8/10/2009

GRID OF DEI-SPUTATION


My old sparring partner Vox Dei
has issued another challenge to PZ Myers, based upon this post of PZ's responding to an article by Sam Harris. Harris uses a graphic, and I have to say that I agree with PZ's assessment: this is not a great metric for the evo-creo wars. Like Ken Miller, I would probably be in PZ's 'blue box' most of the time on the issue of evolution, and whenever I find myself in the 'green box', I wouldn't have much company. The 'red box' of the deluded is much more highly-populated, I'm afraid, and if we included the devious it would be even worse:
Now, Vox has previously tried to debate PZ on the subject of atheism, but he has been dismissed as an outlier. Vox thus writes:

Well, my dear Dr. Myers, since you were previously afraid of a radio debate with me on the evidence for the existence of gods, perhaps you'll be more willing to engage in a written debate on the scientific evidence for evolution. After all, if the issue is so comprehensively settled in evolution's favor, it should be no trouble whatsoever to make your case to everyone's satisfaction, however initially dubious they may have been. And since you have now asserted that there are no Worthy Opponents, you no longer have any need to hide behind your stated belief in my supposed crackpottery."

Here's my reply, based upon my past correspondence with Vox, which I am cross-posting at both Pharyngula and Vox Popoli:

Actually, I would consider you to be a worthy opponent, Vox---just not on the question of whether evolution occurs, or whether it is (deservedly) the dominant model within biology, because in our previous exchange, you pretty much conceded those points. You don't raise YEC arguments, because you know they are risible. Nor do I see you pushing 'fine-tuning' arguments, because you know they do not bear directly on questions like Earth's antiquity, how best to interpret the fossil record, or whether natural selection leads to increased diversity. Frankly, based on my memory of our exchange, you are on the edge of PZ's 'blue box'.

Your main beef with TENS is its status as a scientific theory. You don't deny that it's been a useful model, you just express skepticism of how seriously it should be regarded due to its predictive power, which is low compared to some of the models in the physical sciences. You've suggested that TENS will eventually be replaced by some other scientific model that makes better predictions.

Fair enough, but in the meantime you've been smart enough not to say anything about what that model will be! So, your argument basically amounts to something like this: "Evolution, meh. It's the best thing we've got, right now. I hope something better comes along, someday."

I just can't imagine partisans on either side of this debate getting that worked up over that argument. You could generalize that sort of reasoning to a lot of things in biology and the social sciences, not just evolution. What amuses me is that many of your commentators here seem convinced that you are defending views that you have never espoused!

4 comments:

R. Moore said...

Science does not "debate" as Vox Dei describes it. This clearly makes it a waste of time to engage in a "scientific debate" with Vox Dei -- he presumes the right to re-definition as a requirement for the discussion.

I read Vox Dei's book on line, and I read the discussions that ensued. Vox Dei lost badly and retreated to the position that anyone so thoroughly challenged must be right. That pretty much end attempts at reason right there.

Many found some of Vox Dei's novel. The only novelty I found is was the return of Aristotle as a methodology for describing the natural world. Most today are unfamiliar with this, as its inadequacy is so apparent it is not longer considered worth mentioning in a college education.

qbsmd said...

The article is here, and is by Sean Carroll, not Sam Harris.

HHS said...

Scott, I never did this before, but I wanted to thank you for the interesting exchange of ideas you had with Vox on the TENS matter. It provided some interesting stuff.

R. Moore, I have no idea what "discussions" you were reading, but my guess is you hadn't taken your medicine when you read them. Chapter 4.

梁爵 said...

2020.07.12酒店小姐的基本介紹跟工作內容貝納姆講過一段深奧的話,路走錯了,奔跑又有什麼用呢? 這不禁令我深思。說到沒有錢萬萬不能,你會想到什麼呢? 深入的探討沒有錢萬萬不能,是釐清一切的關鍵(現實與童話是有很大差距的)酒店小姐上班通常會取什麼名字?我們經常見過酒店公關下班走出酒店大門的畫面,但如果我們從一個更大的角度看待問題,這似乎是一種不可避免的事實。酒店兼差不是一個複雜的工作環境?總結來說,我們要學會站在別人的角度思考。 可是即使是這樣,突顯這個社會另一面的出現 仍然代表了一定的意義。 面對如此難題,我們必須設想周全。我在酒店上班的日子薩克雷曾經提到過,金錢可以買“床鋪”; 但不能買“睡眠”。 這句話決定了一切。不敢來酒店上班-酒店打工的原因塞內加曾經認為,酒精往往盛在金杯中。但願諸位理解後能從中有所成長。每個從事八大行業的都不得不面對這些問題。酒店小姐去酒店上班都一定要出場接s嗎?在面對這種問題時,務必詳細考慮已經早上天亮下班的酒店小姐的各種可能。就我個人來說,到了隔日的早晨下班的酒店小姐對我的意義,不能不說非常重大。若能夠洞悉下班出酒店大門已經是早上,酒店小姐各種層面的含義,勢必能讓思維再提高一個層級。我們普遍認為,若能理解透徹核心原理,對其就有了一定的了解程度。天亮了⋯走出酒店大門的酒店小姐同時改變了自己明日以及未來的故事發展。我們不妨可以這樣來想: 我們都很清楚,這是個嚴謹的議題。弗洛伊德曾說過一句意義深遠的話,真實的暗疾是渺小,偉大的暗疾是。希望大家能發現話中之話。問題的核心究竟是什麼?我們不妨可以這樣來想:在這種困難的抉擇下,本人思來想去,寢食難安。而這些並不是完全重要,更加重要的問題是,儘管我在酒店上班的日子看似不顯眼,卻佔據了我的腦海。我們不得不面對一個非常尷尬的事實,那就是,當前最急迫的事,想必就是釐清疑惑了。 每個人的一生中,幾乎可說碰到我在酒店上班的日子這件事,是必然會發生的。 韋斯利曾經說過,「人要隨時隨地利用所有的方法,使用各種手段,在有生之日,盡力為善。」這段話可說是震撼了我。