Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Why is WikiPedia so slow?

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 1/6/06, Josh <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
>  First, let me thank you for a well written and respectful response.

OK.  I wish your response to my response had been stronger.

Here are points you failed to address completely:

1) The list is short: why?
2) There are no NAS or Nobelists on it: why?
3) I could make a list of over 100 Nobelists with life-sciences
accomplishments supporting evolution, and you have 0: why?

>  The ICR themselves give several answers to this. First, its far from a
> complete list but rather just a list of those directly involved with the
> ICR.

That argument is completely useless.  Or, rather, worse than useless. 
You trot the list out to show the impressive support for creationism
among scientists.  Somebody points out that the list is...not so hot. 
Then you say the list consists of only people who support a specific
non-scientific organization that would never have critics in their
midst and refer to the real scientific literature produced by the list
members as their "secular" contributions.  In other words, the ICR
itself separates creationist publications from real scientific
publications, which suggests that they don't really care about the
scientific publications.  So why publish a list of scientists at all?

> (See below for notes on the deceased.)

Why not add hundreds of scientists from the 16th through 19th
centuries who were undoubtedly believers in creation?

> Furthermore, there are so many
> individuals like Mike in the scientific fields that immediately discount a
> person that professes belief in something other than evolution.

I think you misconstrue the situation.  Mike (or I, or many other
people) look at the evidence in favor of evolution.  Scientifically,
it is overwhelming.  We look at the best evidence put forth by outfits
like the ICR; it is essentially zero.  We personally decide that
evolution is almost certainly true universally (it seems to be
absolutely true in the "micro" sense).  Absent the existence of a
power that could manipulate the world without leaving any other trace,
no other explanation out there fits anything like the spectacular
variety of observable facts out there.  Then, somebody else comes
forward saying they believe in a different explanation.  OK then,
(says I), what is your evidence for this, and how does it explain all
of the other data out there?

And here is the point: none of these people then come out with any
objective scientific data that pose any threat to evolution
whatsoever.  Very often, they come up with one of a very few talking
points put out by the ICR or the DI or wherever, but these are points
that have been addressed thoroughly and which (more often than not)
are pretty much completely destroyed by something as pedestrian as the
talk.origins FAQ.  To be honest, I don't care much about the people
involved in most scientific questions; it's the data that matters. 
People are really busy; if you have no data, I'm just not motivated to
listen at this point.  Does this make sense to you?

> For this reason, some individuals are likely to keep this belief to themselves or at
> least not advertise it.

Then why should I care about them?  Seriously, science is all about
bringing data out into public and subjecting it to scrutiny.  If any
of these people had compelling ideas or arguments or data, they should
rush to publish them, since at this point, the person who brings up
any kind of (by definition spectacular) data that contravenes some big
idea in evolution is pretty much destined to win a Nobel Prize.

> Look at me - I just wanted someone to acknowledge
> that Christianity exists and it has resulted in a list of personal insults
> from one evolutionist. Imagine the harassment if I made a career of it!

I haven't followed the entire thread, so I didn't see that part.  But
I can't see why you would need evidence that Christianity exists.  We
have many sources of evidence that Christianity and Christians exist;
they're not shy about professing their beliefs, and there are some
tremendously huge architectural monuments to their faith in many
places.  So I think what you want is acknowledgement for something
else.  If what you want is acknowledgement that there are credible
alternatives to evolution, then you would need to do one of three
things.  1) Produce such a credible alternative and note that a
non-trivial fraction of experts in the field say something positive
about it; this could even be as positive as "this needs to be looked
into".  2) Show that a non-trivial fraction of experts out there don't
believe in evolution, but hold other (competing) ideas that are
testable and being tested by data.  3) Show that a much larger
fraction of people who are scientists (but not specialists) have
significant, well-founded doubts about the idea even if they do not
(yet) have concrete alternative.  I believe these are also ways to
show there are credible alternatives to almost any idea in science. 
Note that (3) is a much weaker piece of evidence than (1) or (2).

>  As to the credentials, you're right that the credentials listed aren't
> necessarily stellar.

They are the opposite.

> The explanations for this could range from the ICR's
> limited funding to pay the salaries more prominent members of the community
> demand

Huh?  Wow.  OK, if this is the problem, then I suggest that the ICR is
doing it all wrong.  They should fire the non-stellar people they
have, and concentrate on bagging even 1 or 2 of these more prominent
scientists.  Especially scientists who have attracted significant
extrmural funding, since then you're on the hook for less money (or
you can even generate positive cash flow).

> to the fact that the scientific community shuns those who profess
> faith in something other than evolution - something which makes a rise to
> prominence difficult.

Here I'm afraid you have it backwards or sideways or something. 
Professing faith in something is not a scientific act; producing data
*is* a scientific act.  Producing data that is reproducible and that
directly undermines any of the major ideas of modern evolution would
produce a massive amount of (positive) buzz in the field once the
alternative were established.  You gain prominence in science not by
doing what everybody else is doing, but doing something different and
new and compelling.  I know people who have done beautiful experiments
for decades, but since they aren't testing hypotheses that most people
find interesting or different, they don't really become prominent. 
Most scientists are journeymen; that's just how it goes.

>  Another part of the problem could be that many scientific organizations themselves
> are institutionally pro-evolution and show that in their selection process.

Again, I don't know where you get this from.  Science only expects
that challenges to generally accepted ideas have supporting data. 
Once upon a time, nobody thought that meteor/asteroid impacts had
caused massive extinctions on earth.  Then somebody produced evidence
in the form of the Iridium-rich strata at the K-T boundary.  People
iniitially thought it was wacky, but they replicated the finding,
extended it (via finding things like "shocked quartz" crystals) and
eventually, they found an immense impact crater of exactly the right
age.  Now, there is no question that the Alvarez hypothesis met
significant opposition when it was first brought out into public, but
nobody doubted that it was a scientific dispute.

> As far as the references to the nobel
> prize - its a joke. I wrote off their opinions the moment they gave a known
> terrorist (arafat) and a former-president who many consider a traitor
> (carter) the nod.

What the heck are you talking about?  What Chemistry Prize did Arafat
win?  What Medicine or Physiology Prize did Carter nab?  What in the
*world* does the Nobel Peace Prize have to do with the advancement of
science?  Do you even know that it's a totally different bunch of
people who vote on the Peace Prize from the any of the others? 
Please: think and research before you write.

> Also, the stated purpose of the list is to respond to critics who say "name
> one legitimate scientist who supports creationism."

I think the critics in this case actually made a different request. 
It's more like: "name one legitimate scientist who has done any work
or produced any data that supports creationism and is unexplained by
evolution".  At least, that would be *my* request.

> The evolutionists have done a great job of spreading the FUD that no legitimate
> scientists do, so lists like this become necessary.

That's not what I hear or see.  I think it *is* fair to say that,
unless you give me further evidence, that 99.99% of all PhD.
biologists out there support evolution.  In other words, if you put
100,000 biologists in a room, you might get 10 of them to support
creationism over evolution.  If the 10 had sufficiently good data, I
would guarantee that in 10 or 20 years, there would be a lot more of
them in the next poll.  The problem with demanding unamity among
people for anything is that there's always a noise factor to contend
with.  I'm guessing at least 1 in 1000 real scientists have some kind
of psychological issue that could make them say any old crazy thing
you like; the point is that the ones who say crazy-sounding things but
who aren't crazy actually produce data to support the crazy idea.  
And the next thing you know, they're winning a Nobel Prize for
discovering RNAi (it hasn't happened quite yet, but it will).

[Poor credentials point deleted]

> It all comes down to who you trust to determine authority. Consider that
> the modern scientific community is dogmatic in its belief in evolution and
> becoming an authority with other beliefs is considerably more challenging.

No.  The dogma of science is that you must have the data for what you
say.  Those who have the data always win.  *Maybe* it will take longer
in some situations or at some times or for some people, but the data
always wins.  Really.

[tangential expertise point deleted]

> There are individuals who work in those fields, but evolution is not just
> based on molecular genetics. Its supposedly based on a wide variety of
> sciences. Biology cannot exist in a vacuum.

It sure can't.  But my point is that some people in some specialties
really and truly do need to rub elbows with the ideas of evolution
more frequently than others.  You can do a lot of kinds of
biochemistry or medicine without relying directly on evolutionary
ideas.  You can really and truly not do molecular genetics or
bioinformatics without relying on them.  So objections in the latter
fields would (to me) provide much more weight.

[specific list of 6 people snipped]

> pointing out these people. But if the alternative statement would
> then become "all of the 100,000 people having PhDs in molecular
> biology or related fields believe in evolution except for these 6
> people", I think you can see that the point is pretty weak.
>
>  One could only make the "all but..." statement if they had accurate
> statistics on the beliefs of scientists throughout the world.

OK, so how about this:  "At present, only 6 of the estimated 100,000
Ph.D. molecular biologists in the world publicly hold creationist
beliefs".  Now the nice thing about the revised statement is that it
can be revised further. :-)  If you find 5 more of these people, and a
better estimate for the number of molecular biologists in the world,
we can make it 11 of 85,000 or whatever.   The point is that *my*
prior belief about the creationist belief status of molecular
biologists is that you're expecting a number in the 1 in 1000 range. 
I'm guessing this is a consensus prior, so now we can collect more and
more data and see what the actual number is.  It *will* turn out to be
very low; exactly how low, I'm not sure.

> The current
> climate makes gathering those statistics accurately difficult.

It's not the climate that makes it tough; it's getting a good random
sample.  I can anonymize a survey instrument pretty darn well these
days; I can't get a large random sample as easily.  (For a really neat
idea about how to do the former, see Robyn Dawes' work on using
coin-flips to increase survey accuracy on sensitive topics.)

But, again, the true population  matter doesn't mean very much (or
anything) unless these people produce compelling data.  Thinking just
doesn't make it so.

> Plus, I don't believe that those not holding advanced degrees (which includes me at
> the moment) should be discounted simply for that one reason.

Of course it should.  Maybe it shouldn't be a 0/1 kind of discounting,
but we need to be completely clear about this: if you want to claim
support from a panel of experts, then the experts must be experts.

> Looking at the general population, the statistics are much more in favor of
> creationism...which is interesting since our public schools indoctrinate
> kids with evolution nowadays.

Looking at the general population, statistics are much in favor of
buying lottery tickets, engaging in pre-marital sex and underage
drinking.  Also in favor of going to church, but not so much going to
vote.  I don't want to sound elitist about this, but it must be said:
most people don't know enough about most topics to have an informed
opinion.  On almost any topic you can name.  Having majority support
for something means surprisingly little.

>  The point is weak if you look at that list as complete - but it is far from
> it.

I'll need more data on that. And I mean that seriously.

> As for the deceased individual, there are a lot of possible explanations.
> Perhaps the page isn't properly updated, perhaps its placed there as a nod
> to his work, etc.. hard to say, but the motives may not be sinister.

There's a note on the page saying why he's still on it.  It's kind of
a public memorial.
I don't mean to dishonor the dead, but I think it's not fair or kind
to sign them onto a cause they can no longer support together with the
living, who can.

jking

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion