User talk:Dbergan/Johnstone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last Archived: August 22, 2005

Contents 1 From User:Dbergan's talk page 1.1 The ID Experience 2 From User:Johnstone's talk page 2.1 The ID experience

[edit] From User:Dbergan's talk page

[edit] The ID Experience

I agree with much of what you've said here. Also, I've been astounded by the quantity, and impressed with the quality of much of your writing in the ID discussion page. One of my first impressions upon seeing your contributions was, "this guy should write a book," so I'm glad that you're considering writing one. In my opinion, since you have a lot to say, you'll probably be spending your time more effectively doing that. If you need a (pre-publication) reviewer...

Having been a contributor for a while, I'm well aware of the limitations of Wikipedia on controversial subjects. Perhaps the best thing that can happen is that this particular systemic deficiency of Wikipedia will become generally known to the public over time. I, too, have occasionally felt like I've wasted time in contending points with closed-minded editors on articles. But I've also always been keenly aware of it, and have subsequently tried to limit it as much as possible.

Unfortunately, some editors are more intent on skewing articles toward their own POV than in creating a general NPOV knowledge base, and even a relatively small number of them can harm the NPOV-ness any given article. Witness the evolution page, where its caretakers won't allow any criticism whatsoever to appear on it. (And I'm not an anti-evolutionist. It's just that no subject, but no subject, is beyond (sometimes unjustified) reproach.) When I discovered the following words from Dembski, I had already experienced it: "we are dealing with a naturalistic metaphysic that shapes and controls what theories of biological origins are permitted on the playing field in advance of any discussion or weighing of evidence. This metaphysic is so pervasive and powerful that it not only rules alternative theories out of the court, but it cannot even permit itself to be criticized. The fallibleness and tentativeness that are supposed to be a part of science find no place in the naturalistic metaphysic that undergirds Darwinism." (Intelligent Design, p. 114) Empiricism, not naturalism, is the basis of science. Science should and must go wherever the evidence leads. If an extraterrestrial intelligence of any kind seeded the earth, we'd never realize it if all we do is insist that life must be explainable through the action of natural laws alone.

As for ID, it raises several questions that I find very intriguing: Is there a metric that only a designed object could possibly meet? If so, do any (or many) natural objects—especially living things—meet that metric? Is it impossible for algorithmic processes (such as nature is supposed to be limited to) to yield the type of complexity exhibited by life?--Johnstone 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From User:Johnstone's talk page

[edit] The ID experience

I hate to be pessimistic, but I doubt that the other editors will stand for you removing the CSI criticisms... even if they are fallacious. I went through this exact same process in Archive 10 regarding the ludicrous pyramid analogy... pointing out how it was a false analogy and only useful for misinforming the reader. They got mad and basically just bulldozed me with non-sequitors and mob fever. I wish you the best, but until we can get a majority on our side, we can't win any of these games. The opponents are perpetual moving targets, they put words in your mouth, and then when you do make a good argument it's met with conspiracy-like accusations ("Well, that's what the Discovery Institute would want us to think ID is!"). And when you go to change even one word in what they perceive to be their section of the article it is automatically reverted without hesitation. They persist as though the day they first heard about ID they took an oath to ref use ID even one gram of legitimacy.

Based on my experience, tonight I have come to two conclusions. (1) If we are going to succeed in making an article free from misinformation, we need organized collaboration, and we need numbers. I started a wikiproject page for us to meet and discuss. Recruit anyone you know that might be interested. However, (2) in the end, this might not be worth the effort. What is a few paragraphs on a barely-recognized encyclopedic website really worth? Any changes we could make would likely get edited away by a thousand cuts down the road, anyway. I feel like I've torched the better part of a month just trying to get one measly paragraph into the intro... and I've already seen it eroded away like a sand castle in a hurricane.

In non-controversial articles, wikipedia's method evolves. They blossom, they flower, they sparkle with the insight of a thousand different points of view. But in controversial articles, wikipedia's method erodes. They're flat, they're ugly, they're unstable, and they are always obnoxious.

My hat's off to you if you continue to fight the good fight. As for me. I'm stepping away until we have at least 8 people volunteer their efforts at the project page. Until then, I'll just channel all my thoughts about ID into something useful, like a book.

Feel free to write. David Bergan 04:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you've said here. Also, I've been astounded by the quantity, and impressed with the quality of much of your writing in the ID discussion page. One of my first impressions upon seeing your contributions was, "this guy should write a book," so I'm glad that you're considering writing one. In my opinion, since you have a lot to say, you'll probably be spending your time more effectively doing that. If you need a (pre-publication) reviewer...

Having been a contributor for a while, I'm well aware of the limitations of Wikipedia on controversial subjects. Perhaps the best thing that can happen is that this particular systemic deficiency of Wikipedia will become generally known to the public over time. I, too, have occasionally felt like I've wasted time in contending points with closed-minded editors on articles. But I've also always been keenly aware of it, and have subsequently tried to limit it as much as possible.

Unfortunately, some editors are more intent on skewing articles toward their own POV than in creating a general NPOV knowledge base, and even a relatively small number of them can harm the NPOV-ness any given article. Witness the evolution page, where its caretakers won't allow any criticism whatsoever to appear on it. (And I'm not an anti-evolutionist. It's just that no subject, but no subject, is beyond (sometime unjustified) reproach.) When I discovered the following words from Dembski, I had already experienced it: "we are dealing with a naturalistic metaphysic that shapes and controls what theories of biological origins are permitted on the playing field in advance of any discussion or weighing of evidence. This metaphysic is so pervasive and powerful that it not only rules alternative theories out of the court, but it cannot even permit itself to be criticized. The fallibleness and tentativeness that are supposed to be a part of science find no place in the naturalistic metaphysic that undergirds Darwinism." (Intelligent Design, p. 114) Empiricism, not naturalism, is the basis of science. Science should and must go wherever the evidence leads. If an extraterrestrial intelligence of any kind seeded the earth, we'd never realize it if all we do is insist that life must be explainable through the action of natural laws alone.

As for ID, it raises several questions that I find very intriguing: Is there a metric that only a designed object could possibly meet? If so, do any (or many) natural objects—especially living things—meet that metric? Is it impossible for algorithmic processes (such as nature is supposed to be limited to) to yield the type of complexity exhibited by life?--Johnstone 00:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)