is honest in ways that Mung is not; he capitalises Intelligent Design and Intelligent Designer because he sincerely believes that he is referring to a divinity. Divine names, imho, in most cases, should be capitalised. Mung & stcordova avoid or equivocate to suit their ideological purposes, which are rather boring in the end.
CharlieM,
Exaggerated sense of self-importance?
Dr. Winston Ewert has shown best what’s wrong about Uncommon Descent: when he invited the audience over there to post mathematical questions, only three took him on his offer – all ID-critics. You can argue that there would have been more if it were not for people asking to boycott this action.
But where were the IDists? No one showed any interest in Dembski’s and Marks’s (and Ewert’s) theories! I would have expected at least some ingratiating questions, or KF taking the opportunity to talk about his FIASCO. Joe could even have asked about infinity.
For me it became clear: no one at UD is interested in Intelligent Design as proposed by Dembski, Marks, etc., they just like to chat.
I asked (via the medium of a TSZ OP) if any ID supporter would care to name a “body-plan” instead of simply claiming they are impossible to have evolved. Name one and let’s look at the evidence either way.
It seems they are not interested in advancing their own ideas.