Re: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty...

Pim said: *Circumstantial evidence without some understanding of motive,
opportunity etc might still convince a jury but history shows how such
rulings can be inherently unreliable. Certainly science should aspire to
higher standards than that.*

Well, usually things like motive and opportunity are proven through
circumstantial rather than direct evidence, so you're getting things a bit
confused here. It is true, however, that juries sometimes get things wrong,
as the Innocence Project has shown, so the more evidence, and the more
direct evidence, the better.

I'm not sure what you mean by "higher standards" though. Science doesn't
aspire to "absolute certainty" any more than does a jury trial. The
positivist program died long ago. The heart of science is creating testable
models that are liable, if not likely, to be replaced eventually by more
reliable models. Such models are always mediated by fallible human beings
and therefore can't provide "absolute certainty" of anything. In fact,
scientific models, including the model of biological evolution, are often
largely based on circumstantial rather than direct evidence (we can't
observe billions of years of evolution happening). Throwing stones at the
use of any kind of circumtantial evidence is likely to shatter your own
windows.

On Dec 7, 2007 12:13 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is a happy intermediate where ID would also fail, namely as a
> scientific argument. While indeed, ID is compatible with theism and so
> is the anthropic principle, the latter is also quite reconcilable with
> atheism. We will never have mathematical certainty of proof so we
> settle for faith or in cases where science can be involved, on
> scientific evidence.
>
> As such ID fails terribly or at best can claim stale mate, however in
> general, the approach chosen by ID is incredibly unreliable,
> succeptible to false positives (god of the gaps) and without any
> predictive value and without any explanatory value (how does ID
> explain the origin and evolution of the bacterial flagella for
> instance?).
>
> Much has been made of the so called demarcation problem which argues
> that it is impossible to reject something as non-science a priori but
> also accepts that such rejections are possible a posteriori when said
> 'something' has failed to contribute in any form or manner to our
> scientific understanding.
>
> Circumstantial evidence without some understanding of motive,
> opportunity etc might still convince a jury but history shows how
> such rulings can be inherently unreliable. Certainly science should
> aspire to higher standards than that.
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2007 9:04 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > People get convicted of murder "beyond a reasonable doubt" on much
> thinner
> > evidence than this all the time. Circumstantial evidence is perfectly
> > acceptable in a courtroom. The CSI TV shows have made us all believe
> that
> > "proof" of a crime is much more solid than it usually is.
> >
> > The problem here is that we're mixing standards of proof. In a civil
> trial,
> > for example, the standard of proof is pretty low -- a preponderance of
> the
> > evidence, meaning simply "more likely than not." OTOH, "Science" as we
> like
> > to demarcate it has different standards of "proof" than both criminal or
> > civil trials or than what the ordinary person probably means by "proof."
> >
> > Perhaps the better proposition is that the anthropic principle is
> consistent
> > with, and in that sense supports, theism. If one had to "prove" God
> based
> > on a "preponderance of the evidence" in a civil trial, the anthropic
> > principle would undoubtedly be admissible as one bit of evidence. If
> the
> > standard were "proof with mathematical certainty," that's also a
> different
> > ballgame.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 7, 2007 11:44 AM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <quote>
> > > Williams' trial began on January 6, 1982. The prosecution's case
> > > relied on an abundance of circumstantial evidence. During the
> > > two-month trial, prosecutors matched 19 different sources of fibers
> > > from Williams' environment: his bedspread, bathroom, gloves, clothes,
> > > carpets, dog and an unusual tri-lobal carpet fiber to a number of
> > > victims. There was also eyewitness testimony placing Williams with
> > > different victims, blood stains from victims matching blood in
> > > Williams' car, and testimony that he was a pedophile attracted to
> > > young black boys. Williams himself took the stand, but alienated the
> > > jury by becoming angry and combative during a single instance.
> > > Williams never recovered from the single outburst, and on February 27,
> > > the jury deliberated for 10 hours before finding him guilty of
> > > murdering Cater and Payne. He was then sentenced to two consecutive
> > > terms of life imprisonment.
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > Seems that it was not just fiber evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 7, 2007 8:31 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Matching the fibers can be objective but it is still circumstantial
> to
> > > > deduce how they got on the victim's bodies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Likewise, the design evidences can be attributed to either God or
> aliens
> > but
> > > > it is objective that they mean a designer or some intelligence. This
> is
> > what
> > > > is valid about ID and shouldn't illegal.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's not that ID is illegal, it's just scientifically infertile
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:
> asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> > On
> > > > Behalf Of George Cooper
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:11 AM
> > > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > > > Subject: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > The carpet fiber is objective evidence. If the matching of carpet
> > fibers
> > > > can be shown objectively to constitute a direct connection to the
> > accused,
> > > > then this evidence can serve in the way finger prints and DNA serve
> as
> > > > evidence.
> > > >
> > > > This is not the same for ID which is a subjective based view, IMO.
> To
> > > > believe that God is manipulating certain motorized bacterial
> formations
> > is
> > > > a
> > > > subjective, not objective.
> > > >
> > > > GeorgeA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "John Walley" < john_walley@yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "'PvM'" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: "'_American Sci Affil'" < asa@calvin.edu>
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:51 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to
> Deny
> > > > Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Pim,
> > > > >
> > > > > You have to keep up. I am not going to spell it all out for you
> > again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bottom line, neither ID nor forensic carpet fiber evidence is
> 100%
> > > > > conclusive in the scientific sense because both us and the carpet
> > fiber
> > > > > could have been planted by aliens, but we deduce Wayne Williams
> guilt
> > > > from
> > > > > one but deny GG his tenure for making the same rational
> deductions
> > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > other.
> > > > >
> > > > > The obvious implications of the anthropic principle is that all
> these
> > > > > coincidences proves that there is a Designer. There is no getting
> > around
> > > > > that. That is not unscientific. It is just rational.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:
> asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of PvM
> > > > > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 12:25 AM
> > > > > To: John Walley
> > > > > Cc: _American Sci Affil
> > > > > Subject: Re: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted
> to
> > Deny
> > > > > Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
> > > > >
> > > > > Why? What is the equivalent of carpet fiber evidence which is
> matched
> > > > > to a known carpet?
> > > > >
> > > > > Analogies have limited value indeed.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the obvious implication of the anthropic principle?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 6, 2007 9:03 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com >
> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For GG to conclude a designer from all the just right
> > characteristics of
> > > > > the
> > > > >> universe is just as "scientific" as a jury finding Wayne
> Williams
> > guilty
> > > > > of
> > > > >> capital murder based on carpet fiber evidence.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is the hypocrisy of academia and those that deny the
> > overwhelmingly
> > > > >> obvious implications of the anthropic principle (aka, design
> > inference)
> > > > > in
> > > > >> nature.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> John
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:
> asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> > On
> > > > >> Behalf Of PvM
> > > > >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:07 PM
> > > > >> To: John Walley
> > > > >> Cc: _American Sci Affil
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted
> to
> > Deny
> > > > >> Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What I find so fascinating is how the media has mostly refused
> to
> > > > >> accept the claims by the Discovery Institute and I have looked
> at
> > some
> > > > >> of this supposed evidence and found that the arguments are
> pretty
> > weak
> > > > >> at best.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sure, Gonzalez's involvement with Intelligent Design were a
> concern
> > to
> > > > >> the faculty but the Discovery Institute is making some
> assertions
> > > > >> which I find poorly supported by the evidence. Some people have
> > looked
> > > > >> at the publication record of Gonzalez (and Behe) and found a
> > > > >> remarkable trend.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Also interesting is how Rosenberg was quoted and what the full
> quote
> > > > >> revealed
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <quote>
> > > > >> "Contrary to his public statements, and those of ISU
> > President
> > > > >> Gregory Geoffroy, the chairman of ISU's Department of Physics
> and
> > > > >> Astronomy, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, stated in Dr. Gonzalez's tenure
> > dossier
> > > > >> that Dr. Gonzalez's support for intelligent design 'disqualifies
> him
> > > > >> from serving as a science educator.'"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <quote>
> > > > >> The full context of that quotation is:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <quote> "on numerous occasions, Dr. Gonzalez has stated
> that
> > > > >> Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and someday would be
> > taught
> > > > >> in science classrooms. This is confirmed by his numerous
> postings on
> > > > >> the Discovery Institute Web site. The problem here is that
> > Intelligent
> > > > >> Design is not a scientific theory. Its premise is beyond the
> realm
> > of
> > > > >> science. . But it is incumbent on a science educator to clearly
> > > > >> understand and be able to articulate what science is and what it
> is
> > > > >> not. The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what
> constitutes
> > > > >> both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from
> serving
> > as
> > > > >> a science educator."
> > > > >> </quote>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Now the DI may be able to help Gonzalez by arguing that this was
> > > > >> religious discrimination but that would involve accepting that
> ID is
> > > > >> religious. Not a very palatable choice. Instead, the DI seems to
> > have
> > > > >> moved from tenure to viewpoint discrimination and hostile
> workplace.
> > > > >> Again, not a very plausible argument either.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The DI attempted to generate media interest in the Gonzalez case
> and
> > > > >> failed, outside Iowa few noticed and within Iowa the reception
> was
> > > > >> mixed.
> > > > >> They lost in the scientific arena, they are losing in the media
> > arena,
> > > > >> and they are losing amongst conservatives.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > > >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> >
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 7 12:21:46 2007