I am amused that now the Disco Institute is reduced to complaining that Judge Jones adopted the ACLU’s findings of fact in the Dover trial. It’s true that Jones didn’t write a big chunk of his decision, because he literally accepted the opinion of the DI’s opponents.
Apparently, this is a common judicial practice. I didn’t know that, but shouldn’t the DI know about it? Don’t they have a lawyer or lawyers working for them (they sure have a scientist deficiency)? Couldn’t they have asked someone on their staff whether this was ordinary procedure before they started complaining?
Oh, wait.
Casey Luskin. No wonder they screwed up. That boy has a reputation for rank incompetence and getting the facts wrong.
My favorite quote:
“It raises in my mind the question of whether the judge recognized what I was talking about, whether he just signed off on a summary that he in fact did not understand,” said Behe, who is also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.”
Pot, kettle, black…
TOTALLY UNRELATED, SORRY! DEBATE!
All “morality” is bullshit. Every moral axiom must either be derived from other moral axioms, or just be arbitrarily made up. Just because we intuitively consider certain morals as self evident, such as autonomy this does not mean that they really are true, just that we have an urge to consider them such. We also have other urges such as sexual lust, which are not considered the foundations for morality. Why give preference to morals such as autonomy, or the golden rule? Being internally consistent does not make any moral system more valid either. Also, utilitarian arguments do not work, for actions to benefit the greater good, greater good must be defined. Good must also be based upon objective claims, which are also impossible to come by. Having a moral system is fine, but it must be realized that it is illogical, since it is based upon unproven claims. Nihilism is the natural extension of atheism!
PS:
I realize that I am using logic to argue for the absence of any objectivity which is self contradictory. This can be (sort of) reconciled internally by just accepting that I am choosing logic as a moral precept at random, and that ultimately contradicting yourself would be O.K. assuming no true objectivity exists. Paradoxes sure are interesting! Also I am not criticizing Atheism in general, but only Moral Atheism.
And, out of the blue…
A TROLL!
Hehehe. PZ, you sure seem to attract a lot of them recently.
And out of the blue…
A STRAW MAN!
Actually, I’m not trolling, these are my views. My moral structure does include such things as autonomy and logic, I just don’t think that this has any true basis. Please form a constructive argument if you wish to debunk me, I might even change my mind!
If Nihilism is the natural extension of atheism then why are all atheists not nihilists?
There’s a problem with your claim.
Moral systems are perfectly logical.
And out of the blue…
A STRAW MAN!
Actually, I’m not trolling, these are my views. My moral structure does include such things as autonomy and logic, I just don’t think that this has any true basis. Please form a constructive argument if you wish to debunk me, I might even change my mind!
PZ, all the Disco Inferno wants to do is spread as much FUD as possible to the gullible. That won’t alter the fact that Judge Jones did to “intelligent design” what Darwin did to natural theology, namely relegate it to the philosophical dustbin where it now resides with it’s ancestor. Next up for the DI will probably be the Zombie Anthropic Principle… :-p
oops sorry for double post, accident please delete second one if possible! in responce to steve_c, 1. the majority view does not make a position valid. 2. what are they based upon that makes them valid (note: just becuase they are valid internally doesn’t mean they are applicable to the real world) They must be based upon SOMETHING: what is this?
It’s a lingering infection from Orac’s ill-advised jaunt into 9/11 conspiracy-land.
Not that that Friday Woo wasn’t wildly entertaining, but the side effects are worse than a hangover.
As to why the majority atheists are not nihilists I have an idea: Morality is very much part of our brains, without this and goals humans would probably have a much lower survivability rate. It is easy to debunk religion, but it is very unnatural in unintuitive to deny morality. However, my idea is that when looked at logically, the only reason for the basic axioms that I can find is that they are inherently true. What makes them this way?
However, my idea is that when looked at logically, the only reason for the basic axioms that I can find is that they are inherently true. What makes them this way?
Because that’s the way evolution shaped you, to find them inherently true.
I recommend Marc Hauser’s recent Moral Minds for a fuller discussion of our innate ethical sense.
While I agree with the Dover decision, I think the DI is at least attempting slightly more than saying “hey, he agreed with the other side and supported their arguements.” They *claim* that a lot of the facts judge Jones accepted were not facts.
Well I disagree. I think that DI and ID each got exposed for the intellectual and legal frauds that they are, *but* the DI — in a little post facto second bite at the apple Monday Morning Quarterbacking — are at least trying to make the claim that there are facts on their side.
They’re aren’t.
Brian
1. Because it is innate, I don’t think much about whether to do good, or why I feel good when I do good. That may be an argumentum ad lapidem, but if so, too bad.
2. I think it works when you consider morality your own self-interest – your own long-term self-interest, to be sure. That must be, more or less, why altruism has evolved so often.
1. Because it is innate, I don’t think much about whether to do good, or why I feel good when I do good. That may be an argumentum ad lapidem, but if so, too bad.
2. I think it works when you consider morality your own self-interest – your own long-term self-interest, to be sure. That must be, more or less, why altruism has evolved so often.
I think it’s perfectly logical to think that being amoral is unnatural.
Why do morals have to be based on SOMETHING? Or should we be talking about ethics?
Dembski, honey, pay up. You bet a bottle of scotch that ID would survive a court challenge and it didn’t, now fork it over.
What a mess!
Loads-o-fun O’Leary is usually the one turning water into brine at the party over there. Now all the guys are doing it. Um, who are the nihilists? *shimmies*
And out of the blue…
A CONGA LINE!
Gerard Harbison: So morality is logical because its beneficial when it comes to natural selection? I am not arguing that all humans do not have a similar ethical sense, just asking why this is a better thing to base our lives upon than some other natural urge. If Moral Minds has a good reason why, please post it or email me at everynothing@gmail.com. My reading list is already really really long :).
Steve_c, and david: Natural is not necessarily equal to good, *uses the contrived natural arsenic or unnatural soda argument*.
As to why we have to base our morals/ethics upon something: What is it that we criticize theists for so much? One of the things is adhering to a moral system that is not based upon solid logical principle. Sure ours is MUCH more well put-together, and its bases are much more solid, but if there is no true proof that these bases are “true” then the rest is meaningless. All I’m looking for is the reason behind these bases.
Casey Luskin. No wonder they screwed up. That boy has a reputation for rank incompetence and getting the facts wrong.
And lying. But his hair is really soft and downy. At least, that’s what Sal Cordova told me.
Well, sure. What does that have to do with atheism?
I recommend Marc Hauser’s recent Moral Minds for a fuller discussion of our innate ethical sense.
interesting, Gerard.
would you also recommend that as a decent counter to Collins’ ‘special creation via moral law’ argument?
It’s easy enough for me to see the gaps in his argument, but hard to refer someone else to a reference that covers it decently.
And lying. But his hair is really soft and downy. At least, that’s what Sal Cordova told me.
hrrrm, and exactly when did Sal tell you this bit of pillow talk?
;)
btw, andrew, when you bring up a totally OT subject, and then expect people to comment on it, you must expect people to label it as trolling, ’cause that’s exactly what it is.
unfortunately, Pharyngula doesn’t have an OT “lounge” like PT does, where you can request a new thread to discuss OT subjects.
however, you technically ARE trolling this thread, and should ask permission of the thread owner to continue, if you don’t want to be rude.
I think you’re too focused on true versus innate or inherited even.
Through natural selection humans are endowed with a basic form of empathy and altruism as well as a fair amount of violent tendancies and hormonal urges.
Why do the bases have to be proven as true? It’s fairly evident that they have been very well synthesized over thousands of years. The societal zeitgeist determines the fine tuned specifics of the particular culture. The zeitgeist has become (in most places) more progressive with the occasional backsliding.
Why would a lack of moral or ethical bases be a natural outcome of atheism.
As to why we have to base our morals/ethics upon something: What is it that we criticize theists for so much? One of the things is adhering to a moral system that is not based upon solid logical principle.
I’ve never seen that as particularly a problem for theists. In fact, some of the theists whose behavior is most objectionable are the most morally logical–it’s just that their factual premises involve things like Hell.
Re: trolling, quite correct. It is rude to walk up to a group of folks have a conversation about X, plop down, and interupt with, “How about Y, huh?”
Re: adoption of findings of fact, also quite correct. It’s entirely unremarkable that Judge Jones did this. Indeed, in my law school writing classes, we were told how important it was to carefully write our statements of facts for the precise reason that judges do this.
I am not arguing that all humans do not have a similar ethical sense, just asking why this is a better thing to base our lives upon than some other natural urge. If Moral Minds has a good reason why, please post it or email me at everynothing@gmail.com.
No one said we should base our ethics entirely on our natural ethical sense. You asked why ethics seem innate. I know it’s tough when you’re off a-trolling, but try to focus.
And yeah, I’m going to do your homework for you.
Hauser’s isn’t a bad book. I found it a little disorganized, but it’s one place where the major philosophical issues in modern ethics are discussed in conjunction with the results of cognitive psychology.
Alas for Andrew, there isn’t a Reader’s Digest 1000 words or less version.
Apparently, this is a common judicial practice. I didn’t know that, but shouldn’t the DI know about it?
Even starting with the handicap of having Casey on their side, you’d think it might have taken them a little less than a year to tumble to it. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law have been up on the court’s website since November of 2005. Given all the angst at the DI and the fact they wrote an entire book about the decision, they had a somewhat greater incentive than you did to go through the entire record. I guess that can’t be any more competant at PR than they are at science.
My post was somewhat related since a major topic on this blog is Atheism. It was not my intention to make anyone angry, and if the owner of the blog wishes me to stop posting I will, and all related posts could be deleted. As I said earlier, I just wanted to have an intelligent discussion on the topic, and thought this would be a good place to have it based upon the general ambivalence of rationality.
I in practice agree on morality, all I asked was a simple question as to why the foundations of it were better than any others system. Theists bases are totally ridiculous; I’m not saying they are better! So far all I’ve heard to support my (practical) position though is that we “know” it. This is somewhat unsatisfying, if you can do so please show a more substantial reason and I will be more than willing to listen to it.
Well, they actually wrote a document that appears to have some research involved in it (albeit textual research, which they should be plenty familiar with), and maybe they’re trying to hone their skillz. Lard knows they need a lot of honing…
Any system of logic must be based on at least one arbitrarily true statement, according to Goedel., or it will be either inconsistent or not terribly useful.
Logic is a process that lets you generate true statements from other true statements. In a system of logic, you can prove, for example, that A implies B, that B implies C, and that therefore A implies C, but you can’t ultimately prove A.
On a related note, why do people keep capitalizing the word “atheism”? It’s a common noun, not the name of a religion.
I received a mini-lesson on “findings of fact” when a friend’s attorney provided the judge with a hefty packet of draft findings in a divorce/custody case and the attorney for his estranged wife did not. The judge accepted virtually every item just as drafted by my friend’s attorney, my friend winning sole custody and even officially changing his ex-wife’s name back to her maiden name. It would probably not have been as clean a win if my friend’s attorney hadn’t done all that work in advance.
In the Dover case, as in nearly every civil trial or evidentiary hearing in nearly every US jurisdiction, the court directed the opposing parties to propound “proposed findings of fact” as well as proposed conclusions of law.
The Disco boys submitted one of the most absurd, nearly non-responsive, “proposed findings and conclusions” I have read. Their proposed findings may still be posted somewhere. I suspect that the Pharyngula regulars would wince and cry “non sequitur” if they read them.
Judge Jones did the right thing — legally , scientifically, and rationally speaking — when he rejected the Disco version and largely adopted the findings proposed by the plaintiffs.
This is the normal course of business in civil matters in the federal courts. It doesn’t surprise me that the DI boys reject the rules of civil procedure as readily as they reject scientific theories.
You try to base your morality entirely on logical axioms, and you run slap-bang into Goedel’s Theorems.
Wink, wink.
Blake Stacy & Dwayne: Ah I see! So if we can’t do so, then we can never prove one is better than the other, only assume so? I thought that was the entire basis for nihilism!
Poor “Hooligans” at UD got it even worse than me: “It’s Dr. Dembski! It’s Dr. Dembski to you!” Well, as I found out, calling him Dr. Dembski doesn’t make any difference to the friggin’ cannibals at Uncommon Descent into Madness.
The ACLU is evil! Yeah. That’s why it defended Oliver North and Tad Jude. Satan spawn, the ACLU. Dang, the demons are just piling up on them!
Poor Judge Jones. And beshrew my heart but poor everyone at UD. At times I think their sense has completely deserted them and I truly have begun to fear for their sanity. Dembski seems like an amiable guy but he (and others) gets so angry that it shocks me at times. This is the smoke of another fire–this isn’t about law and it’s certainly not about science.
I’m no psychiatrist but I think a few of them have some unresolved issues regarding some kind of profound violation. I don’t hate them–no matter how much they talk about being hated by “us.” But I could not convince them of that and neither will anyone else.
Hmm, talk about the last refuge of scoundrels…. Of course it’s quite evident from the opinion that Judge Jones understood the evidence all too well, so far as ID proponents are concerned. How galling that must have been, especially since this is a fight ID proponents picked – see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/science/sciencespecial2/04design.html?ex=1288760400&en=0f747ab1c862742e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss – contrary to the “activist judge” BS the losers at Thomas More Law Center were peddling to the reliable right-wing media afterward.
Dembski, et al., having lacked the courage to follow through on their promises to challenge evolution and its proponents in court – see http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html#ref – are now trying to backdoor the integrity of the decision by implying that Judge Jones simply parrotted plaintiffs’ attorneys and experts, claiming as evidence his use of plaintiffs’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. As others have already pointed out, it is the rare case where this does *not* occur, though I’m sure that won’t matter to true believers in the “we wuz robbed” scenario.
Oh, by the way, for those interested in legal topics in general and the Kitzmiller case in particular: Behe’s cross-examination is now being used in continuing legal education courses as an example of how to destroy an opposing expert on cross-examination. :-)
The Discovery Institute doesn’t care anymore if their arguments pass muster with professionals. Since they’ve lost on the scientific front, and lost on the legal front, they simply want to appeal to the converted.
For example, check out the incredibly daft attempt to appeal to youth at overwhelmingevidence.com.
Not to be too snarky, but isn’t “oleary” a bit long in the tooth to be the highest ranked user at a blog where, and I quote, “high school students can network and communicate their views on intelligent design and evolution”?
Or, to amplify on a point made, above: since the judge will typically–though not always, and to a greater or lesser degree–adapt/adopt from the findings submitted by the prevailing party in drafting his/her order or opinion, had the school district “won,” the judge would likely have cut/pasted from the Thomas More lawyer’s findings.
How much whining over this issue might we have expected from the DI in that case?
That this shoe-on-the-other-foot scenario ought to be perfectly obvious (to anyone other than baby-lawyer Luskin) has not deterred the DI from sticking that same shoe in its mouth.
Mmmphh! Mmmpphh! Ughhummphh!
Not to be too snarky, but isn’t “oleary” a bit long in the tooth to be the highest ranked user at a blog where, and I quote, “high school students can network and communicate their views on intelligent design and evolution”?
Well, check out that pull-string Judge Jones flash fartimation and tell me how many adults you think are over there at OE anyway!
(And this after some aging scold shook a finger in my face at UD for being a “carefree young person” who’s never had any problems! (Moi?) “Someday you’re going to have a problem, Kristine! And when you do, you’ll need Jesus!” Got news for ya. Jesus be chillin’ at my place, smoking a hookah and bitching about his followers, and reading Richard Dawkins. Big secret of mine.)
BTW, omitting O’Leary, tell me how many women you think are over there at UD or OE. Stupid morons should have at least gotten some video of me before I stomped out for good.
If there’s one thing I know about teenagers, it’s that they are absolutely STEAMED (a year after the fact) over the Jones decision! You should read what they’re posting on MySpace.
“BTW, omitting O’Leary, tell me how many women you think are over there at UD or OE.”
In all seriousness, I’d wager it’s pretty much a sausage-party here at Pharyngula too. Unless PZ has figures to the contrary.
Stephen Erickson said: If there’s one thing I know about teenagers, it’s that they are absolutely STEAMED (a year after the fact) over the Jones decision!
Teenagers? Seems like the ones emitting the most steam & stench are the old farts and windbags at the DI & UD. I don’t see any indication that they’re likely to quit their lying and crying any time in the near or distant future.
Oy. So much misrepresentation!
I guess I’ll start with PZ’s post. The DI piece isn’t claiming that Jones adoption of facts is uncommon, they note that it is routine. They try to make the near total adoption a problem.
Well, it is not since Panda’s Thumb relates a case where all of it is adopted. But DI claim they had a lawyer involved in the report behind the piece, co-author “law professor David DeWolf”. I hope he makes a better teacher.
Then the DI piece. It is a trash piece, trying to paint a rosy glimmer over DI’s demise. Jones adoption is taken to mean he didn’t do any work of his own and that he reprinted errors.
Errors which of course is fabricated in DI’s report. It is the usual quote-mining and misrepresentation of facts. One can have much fun with it.
Even their old errors on the biology of bacterial flagella is still there:
The decision.
“In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.”
The answer.
“Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes.”
The Minnich paper has IIRC indeed been peer-reviewed and found unusable because it is unreproducible. It was a mistake to publish it in the first place AFAIK. I believe PT posted on this.
It was also wrong, Matzke’s latest posting on flagella at PT has 2 remaining non-homologs.
The IC claim is then gone I would think, since PT also has posts on papers showing outright examples of similar changes covered by evolution.
So yes, there is still no valid results from ID. Trying isn’t enough.
I note DI hasn’t even managed to incorporate the earlier findings on flagella. Now I know why they call it irreducible.
Oy. So much misrepresentation!
I guess I’ll start with PZ’s post. The DI piece isn’t claiming that Jones adoption of facts is uncommon, they note that it is routine. They try to make the near total adoption a problem.
Well, it is not since Panda’s Thumb relates a case where all of it is adopted. But DI claim they had a lawyer involved in the report behind the piece, co-author “law professor David DeWolf”. I hope he makes a better teacher.
Then the DI piece. It is a trash piece, trying to paint a rosy glimmer over DI’s demise. Jones adoption is taken to mean he didn’t do any work of his own and that he reprinted errors.
Errors which of course is fabricated in DI’s report. It is the usual quote-mining and misrepresentation of facts. One can have much fun with it.
Even their old errors on the biology of bacterial flagella is still there:
The decision.
“In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.”
The answer.
“Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes.”
The Minnich paper has IIRC indeed been peer-reviewed and found unusable because it is unreproducible. It was a mistake to publish it in the first place AFAIK. I believe PT posted on this.
It was also wrong, Matzke’s latest posting on flagella at PT has 2 remaining non-homologs.
The IC claim is then gone I would think, since PT also has posts on papers showing outright examples of similar changes covered by evolution.
So yes, there is still no valid results from ID. Trying isn’t enough.
I note DI hasn’t even managed to incorporate the earlier findings on flagella. Now I know why they call it irreducible.
In any case the stacks and stacks of evidence for the evolution of the flagellum piled in front of Michael Behe at the Dover trial outweighs whatever paper Minnich wrote. (How does one conclude forever that something is irreducibly complex? All one can say (and I’m not saying this is valid at all) is that no gradual evolution/cobbling has been demonstrated.)
In all seriousness, I’d wager it’s pretty much a sausage-party here at Pharyngula too.
SISTAHS–The gauntlet has been thrown…
In any case the stacks and stacks of evidence for the evolution of the flagellum piled in front of Michael Behe at the Dover trial
minor correction; I believe the issue at hand was the evolution of the immune system, IIRC, though philosophically, Behe’s position is the same on both.
SISTAHS–The gauntlet has been thrown…
And we are there to happily pick it up…
Stephen, in case you haven’t noticed, an awful lot of women choose to post using non-gendered names, like me for example. This avoids the derogatory comments, attempts to chat us up, and dismissiveness that we often encounter online…
The Minnich paper has IIRC indeed been peer-reviewed and found unusable because it is unreproducible.
Even if it were reproducible, even if it were 100% correct, it would be irrelevant; irreducibly complex structures are no challenge to the ToE — the immediate predecessor of an irreducibly complex structure could simply be one that wasn’t irreducibly complex. Duh.
Another XX here!
Andrew Briscoe says:
Where did you get that two-bit notion?
Two words: Altruism. Empathy.
Both have been shown to exist in animals. Add intelligent thought to those and you’ve got basic ethics/morality – in essence, the Golden Rule. (As Rabbi Hillel said: The rest is commentary.)
I’ve been a Christian all my life, but I don’t think it’s all that difficult to see ethics/morality evolving without reference to a deity. As for nihilism, it’s not a sign of non-theism. It’s a sign of a sick, bitter mind.
Of course. But that wasn’t the point of their paper.
The argument against IC I like best is the algorithmic one. Irreducible complexity is local simplicity (subtractive irreducibility). But simplicity is ill defined: “given a system S, you cannot in general show that there is no smaller/simpler system that performs the same task as S.” ( http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/the_problem_with_irreducibly_c_1.php )
Which tells us a lot, including that ‘simple’ evolutionary systems have workarounds (for genes scaffolding for example), which implies exactly your clear conclusion.
anomalous4:
Excellent summary. What I find revealing is that the Golden Rule is default for many games. Tit-for-tat with slight forgiveness is the best acting strategy for single players (only beaten by hierarchical gangs) in a social arena (zero sum game) where you risk ‘replay’. It is an unavoidable phenomena in social agents, and no amount of special pleading for religious views can change that.
Of course. But that wasn’t the point of their paper.
The argument against IC I like best is the algorithmic one. Irreducible complexity is local simplicity (subtractive irreducibility). But simplicity is ill defined: “given a system S, you cannot in general show that there is no smaller/simpler system that performs the same task as S.” ( http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/the_problem_with_irreducibly_c_1.php )
Which tells us a lot, including that ‘simple’ evolutionary systems have workarounds (for genes scaffolding for example), which implies exactly your clear conclusion.
anomalous4:
Excellent summary. What I find revealing is that the Golden Rule is default for many games. Tit-for-tat with slight forgiveness is the best acting strategy for single players (only beaten by hierarchical gangs) in a social arena (zero sum game) where you risk ‘replay’. It is an unavoidable phenomena in social agents, and no amount of special pleading for religious views can change that.
Yes, there are lots of the ladies here; why would anyone assume it’s dominated by males? Looking at the next generation of biologists coming out of the university, too, I’m seeing a clear majority of women, so the default assumption when you see a name that doesn’t hint at gender is that the person is female.
At least, that’s how my brain works right now, after spending all this time in classes that are 80% female.
Another here for the XX brigade.
Clearly I have a lot of reading to do on the Kitzmiller case.
Heather, if you or anyone else is moved by this exchange to read up on the Kitzmiller case, you are in luck.
There is an enormous amount of on-line. Not just opinion pieces, but primary sources: detailed transcripts and loads of court documents. These include the proposing findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by both plaintiffs and defendants, as well as responses.
As a bonus, it is actually good reading! Parts of the transcript are downright hilarious. Here is a selection of links:
Hope all these links are ok with you Paul!
Cheers — Chris Ho-Stuart
Jud: Really? May I ask where? That’s nifty, that a case in some ways about science gets used. The scientific training of lawyers usually leaves something to be desired, so any good techniques for exposing bogus experts is a good thing.