From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 14:25:41 EDT
Howard wrote:
“(Howard's comments imply strongly that ID is way off base in their
criticisms. .....)
Josh, as soon as I sent that note I regretted doing so. As a stand-alone
statement, it was unnecessarily inflammatory. I have dealt with the ID
leadership (mostly Johnson and Dembski) for a dozen years, and my weariness
with their rhetorical slipperiness sometimes shows too clearly.”
-My intention was simply to offset your statement with one of equal stregth.
I understand that constantly asking for better details can easily be
condemned as goal post moving, but I don’t think this has happened yet.
Again, I do not have a long history of observing ID rhetorical slipperiness.
It may very useful to somehow document such aggravating instances for your
own peace of mind and other’s benefit.
“My criticism of ID on this point concerns their tendency to discount good
plausibility arguments and to set the bar far too high for the credibility
of scientific explanations. That, in turn, opens the door to ID's argument
from ignorance strategy.”
-And perhaps if this debate was constructed under different circumstances,
no one would think twice about how high the bar was set because all would be
equally thirsty for the best explanation possible regardless of the ultimate
implications of that explanation.
“Once again, I have not only commented on the motivation of the ID movement
(which is perfectly valid in the course of trying to understand the movement
itself) but I have also dealt with specific ID-science claims, especially
those of Dembski.”
-And I find no fault in your approach in that manner, although I may not
agree completely with your analysis (especially regarding p(X/N) which we
have previously discussed.) My irritation is assuaged by your regret
expressed above, overall I think you have laid out a careful thesis and
criticism of ID (even if I disagree.)
“I agree that seeking more detailed causal explanations is not out of place.
But exploiting present-day ignorance of detailed mechanisms as a means of
inserting claims for the need of supernatural interventions (under the
marketing label of "intelligent design") is not, in my estimation, the way
to go.”
-Which really harkens back to my observation that the distinguishing factor
between whether a person believes ID or RFEP depends upon aesthetics more
than anything else. How present day ignorance is exploited is really the
key issue. Either our ignorance is but a minor glitch on our well-developed
road to full understanding of the process of deriving the universe, or our
ignorance is concealing a large gap in understanding the mechanistic causes
required to generate the universe. With ignorance blinding us, the choice
is a judgement call as you have plainly stated elsewhere. Whose judgement
call is better is another matter of opinion. Personally I cannot say that
either judgement call is particularly “better” than the other (although I
would say that humility would suggest that the unknown is much greater than
the known in regards to origins and that we may not be very close to
understanding even if RFEP is correct.) I prefer to withhold final
judgement until our ignorance is dispelled and we can see more clearly. In
my position I see that the rhetorical strategy of yourself and the ID camp
is preferable to simply stating that “I don’t know, but I guess such and
such.” Clearly, when submitting a hypothesis you must believe in it with
some strength and defend it, something that I am not required to do when
evaluating the situation from my vantage point. If my attempt at
open-mindedness reflects poorly on my ego, then so be it.
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 14:25:59 EDT