Steve Fuller on how fraud is OK

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Steve Fuller on how fraud is OK

Postby Timothy Chase » Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:02 pm

RPM at evolgen brought up an interesting story on how Steve Fuller, who was an expert witness for the defense (the school board) in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, has recently been advocating certain interesting ideas regarding science research...

Please see:

Fraud is Okay
Posted on: October 19, 2006 3:00 PM, by RPM
http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2006/10 ... s_okay.php
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby molecanthro » Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:21 am

Who needs real data anyway?
Steve Fuller is an anti-science nutcase who spews postmodernist crap any chance he gets. This quote is my favorite:

“At any point in its history, science could have gone in many directions. The few paths actually taken have been due to ambient political, economic and cultural factors. There appears to be nothing uniquely ‘rational’, ‘objective’, or ‘truth-oriented’ about the activities our society calls ‘scientific’.”


And have a look at his website: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~sysdt/Index.html
Also, this post from PT last December sums up his part in the Dover trial: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/and_a_shout_out.html

Mark.
User avatar
molecanthro
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: London/Cambridge

Postby Timothy Chase » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:14 pm

molecanthro wrote:Who needs real data anyway?
Steve Fuller is an anti-science nutcase who spews postmodernist crap any chance he gets. This quote is my favorite....


This gets me to thinking.

There have been plenty of articles written on the web concerning the main players in the intelligent design movement. Analysis of their arguments and whatnot. Since intelligent design is in fact something quite separate from the young earth creationism which is actually promoted by the creationists in Britain, we probably should not confuse the issue - and should keep our analysis of the two separate.

At the same time, since young earth creationists are at times using intelligent design arguments - which are in fact simply a recycling of old creationist arguments themselves. Moreover, they are using intelligent design per se as a fig-leaf to cover their young earth creationism, we should undoubtedly deal with it as well.

So for example, there could be a list of the main players in the intelligent design movement, and for each a quick look at their arguments and embarassing moments - much like the analysis Roger has already performed of some of the creationists in Britain. Likewise, there could be a set of links to articles elsewhere which go into greater depth - as additional reference material. However, since intelligent design has been dealt with in detail, such analyses can be kept rather short. These could be at the bottom of the webpage, and clearly marked as external articles. For each article, there would be a link to the main website (as a courtesy) and to the article itself.

One of the nice things about including such links (whether for young earth creationists or for intelligent design proponents) is that it will provide other writers with additional material to reference in writing original articles, letters to the editor, etc.. One of the problems writers sometimes encounter is that they want to write something, but if they have only one source, they feel like they have nothing original to say.

Likewise, there is usually a great deal of thought put into the organisation of the original article, and if they are simply working off of the same content with only one source, they have difficulty thinking of alternate ways of organising the material. Thus they can fall into the trap of simply rehashing. Multiple sources provide them with the opportunity to go off of other content and to see other ways of presenting material. Alternate content and alternate forms of presentation. And we will be making it that much easier if we provide such links.

One point: I do not think that this or some of the more ambitious suggestions I have made are really something which Roger himself should necessarily be doing: he is already doing a great deal and carrying a fairly heavy load. I will see about doing some of what I suggest - a little later. Others might also want to pitch in - but of course, if you have certain things which, from your perspective, are higher priorities, then these of course should come first. The suggestions above are things that could be implimented gradually, for example, as people find links. Getting things done on any significant scale is typically a matter of gradual but steady.
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:01 pm

Timothy Chase wrote:

One point: I do not think that this or some of the more ambitious suggestions I have made are really something which Roger himself should necessarily be doing: he is already doing a great deal and carrying a fairly heavy load. I will see about doing some of what I suggest - a little later. Others might also want to pitch in - but of course, if you have certain things which, from your perspective, are higher priorities, then these of course should come first. The suggestions above are things that could be implimented gradually, for example, as people find links. Getting things done on any significant scale is typically a matter of gradual but steady.


Thanks Tim for the offer of organising this. My time is pretty stretched at the moment. One of the problems in my time management is that I have to roughly split it 60:40 at present. 40% I allocate to work that is their to hand including, for example, getting agreement on our draft constitution. 60% though has to be unallocated as I don't know what is coming up. For example, last week I was clled up to see PZ Meyers at virtually no notice - that took 12 hours out of my day. I then had to follow up approaching a certain professor.....etc.etc..

The baisc position is that I am working on the wiki when unallocted time doesn't get swallowed up.

My thinking on ID is that we need to do much more work on it because:

1. Truth in Science is pushing ID.
2. There may be ID money behind Truth in Science.
3. The Discovery Instutute claims to have "research" in hand.
3. The Creationists in the UK are increasingly using ID as a smokescreen.

Roger
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Timothy Chase » Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:55 am

Not a problem.

I will start trying to knockout a little bit tommorrow.

Might be a little slow this weekend, though: obligations and a sinus infection. Ouch! But I see you already have something on Johnson, there is plenty on Behe and Dembski available, we should do Wells (Mr. Conspiracy theorist), then there is of Meyer (e.g., Cambrian explosion). And I remember running across long criticisms of some of the major books - links to these would be nice.

But yes, a separate section for them is probably a good idea - as would be something explaining how fractured the creationist movement actually is for comparison with the state of creationism in the UK.
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

They're singing our song!

Postby John Germain » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:27 am

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2 ... revail.php

John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
John Germain
John Germain
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Jersey, British Channel Islands


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron