44 comments

• 

  lippard

  2 years ago

  I'm sorry to see you've brought on board somebody from the Discovery Institute, which is the leading promoter of intelligent design nonsense in the United States. Even the telecom component of DI has crackpot George Gilder (who also incompetently argues against evolution, and tends to get things dramatically wrong in his stock market forecasts for the telco world) as a senior fellow.
• 

  Lewis Baumstark

  2 years ago

  Jim (Lippard),
  
  As I have no previous knowledge of Hance or the Discovery Institute, I prefer to allow him to live or die here on the merits of his debate and analysis, not on his link to a pro-ID institution.
  
  Welcome, Hance.
• 

  Cog

  2 years ago

  The Discovery Institute ought to be shunned by all right-thinking people, simply as punishment for so shamelessly polluting our public discourse about science. Everybody associated with the Discovery Institute should know, and never be permitted to forget, that their affiliation with that institution tars their name and calls their integrity into question.
  
  This isn't to say that we should pre-emptively dismiss everything Hance says, but that he should never forget the cost that this affiliation will have for his professional reputation and all the views that he professes to hold. The suspicion of Lippard and others (myself included) is entirely rational, and promotes the proper working of the information ecosystem, just an investor's skepticism about former Enron executives would be rational and promote the proper working of the market.
• 

  Jim Harper

  2 years ago

  And the winner is . . . Lewis Baumstark! Curious. Courteous. Way to go, Lewis!
• 

  Richard Bennett

  2 years ago

  Come on, Jim, don't be so naive.
  
  The Discovery Institute has a wide and well-deserved reputation as a kook incubator for its invention and advocacy of the most dishonest and poisonous doctrine of our time, Intelligent Design. Anyone affiliated with that organization in any capacity automatically enters the world of discourse with two strikes against him.
• 

  Richard Bennett

  2 years ago

  PS - I meant Jim Harper, not Jim Lippard in that last comment.
• 

  Mike Linksvayer

  2 years ago

  I'm really sorry to see the credibility of everything posted here (much of which is excellent) diminished through association with a Discovery Institute employee.
  
  I will certainly think several times before referring anyone to TLF again for the sake of the credibility of whatever information I would like to use TLF posts to buttress and my own.
• 

  Neel Krishnaswami

  2 years ago

  Likewise, Mike. It casts a serious shadow over TLF to have a poster who is a representative of an organization which exists mainly to lie to the public. This is a terrible shame, because so many of the other writers here are so good.
• 

  Brian Moore

  2 years ago

  I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed too. Sure, it's possible he's totally fine on evolution issue, and a brilliant debater of technology issues, but the association is worrying. I'd love to hear from him personally regarding what he thinks about his organization's rather silly beliefs.
• 

  Luis Villa

  2 years ago

  The phrase 'right-thinking people' gives me chills, and it should to anyone with a decent grasp of history. Maybe the less loaded formulation is 'people who dislike those who advance political causes by actively distorting the truth.' Or to be more straightfoward, 'people who don't like liars.'

  
  

  Mr. Hayne may be a fine thinker, but anyone who willingly associates themselves with DI, and hence with DI's strategy of willful manipulation of facts in pursuit of political goals, starts off with several black marks in my book. (His second post, and the misrepresentations that Mike pointed out in it/a>, doesn't give me much faith that he's going to somehow change my mind about DI or their intellectually dishonest tactics.)
• 

  Will Wilkinson

  2 years ago

  Jim, As I'm sure you agree, the scientific method is among the most important achievements,and one of the most precious aspects of our Enlightenment heritage. Discovery's ID unit has implemented a rhetorically sophisticated attack on the norms of inquiry that underlie all science, technology, and and it's liberatory reality and promise. I think it's important to understand that the ID issue isn't a disagreement that can be settled by rational inquiry, according to its own standards. It is a disagreement about whether rational inquiry and its standards should have cultural primacy over emotionally powerful non-rational commitments. I understand that lots of people at Discovery have nothing whatsoever to do with the ID shop, but vital norms do not survive by argument alone. People who throw in with organizations that explicitly seek to undermine the prestige and authority of culturally precious, but fragile norms of reason must be made to bear some social cost, even if only as small as being excluded from a blog devoted to technology. Hance may be a great guy with truly worthwhile things to say, but that's not really the issue.
• 

  Julian Sanchez

  2 years ago

  I've got to agree with Will and the others here. DI and its fellow travellers have built a movement on the basis of a calculated strategy of creating the illusion of a genuine disagreement among scientists: If one of their flacks is invited to a debate at Harvard, however thoroughly their argument is rebutted, they'll exploit the mere fact that the debate was held to lend a false air of legitimacy to their cause. In this case, I'm afraid the effect is more likely to be damage to TLF's credibility than the augmentation of DI's. TLF's willingness to allow itself to be used in this way strikes me as a grotesque lapse of judgement.
• 

  Kevin B. O'Reilly

  2 years ago

  Leaving aside the TLF matter for a moment, this is a sincere question: Has the refusal of scientists to debate critics of evolutionary theory hurt or helped the cause of intelligent design?
• 

  Ryan

  2 years ago

  Will and Julian are right. What's more, as a reader who is relatively ignorant about the technical issues blogged about here, I am unable to directly verify most of TLF's factual assertions. The inclusion of someone affiliated with the Discovery Institute significantly reduces the trust that TLF has built up in the past. I strongly suggest that TLF's management reconsider this decision.
• 

  DC Libertarian

  2 years ago

  I concur with Julian and Will. This damages not only TLF's credibility, but the credibility of the "right-wing" (however loosely defined) movement. Free-marketeers do not need to be associated with ignorant dissemblers of scientific falsehood. If the right had some institutional quality control, DI would have been blacklisted a while back.
  
  However free-market DI may puport to be, let's be real. They aren't getting press or funds for their groundbreaking telecom research (ha). Their entire organization lives and dies through their campaign to destroy biological education in America. The rest of their organization is just coverup for this shameful fact.
• 

  Amanda

  2 years ago

  Particularly in tech policy, where it seems that folks who disagree with someone's position are quick to assume that he or she is a shill for some interest for another, a reputation for intellectual honesty is a valuable thing. To my mind, TLF's posters have done quite a good job cultivating such a reputation, and should guard it carefully. Becoming associated with an institution whose entire claim to fame is intellectual dishonesty strikes me as an astonishingly poor move.
• 

  Greg Newburn

  2 years ago

  There's no question that the kooks at DI should be shunned by anyone seeking credibility in any field, for precisely the reasons Will spells out.
  
  That said, Will's employer (and my former employer), the Cato Institute, links to DI from its own web page (see URL below). If Will is right on this (and I think he is), should readers similarly discount Cato's material until its association with DI is severed?
  
  After all, most people who read Cato material are not trained economists or philosophers, and therefore have to accept some of that material without independently verifying it.
  
  http://www.cato.org/links/links.html
  
  Perhaps Will can convince someone over there to remove that link?
• 

  William Newman

  2 years ago

  Kevin O'Reilly writes "Has the refusal of scientists to debate critics of evolutionary theory hurt or helped the cause of intelligent design?"
  
  

  Possibly, but (1) note that live oral debate is not how scientists cope with other controversies either, and (2) other debate media (like usenet newsgroups) are full of scientists, and (3) ID seems to be a fighting retreat from the defeat of the young-earth creationists, and the YE creationists managed to lose even without scientists having lots of live oral debates with them.
  
  

  If you don't immediately see point (1), and perhaps think that scientists are treating fundamentalists' criticisms unfairly by not having oral debates with them, consider five reasonably controversial scientific revolutions of the twentieth century: relativity, quantum mechanics, continental drift, limits on proof (such as the work of Goedel, especially his incompleteness theorem), and the big bang. Were live debates important in any of them? Not to my knowledge. (And for fairly good reason; good luck covering all the issues in, e.g., the precession of Mercury in an oral debate of reasonable length.) I believe that scientists can sincerely and legitimately think that it's weird and unreasonable to be expected to support complicated positions against not-necessarily-reasonable criticisms in 40 minutes of spontaneous speech.
  
  

  For point (2), consider Internet debates like the usenet group talk.origins. I haven't paid attention to it for over ten years, but back around 1990 I read it for a while, and I remember energetic folk holding up the mainstream science end. Also, the mainstream science folk maintained FAQs, which seem to be a very effective tactic in online debate against dishonest yammerers. When it becomes obvious that a debater is stubbornly (or just mindlessly...) repeating a claim without addressing classic refutations (because the FAQ is out there, pointing to the classic refutations) the debater becomes unconvincing to all but the truest of believers.
  
  

  Point (3) is just my anecdotal experience, I used to run into YE creationists and now I run into ID instead (occasionally in the same individual that I've been in contact with for a long time). I don't know how to back it up rigorously without spending serious time searching and surveying.
• 

  Will Wilkinson

  2 years ago

  Greg, Good point. I definitely think we should ditch the link.
• 

  Greg Newburn

  2 years ago

  Will,
  
  A commenter at Sanchez's blog raises the issue of Richard Rahn, a senior fellow at DI who is also an adjunct scholar at Cato. Along with link, maybe that guy should go too?
• 

  Christopher Rasch

  2 years ago

  Count me among those who think that association with ID proponents will hurt TLF. That Hance lends his reputation to them does not give me great confidence in his intellectual honesty or judgment, and by extension, that of the TLF organization.
• 

  fishbane

  2 years ago

  Just another advocate of real science piling on. I'll still read, but I'm going to be looking closely at the attributions from here on out.
• 

  MikeT

  2 years ago

  I fail to see what ID has to do with any of this. His views on ID are about as germaine to anything he says here as James DeLong's musical tastes are to IPCentral's discussions on copyright law.

  
  

  Sounds to me like a lot of people are taking their own petty biases out on him already. Considering how little that most "evolutionists" know about even the Bible (which they claim is the source of ID), I am a bit skeptical that their opinions are worth anymore than his or his peers'.
• 

  Matt McIntosh

  2 years ago

  Mike, go back and read Will's comment above. Carefully, slowly, multiple times if need be -- until you actually get a clue.
  
  Guess I don't need to pile on, but I will anyway: what the hell were you guys thinking?
• 

  Richard Bennett

  2 years ago

  Ironically, I wrote a blog post a few days ago titled "Net Neutrality is Intelligent Design for the Left."
• 

  MikeT

  2 years ago

  Matt, I am still not impressed. If the DI is as you say it is, then I fail to see why it's a threat. No intelligent person would take it seriously. I don't care one way or another as I have no emotional attachment to ID or evolution.
• 

  Amanda

  2 years ago

  Mike, don't you see how being an employee of an organization "No intelligent person would take... seriously" might harm someone's credibility?
• 

  MikeT

  2 years ago

  I am not suggesting that it benefits him in the least. However, I am not one to disregard a message entirely because of who said it. I would like to think that if the TLF crew has invited him, that he probably is not your typical DI writer. If he is, well, TLF will have fallen tremendously in my esteem.

  
  

  Now, if we crucified everyone else guilty of similar offenses, I think we would have a line of impailed policy wonks trailing out of DC, forming a spectacle that would make Vlad Dracul giddy. I can't say that I find either the metaphor or literal imagery entirely unappealing.
• 

  Jim Harper

  2 years ago

  Wow! How interesting. Thanks everyone for all your comments. My thinking, briefly:

  I'm affiliated with a controversial organization - the Cato Institute - which is truly detested by many people out there. I go out and talk to groups all the time starting at a credibility deficit because of my affiliation. If those groups were to refuse hearing what I had to say entirely, we'd all be worse off, don't you think?

  I appreciate the passion that most of you hold about the Intelligent Design debate - I haven't followed it very closely - but I have known Hance and colleagues of his who work on telecom policy, financial privacy, and the like at the Discovery Institute since long before the ID debate heated up.

  If you're here on TLF to debate Intelligent Design, you'll probably disagree with the choice of including Hance - and you'll be bored pretty quickly, too, because it's not germane to this blog - but if you're here to discuss technology policy, you'll let your opinion of Hance and TLF rise or fall on the merits.
• 

  Noel Le

  2 years ago

  Before you flame somebody, why not wait to see what they have to say. I've personally found Hance's writings very informative, well cited and thoughtful. No, I don't agree with intelligent design, but unless Hance writes about that, why raise and brood over the subject.
• 

  Luis Villa

  2 years ago

  Jim: Whatever else I think of Cato (and I'm not a huge fan) Cato seems to believe that if it argues from a position of logic and truth, their arguments will win out eventually. DI (at least their ID group) seems to believe that logic and truth are insufficient- that they must grotesquely abuse facts or even make them up in order to win. That to me seems like a fundamental difference between the two organizations. One I can respect even when I disagree with it, the other I cannot. I have typically held TLF to the same standard I believe applies to Cato; I'd hate to have to revise my opinion.
• 

  Luis Villa

  2 years ago

  I might add that while I tar with a very broad brush here, I find the threat posed to civilized political discussion by those who would abuse fact so gratuitously to be incredibly pernicious. Those of us who feel strongly that political and policy arguments should be settled based on facts and logic should fight very hard to exclude those who believe that distortion and lies are legitimate tools of political debate. (This applies across the political spectrum, of course.)
• 

  Will Wilkinson

  2 years ago

  I think Luis puts the point very well.
• 

  Curious

  2 years ago

  I'm just wondering: Who among you are the experts in evolution who have proof that Intelligent Design is all lies, and more importantly, why do you so automatically condemn a man when he has nothing to do with advancing the theory you all-knowing amateurs are so certain is evil bunk?
  
  Frankly, I would have hoped for a little more rationality, and a little less knee-jerking, from a group that so clearly thinks itself brilliant.
• 

  Richard Bennett

  2 years ago

  Curious, the bunky nature of ID has been disclosed many, many times before, and we don't need to rehash the arguments here.
  
  ID is a question-begging doctrine that was created out of the belief that scientific theories that cause immoral behavior must be banned from the public square, whether they're right or wrong.
  
  That's not the rational approach to science or to public policy, of course.
• 

  Curious

  2 years ago

  Thanks Richard. That's just the kind of "I don't really know much about evolution or Intelligent Design, I just know I don't like ID" answer I expected to get.
  
  I'm sorry, but it strikes me that far too many people on this board are condemning Hance Haney for a stand he's never taken, on an issue no one here really knows very much about, and that is sad. By the same rules, many of you deserve to have your views ignored simply because you work for Cato and everyone knows that people who work for Cato hate the poor, minorities, and just about everyone else.
• 

  DC Libertarian

  2 years ago

  Curious, if you really want a thorough fisking of ID nonsense, see this FAQ. But I'm sure you've already seen this before. This is not a topic for rational debate, not due to the shrillness of scientists, but because of the ignorance mongering of DI. ID can only resort to faux-skepticism to stay above water now.
• 

  Anono

  2 years ago

  ID is a question-begging doctrine that was created out of the belief that scientific theories that cause immoral behavior must be banned from the public square, whether they're right or wrong.
  
  
  That's an absurd assertion. Agree with it or not, ID's main point is that certain features of nature exhibit the same sort of informational complexity that we automatically take as signs of design wherever else they appear. We may think that biological complexity can be sufficiently explained by other means (evolution). Nonetheless, your description of ID is a silly caricature.
• 

  Richard Bennett

  2 years ago

  My summary of ID is perfectly consistent with the Discovery Insttitute's Wedge Strategy document. In their own words:
  
  The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
  
  Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
  
  Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
  
  Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.
  Read the whole thing.
• 

  Curious

  2 years ago

  Richard, if you want to be an honest participant in this debate, you should direct people to the Discovery Institute. Your link goes to an anti-DI site, where quotations from the "Wedge Document" aren't even marked as quotations, leaving the reader to guess where they begin and end. (Your excerpts here are also unmarked as quotations.) You might also want to look at DI's own explanation of how you and others have consistently misused the "Wedge Document" to promote your own viewpoints.
  
  You should be especially careful in making your arguments, given that you essentially convicted Hance Haney of intellectual dishonesty for his mere association with DI.
• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  Apologies! The correct link to DI's explanation of the "Wedge Document" is here.
• 

  Curious

  2 years ago

  Apologies! The correct link to DI's explanation of the "Wedge Document" is here.
• 

  Richard Bennett

  2 years ago

  So now, Curious, you're complaining about the formatting of my comments? I marked the entire three paragraph excerpt from the Wedge Strategy with italics, but the software on this blog only italicized the first paragraph. Your struggles with links should show you something about this sort of thing.
  
  For the record, the copy of the Wedge Strategy I linked is the full original as it first appeared at the DI's web site, before it was taken down and replaced with the "explanation" you tried to reference. That document, by the way, is here.
  
  Even in the revision, the DI charges that evolutionary biology has to be judged by its cultural and social consequences, and makes the outrageous slander that Darwin is to blame for the Nazi holocaust: Consider, for example, the eugenics crusade pushed by Darwinist biologists early in the twentieth century.... "Crusade" indeed. The creationist James Kennedy makes the same claim in the current edition of his televangelism program, and he's been condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for it.
  
  The three paragraphs I cited are present in both copies of the Wedge Strategy document and they say all that needs to be said. Theologically and socially appropriate science isn't science at all, it's propaganda.
• 

  shorturl

  1 year ago

  2e80b6a71154 Great work http:/0zu.tw/ shorturl