The Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Welcome Hance Haney!

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

shorturl — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:23:39 -0000

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

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

BubbaDude — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:52:43 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Curious — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:33:46 -0000

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

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Anonymous — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:31:59 -0000

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

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Curious — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:25:09 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

BubbaDude — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:07:08 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Anono — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:45:34 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

DC Libertarian — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:56:21 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Curious — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:19:13 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

BubbaDude — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:56:44 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Curious — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:54:48 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:45:48 -0000

I think Luis puts the point very well.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Luis Villa — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:20:56 -0000

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.)

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Luis Villa — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:17:18 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Noel Le — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:57:50 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

jimharper — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:53:45 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

MikeT — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:41:33 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Amanda — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:29:47 -0000

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

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

MikeT — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:28:33 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

BubbaDude — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:18:12 -0000

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

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Matt McIntosh — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 04:04:08 -0000

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?

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

MikeT — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:14:22 -0000

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'.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

fishbane — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:16:28 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Christopher Rasch — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:01:23 -0000

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.

Re: Welcome Hance Haney!

Greg Newburn — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:30:37 -0000

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?