Comments on: The Curiously Postmodern Modern Apologists http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:36:39 +0000 By: Jenyfer http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-31428 Jenyfer Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:44:29 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-31428 This is why post-modernism so often enables the very tendency it tries to fight. This is why post-modernism so often enables the very tendency it tries to fight.

]]> By: André Phillips http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-31403 André Phillips Thu, 07 Feb 2008 06:45:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-31403 After reading this thread I have to say I'm surprised to see that nearly every commenter seems to think the idea of a sort of declaration of honesty is somehow forcing authors to pledge their loyalty to the establishment. As was said it's merely explicitly stating the implicit. Yes, absolutely, all authors published in peer-reviewed journals should be expected to believe at the time the articles are submitted that what they are saying and the methods they employ are true to the best of their ability. This should go without question. If an author doesn't support what he or she puts forth as science, if the author is willingly lying or deceiving, that person has no right to be submitting it to the world. Even if they directly say in their articles that some aspect is still up in the air, or open to refinement, or even playing devil's advocate, that itself is the position they are taking and the position they have to stand behind. There was nothing that I read in the original post that made me think we were going to have people intellectually strung-up for not falling in line with the rest. The idea is simply asking when an article is submitted, "do you support your claims," and the answer for every single publication should be yes. As to the question of whether or not authors own their ideas after they're published: I don't see at all how that applies to this. As to the question of whether or not findings will be judged more on who found them as opposed to their own merit: scientific articles aren't published anonymously, so nothing changes about what role the author plays in the community's reception of the conclusions. As to the question of whether or not scientists will still be able to change their minds: why would that change? Since we already allow scientists to be proved wrong and correct their mistakes, even though we already implicitly expect them to support what they say when they say it, why would it be any different if it was in writing? This isn't about claims of infallibility. It's about intellectual honesty. That said, while I fully support this as a valid idea, I'm not sure it would have much of an effect. These charlatans we're talking about are already speaking out of both sides of their mouths with little regard for scientific decency and I'm not sure this would prevent them from continuing to do so. It might make it easier to hold them accountable for their swindling, but I don't really think even that would be greatly affected. After reading this thread I have to say I'm surprised to see that nearly every commenter seems to think the idea of a sort of declaration of honesty is somehow forcing authors to pledge their loyalty to the establishment. As was said it's merely explicitly stating the implicit. Yes, absolutely, all authors published in peer-reviewed journals should be expected to believe at the time the articles are submitted that what they are saying and the methods they employ are true to the best of their ability. This should go without question. If an author doesn't support what he or she puts forth as science, if the author is willingly lying or deceiving, that person has no right to be submitting it to the world. Even if they directly say in their articles that some aspect is still up in the air, or open to refinement, or even playing devil's advocate, that itself is the position they are taking and the position they have to stand behind. There was nothing that I read in the original post that made me think we were going to have people intellectually strung-up for not falling in line with the rest. The idea is simply asking when an article is submitted, "do you support your claims," and the answer for every single publication should be yes.

As to the question of whether or not authors own their ideas after they're published: I don't see at all how that applies to this. As to the question of whether or not findings will be judged more on who found them as opposed to their own merit: scientific articles aren't published anonymously, so nothing changes about what role the author plays in the community's reception of the conclusions. As to the question of whether or not scientists will still be able to change their minds: why would that change? Since we already allow scientists to be proved wrong and correct their mistakes, even though we already implicitly expect them to support what they say when they say it, why would it be any different if it was in writing? This isn't about claims of infallibility. It's about intellectual honesty.

That said, while I fully support this as a valid idea, I'm not sure it would have much of an effect. These charlatans we're talking about are already speaking out of both sides of their mouths with little regard for scientific decency and I'm not sure this would prevent them from continuing to do so. It might make it easier to hold them accountable for their swindling, but I don't really think even that would be greatly affected.

]]> By: Eclectic http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30348 Eclectic Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:03:42 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30348 I don't support something even as minimal as such a declaration. It's too close to thought police. The goal of academic review is to judge the worth of the results, not the author. That's why it's normally anonymous. (Even though that's something of a polite fiction once authors become well-known in a field.) Is a constructivist mathematician who doesn't believe in the axiom of choice to be forbidden from publishing a theorem that depends on it? What you can legitimately ask is if the author has omitted information that would materially undermine the point of a paper, but even that would have to be tested for practicality; there are such things as length limits, for one! I don't support something even as minimal as such a declaration. It's too close to thought police. The goal of academic review is to judge the worth of the results, not the author. That's why it's normally anonymous. (Even though that's something of a polite fiction once authors become well-known in a field.) Is a constructivist mathematician who doesn't believe in the axiom of choice to be forbidden from publishing a theorem that depends on it?

What you can legitimately ask is if the author has omitted information that would materially undermine the point of a paper, but even that would have to be tested for practicality; there are such things as length limits, for one!

]]> By: Jim Speiser http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30341 Jim Speiser Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:46:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30341 I think the problem that Adam is trying to correct with his "oath" is the ability of the creationist movement to "pad its credentials" by being able to point and say, "See? We HAVE been published in peer-reviewed journals!" Adam's intent is laudable, but I agree that the oath thing is not the answer. I think the answer is to narrow the scope of the counter-argument and state that "No pro-creationism article has even been published in a peer-reviewed science journal," or something similar that has been well-qualified to get the point across. Also, add me to the list of those who see nothing wrong with holding two different points of view, each of which is valid within its own paradigm. As one commenter stated, there is precious little we can be 100% certain of (I didn't know this was a post-modernist thought, I figured it was Epistemology 101). We CANNOT be certain that tomorrow we won't wake up in a vat of goo, connected by cables to a vast machine. All of science is performed within the point of view that this admittedly remote possibility will not occur. However, it is also possible to conjecture about what life would be like if that WERE to occur - and all manner of fun and merriment can then ensue from such a conjecture. Why, someone might even make a movie about it! I think the problem that Adam is trying to correct with his "oath" is the ability of the creationist movement to "pad its credentials" by being able to point and say, "See? We HAVE been published in peer-reviewed journals!" Adam's intent is laudable, but I agree that the oath thing is not the answer. I think the answer is to narrow the scope of the counter-argument and state that "No pro-creationism article has even been published in a peer-reviewed science journal," or something similar that has been well-qualified to get the point across.

Also, add me to the list of those who see nothing wrong with holding two different points of view, each of which is valid within its own paradigm. As one commenter stated, there is precious little we can be 100% certain of (I didn't know this was a post-modernist thought, I figured it was Epistemology 101). We CANNOT be certain that tomorrow we won't wake up in a vat of goo, connected by cables to a vast machine. All of science is performed within the point of view that this admittedly remote possibility will not occur. However, it is also possible to conjecture about what life would be like if that WERE to occur - and all manner of fun and merriment can then ensue from such a conjecture. Why, someone might even make a movie about it!

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30206 Alex Weaver Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:10:21 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30206 <blockquote>I noticed a scientific error in some of the replies. Calling postmodern creationists "schizophrenic" because they seem to have two different personalities is incorrect. You're thinking of Multiple Personality Disorder. Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes hallucinations. This is a VERY common mistake. I'm sorry that this is so off-topic, and I realize that you're not using the word literally, but since we're talking about science, I just thought that we should get all our scientific facts straight. Sorry.</blockquote> In this usage by Adam and others who should be familiar with the difference, I always assumed that the writer's intent was to convey that the person's behavior was not necessarily suggestive of multiple personalities, but rather bizarre, irrational, disturbing, and above all unpredictable, in a fashion suggestive of intense delusionality.

I noticed a scientific error in some of the replies. Calling postmodern creationists "schizophrenic" because they seem to have two different personalities is incorrect. You're thinking of Multiple Personality Disorder. Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes hallucinations. This is a VERY common mistake.

I'm sorry that this is so off-topic, and I realize that you're not using the word literally, but since we're talking about science, I just thought that we should get all our scientific facts straight. Sorry.

In this usage by Adam and others who should be familiar with the difference, I always assumed that the writer's intent was to convey that the person's behavior was not necessarily suggestive of multiple personalities, but rather bizarre, irrational, disturbing, and above all unpredictable, in a fashion suggestive of intense delusionality.

]]> By: Tiedemies http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30205 Tiedemies Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:06:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30205 Isn't the idea that a scientific author somehow "owns" the ideas he writes about contrary to the whole idea of science? This swings both ways, meaning, once you've published anything, you are in no way better positioned to counter the argument you've made, assuming you reported your evidence truthfully. It simply does not matter, who wrote a paper, whatever they subsequently say about it. A scientific result is not in anyway dependent on the author. If it were, we would be completely rejecting the whole idea of evidence based science and replacing it with something that more or less resembles *gasp* religion. Isn't the idea that a scientific author somehow "owns" the ideas he writes about contrary to the whole idea of science? This swings both ways, meaning, once you've published anything, you are in no way better positioned to counter the argument you've made, assuming you reported your evidence truthfully.

It simply does not matter, who wrote a paper, whatever they subsequently say about it. A scientific result is not in anyway dependent on the author. If it were, we would be completely rejecting the whole idea of evidence based science and replacing it with something that more or less resembles *gasp* religion.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30199 Ebonmuse Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:24:24 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30199 I see that reader opinion is strongly against my idea. I accept that - although just in case there's any confusion, I want to be absolutely clear that I'm not suggesting any scientist should have to affirm the consensus position to publish. I'm suggesting that a scientist should have to affirm that they stand behind the reasoning and conclusions in <i>their own paper at the time they publish it</i>. I don't think this is doing anything more than explicitly codifying something that should already be implicit in the act of publishing any peer-reviewed paper. Why would we punish academic fraud or plagiarism, for example, unless we understood that publishing a paper is in essence a declaration that you stand behind your work as you've presented it? (Contrary to one comment, I've never heard of a scientist publishing a paper solely to play devil's advocate. It takes <i>hard work</i> to gather the evidence and do the legwork necessary for even one good paper in a legitimate journal.) Granted, a person can advance a perfectly valid scientific argument even if they don't believe in it themselves. Still, I find it to be fundamentally dishonest, as well as contrary to basic scientific integrity, for creationists to write papers using reasoning and making arguments which they themselves reject at the time they write them. And what makes it even worse is that they're writing these papers to polish their credentials and thereby hope to win support for the actual antiscientific positions they hold - positions which totally contradict the papers they're publishing in order to win an audience for them. If they're so willing to play this kind of deceptive game, shouldn't we be wary of trusting the claims in even their "legitimate" papers? I see that reader opinion is strongly against my idea. I accept that - although just in case there's any confusion, I want to be absolutely clear that I'm not suggesting any scientist should have to affirm the consensus position to publish. I'm suggesting that a scientist should have to affirm that they stand behind the reasoning and conclusions in their own paper at the time they publish it. I don't think this is doing anything more than explicitly codifying something that should already be implicit in the act of publishing any peer-reviewed paper. Why would we punish academic fraud or plagiarism, for example, unless we understood that publishing a paper is in essence a declaration that you stand behind your work as you've presented it? (Contrary to one comment, I've never heard of a scientist publishing a paper solely to play devil's advocate. It takes hard work to gather the evidence and do the legwork necessary for even one good paper in a legitimate journal.)

Granted, a person can advance a perfectly valid scientific argument even if they don't believe in it themselves. Still, I find it to be fundamentally dishonest, as well as contrary to basic scientific integrity, for creationists to write papers using reasoning and making arguments which they themselves reject at the time they write them. And what makes it even worse is that they're writing these papers to polish their credentials and thereby hope to win support for the actual antiscientific positions they hold - positions which totally contradict the papers they're publishing in order to win an audience for them. If they're so willing to play this kind of deceptive game, shouldn't we be wary of trusting the claims in even their "legitimate" papers?

]]> By: RollingStone http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30182 RollingStone Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:43:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30182 I noticed a scientific error in some of the replies. Calling postmodern creationists "schizophrenic" because they seem to have two different personalities is incorrect. You're thinking of Multiple Personality Disorder. Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes hallucinations. This is a VERY common mistake. I'm sorry that this is so off-topic, and I realize that you're not using the word literally, but since we're talking about science, I just thought that we should get all our scientific facts straight. Sorry. I noticed a scientific error in some of the replies. Calling postmodern creationists "schizophrenic" because they seem to have two different personalities is incorrect. You're thinking of Multiple Personality Disorder. Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes hallucinations. This is a VERY common mistake.

I'm sorry that this is so off-topic, and I realize that you're not using the word literally, but since we're talking about science, I just thought that we should get all our scientific facts straight. Sorry.

]]> By: Nentuaby http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30181 Nentuaby Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:25:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30181 I think the problems of such an oath become obvious after just a couple seconds thought. After all, Scientists are wrong. A lot. How many paleontologists can stand their decade-old work? Anyone in the room? (I'm a software engineer. We have it worse, but then that's applied science, not research.) That's the entire idea behind having the scientific method, people still DOING science a couple millennia after Aristotle had all the answers, etc. etc. Who'd want to be forsworn every couple of years? Who'd want to say they entirely stand behind something they're tossing out for a wider opinion, something they think is an Intriguing Direction for Further Study, etc? That's all to ignore the really disturbing thought police aspect- and even the actual benefit, however ironic, the world can gain from these hypocrites' "scientific face" papers. Personally, I just think we should print out the hypocrites' papers and smack them over the head with them repeatedly. But then, I'm a direct person. I think the problems of such an oath become obvious after just a couple seconds thought. After all, Scientists are wrong. A lot. How many paleontologists can stand their decade-old work? Anyone in the room? (I'm a software engineer. We have it worse, but then that's applied science, not research.) That's the entire idea behind having the scientific method, people still DOING science a couple millennia after Aristotle had all the answers, etc. etc. Who'd want to be forsworn every couple of years? Who'd want to say they entirely stand behind something they're tossing out for a wider opinion, something they think is an Intriguing Direction for Further Study, etc? That's all to ignore the really disturbing thought police aspect- and even the actual benefit, however ironic, the world can gain from these hypocrites' "scientific face" papers.

Personally, I just think we should print out the hypocrites' papers and smack them over the head with them repeatedly. But then, I'm a direct person.

]]> By: James B http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30179 James B Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:36:33 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/postmodern-apologists.html#comment-30179 Surely the fact that such people are being, at best profoundly inconsistent eccentrics is enough to make people wonder about their credibility or even their sanity? Surely the fact that such people are being, at best profoundly inconsistent eccentrics is enough to make people wonder about their credibility or even their sanity?

]]>