[Phys-L] ID defenders

[mnmon at CONNCOLL.EDU (Monce, Michael N.)]

John,
=20
   I'm not quite aure what you mean by this statement:
=20
" But the current crop of neo-extremists doesn't play
that way.  If you disagree with them, you're the enemy, and they'll c=
ome
after you. "
=20
   Are you referring specifically to the conservative side of the pol=
itical spectrum, as this seems to be the side under attack within thi=
s forum lately?  What bothers me about this statement is that it assu=
mes such closed-minded reaction is limited to one side.  It's my own =
personal experience that in many academic settings, those on the extr=
eme political left can be just as vehement with disagreement with the=
ir views.  The  nature of political correctness and rampant speech co=
des on campuses is just one example of how the debate is being stifle=
d, and true academic inquiry is being lost.
=20
   Here's an experiment: write an letter to the editor in the local c=
ampus paper critizing the local campus' use of affirmative action, or=
 the use of public funds for a Women's Study Center.  Watch what the =
reaction will be.  Just be sure to use a pen name as the attacks will=
 be vicious beyond belief. =20
=20
   I'm not defending ID, but just pointing out that censorship, and s=
upression of opinion and debate, are certainly not limited to one sid=
e of the political spectrum.
=20
=20
           For moderation,
=20
                                                      Mike Monce
                                                      Connecticut Col=
lege

________________________________

=46rom: Forum for Physics Educators on behalf of John Denker
Sent: Wed 8/24/2005 2:21 AM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: NYT article on where intelligent design comes from



I wrote in part:
> | | The guys driving this are deeply anti-science ...

Rauber, Joel responded in part:
> Here I quibble just a tad, I'm not sure that the "guys" are anti-sc=
ience.
> ... In a way they are being very "scientific" or perhaps more accu=
rately
> stated "social scientific" in there methods.  And I suspect that t=
hey are
> very scientific in how they deal with their investments; and the p=
erceived
> value in the functionality of their electronic devices, boats, pla=
nes etc etc.

This quibble is on-target.  I agree with what Joel says.  In particul=
ar
I agree that the ID guys are smart and coldly calculating.

I think his point can be reconciled with my point, but I need to expl=
ain
my point better.  He is using "scientific" in one sense, while I was =
using
it in another sense.

To illustrate what I mean, consider a non-ID example:  a year or so a=
go,
George Bush gave a speech at the re-opening of an upgraded power plan=
t.
The administration had found a way to allow the plant to not comply w=
ith
environmental laws ... and they were boasting about it.  They said th=
at
by not enforcing the laws, they were (a) creating jobs and (b) _reduc=
ing_
pollution.

Now these guys aren't stupid.  They know perfectly well that the upgr=
aded
plant was much more polluting than it would have been if the law had =
been
enforced.  They just don't care.  They and their friends can pocket m=
ore
money if they don't have to comply with the law, so they made it happ=
en
that way.  BTW the speech was a masterpiece of obfuscation;  they car=
efully
said that the plant was putting out less pollution than it would if i=
t
had not been upgraded, which might even be true!  They just avoided
mentioning the fact that it was putting out much more pollution than =
it
would if the law had been enforced ... and they figured nobody would =
call
them on it.  They also avoided mentioning that every other plant in t=
he
country how had to compete with this plant, making it economically
uncompetitive for others to comply with the law even if they wanted t=
o.

Science is sometimes described as a set of methods, the best methods =
we
know for finding out the truth.  (Various paraphrases of this have be=
en
attributed to various sources.)

When I used the word "scientific", I had in mind the idea that scient=
ists
by-and-large (*) want the truth to get out.  In contrast, these guys
emphatically do not want the truth to get out.  They're smart, and th=
ey
know the truth;  they just don't want *us* to know the truth.

    (*) There are exceptions:  For example: I have done some classifi=
ed
    research, and it would be a verrry bad thing if the results becam=
e
    widely known.  But this is an irrelevant tangent.  There's nothin=
g
    classified about ID, or about pollution from power plants.  (Actu=
ally
    90+% of the secret stuff I've seen could be published tomorrow an=
d
    it wouldn't make any difference, but that's yet another tangent.)

To return to the main point:  The neo-extremists are like scientists =
in
being smart and calculating, but unlike scientists in terms of their
fundamental motivation, and in what they do with the information they
come up with.

They are also deeply antagonistic to the existing scientific communit=
y.
Scientists have found ways to respectfully disagree with each other.
They argue until a consensus if formed ... as we have seen on this li=
st
innumerable times.  But the current crop of neo-extremists doesn't pl=
ay
that way.  If you disagree with them, you're the enemy, and they'll c=
ome
after you.  Joe Wilson and his wife are just one example of this;  th=
ere
are many, many examples of FDA and EPA (etc.) staffers who have been
penalized for letting the truth get out.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said everybody is entitled to their own
opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts.

I think that's a lovely expression of a lovely thought.

The neo-extremists are well aware of this saying ... but they disagre=
e
with it.  They think they are powerful enough to change the facts.  A=
nd
in a sense they are.  They said in 2003 that Iraq was a hotbed of ter=
ror.
It wasn't then, but it is now.