Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch. Options

[Sxeptomaniac]

I had really hoped they'd keep themselves under control after FeloniousMonk's desysopping a while back, but they appear to be back at it again.

Cla68 seems to have stirred them up by trying to add a "Scientific theories" category to the Intelligent Design article. Don't think it was a really good idea, but it doesn't justify the reaction.

Now Hrafn has decided to tag various articles as being Creationism stubs, including James Tour, a guy who has specifically said that he's not an intelligent design supporter. He signed a petition, so therefore he's a creationist, even if he says otherwise, right? Never mind that he's done nothing else related to creationism, and all indicators are that he never will. Now Guettarda's gaming to try to keep the tag in (since when is the burden of evidence on the one removing material from a BLP?).

I really did not want to get involved with these people again, but I'm not letting them go back to messing with BLPs like they did in the past.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

[lilburne]

Back in the mid 80s I was the duty chemist in a chemical factory on the night shift. I had a young guy as an assistant which they used to call "Basher" as he could be found testifying in the shopping mall at the weekend and doing the same in the pubs in the evening. Nice enough kid and we sort of got on OK - until this one night when there was little to do, and he was bored and wanted something to read. Without thinking I gave him the latest issue of the "New Internationalist" to read, it was sponsored by Oxfam, Save The Children, and Christian Aid, amongst others.

Anyway he took one look at it, put it down, walk out of the lab and I never saw him for the rest of the shift, also he didn't speak to me for a month. The reason was that particular issue had articles on dinosaurs and fossils.

[Doc glasgow]

Back in the mid 80s I was the duty chemist in a chemical factory on the night shift. I had a young guy as an assistant which they used to call "Basher" as he could be found testifying in the shopping mall at the weekend and doing the same in the pubs in the evening. Nice enough kid and we sort of got on OK - until this one night when there was little to do, and he was bored and wanted something to read. Without thinking I gave him the latest issue of the "New Internationalist" to read, it was sponsored by Oxfam, Save The Children, and Christian Aid, amongst others.

Anyway he took one look at it, put it down, walk out of the lab and I never saw him for the rest of the shift, also he didn't speak to me for a month. The reason was that particular issue had articles on dinosaurs and fossils.

A long time ago a picked up a book on Creation Science - it sat unread on a bookcase among thousands of others. When studying in a liberal university, a friend was doing an essay on a related topic, and I offered to lend her the book for her interest. When I brought it in for her, I was seen with it in the common room. What happened next astounded me: liberal, broad-minded people, responded with scorn and anger to the very idea anyone would even read the book. It was book-burning anger.

I am NOT (and never have been) a proponent of Creation Science, but it struck me that had I entered that same liberal common room with a copy of Mein Kampf people would have given me the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps even applauded a broad reading scope of even objectionable books.

Intelligent liberals tolerate horoscopes, Scientology, new-age mantras, feng shui, and any other amount of unscientific mumbo-jumbo. Why is it that ID so causes their blood to boil? If they are so confident of the strength of the intellectual argument against it, why are they so bloody defensive? (Even here in the UK, where there is no history of interference with education.)

Kelly is correct, if the anti-ID position is so strong, then gaming the article should be utterly unnecessary.

[Cyclopia]

Intelligent liberals tolerate horoscopes, Scientology, new-age mantras, feng shui, and any other amount of unscientific mumbo-jumbo. Why is it that ID so causes their blood to boil? If they are so confident of the strength of the intellectual argument against it, why are they so bloody defensive? (Even here in the UK, where there is no history of interference with education.)

Kelly is correct, if the anti-ID position is so strong, then gaming the article should be utterly unnecessary.

Well, I personally do not tolerate horoscopes, Scientology, and almost all unscientific mumbo-jumbo. But you have a good point.

The answer -at least for myself- is that while it is easy to show that horoscopes and Scientology are nonsensical BS, Creationism and ID instead dangerously disguise as science. And disproving their arguments, while easy for the scientifically educated person, is not so easy for an educated person but with a weak scientific background. They can look convincing. Often to disprove many of their apparently reasonable arguments you have to resort to very long explanation and introduce concepts which are not immediately trivial -and many people will prefer of course to listen to the easier,clearer (but deeply wrong) version.

[Jagärdu]

Intelligent liberals tolerate horoscopes, Scientology, new-age mantras, feng shui, and any other amount of unscientific mumbo-jumbo. Why is it that ID so causes their blood to boil? If they are so confident of the strength of the intellectual argument against it, why are they so bloody defensive? (Even here in the UK, where there is no history of interference with education.)

Kelly is correct, if the anti-ID position is so strong, then gaming the article should be utterly unnecessary.

Well, I personally do not tolerate horoscopes, Scientology, and almost all unscientific mumbo-jumbo. But you have a good point.

The answer -at least for myself- is that while it is easy to show that horoscopes and Scientology are nonsensical BS, Creationism and ID instead dangerously disguise as science. And disproving their arguments, while easy for the scientifically educated person, is not so easy for an educated person but with a weak scientific background. They can look convincing. Often to disprove many of their apparently reasonable arguments you have to resort to very long explanation and introduce concepts which are not immediately trivial -and many people will prefer of course to listen to the easier,clearer (but deeply wrong) version.

The answer is much simpler, and entirely political (at least in the United States). I'm a liberal myself, but I detest all the culture wars nonsense that gets pandered about by both liberal and conservative politicians and talking heads to rile up their constituents/consumers. A couple of years ago I recall arguing with a friend who was convinced that George Bush's "No Child Left Behind" forced schools to teach ID in order to get funding. Say what? The history of this "debate" in the United States is a political history. The only reason it appears in the conscious of the 90% of the population who aren't fanatical nutjubs on either side, is strictly politics. ID is utter nonesense, but it is also just as harmless as the tooth fairy. But liberals are made to fear conservatives and their ideas (and vice versa), especially the ideas that are less important when push comes to shove, because that's how you play the political game here.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[Sxeptomaniac]

The answer is much simpler, and entirely political (at least in the United States). I'm a liberal myself, but I detest all the culture wars nonsense that gets pandered about by both liberal and conservative politicians and talking heads to rile up their constituents/consumers. A couple of years ago I recall arguing with a friend who was convinced that George Bush's "No Child Left Behind" forced schools to teach ID in order to get funding. Say what? The history of this "debate" in the United States is a political history. The only reason it appears in the conscious of the 90% of the population who aren't fanatical nutjubs on either side, is strictly politics. ID is utter nonesense, but it is also just as harmless as the tooth fairy. But liberals are made to fear conservatives and their ideas (and vice versa), especially the ideas that are less important when push comes to shove, because that's how you play the political game here.

This is true. Each end of the political spectrum here fear each other, and have various pundits perfectly happy to stoke that fear further. In the case of ID, the anti-ID zealots often combine that fear with condescension and hate, while thinking of themselves as the elite saviors of science.

The thing many anti-ID people don't understand is that their hate feeds ID proponents as much as anything. It gives them the opportunity to play martyr. A dispassionate argument is far more likely to be effective, if anything could be. The displays of loathing simply allow the ID supporter to remake themselves into a victim.

[lilburne]

[The thing many anti-ID people don't understand is that their hate feeds ID proponents as much as anything. It gives them the opportunity to play martyr. A dispassionate argument is far more likely to be effective, if anything could be. The displays of loathing simply allow the ID supporter to remake themselves into a victim.

Oh come on they'll play the victim until such time that they can have the Flintstones categorized as a documentary of historic fact.

Unless you can arrange for the first part of the ID article to categorically state "The following beliefs are held by Loony Tunes", then it shouldn't be on the damn site.

Some editorial POV is a GOOD THING.

[Doc glasgow]

[The thing many anti-ID people don't understand is that their hate feeds ID proponents as much as anything. It gives them the opportunity to play martyr. A dispassionate argument is far more likely to be effective, if anything could be. The displays of loathing simply allow the ID supporter to remake themselves into a victim.

Oh come on they'll play the victim until such time that they can have the Flintstones categorized as a documentary of historic fact.

Unless you can arrange for the first part of the ID article to categorically state "The following beliefs are held by Loony Tunes", then it shouldn't be on the damn site.

Some editorial POV is a GOOD THING.

Absolutely - as long as it is mine.

Can I also redirect:
*[[Scientology]] to [[Scam]]
*[[United States of America]] to [[Global Pollution]]
and
*[[WTO]] to [[Third World exploitation]]?

[lilburne]

Some editorial POV is a GOOD THING.

Absolutely - as long as it is mine.

Can I also redirect:
*[[Scientology]] to [[Scam]]
*[[United States of America]] to [[Global Pollution]]
and
*[[WTO]] to [[Third World exploitation]]?

Go for it.

You cannot crowd source this type of content, because it will always be fought over. The IDers will always want it slanted to validate, if only in part, ID. The contras will always want to ensure that the derision is absolute.

Remove the most egregious derision, settle on a version and lock it. Its not as if the facts on the issue ain't going to be changing any time soon. It is done and dusted, finished, and requires no more polishing, or tarnishing. Learn to let go.