ID battle in The Stanford Daily

| 126 Comments

The Stanford Daily, Stanford University’s daily student newspaper, has been publishing several Letters to the Editor in the last week regarding evolution and Intelligent Design, apparently in response to a Feb. 17th editorial (“Intelligent debate of intelligent design”) encouraging the open discussion of evolution, skepticism towards evolution, Intelligent Design, and religiously-influenced science.

On Feb. 21st, Stanford Sophmore, ID supporter, and History major Tristan Abbey applauded the editorial and additionally attempted to dispel what he considered to be 3 myths about ID (“The myths surrounding intelligent design”). Those myths were: 1) That criticism of “neo-Darwinism” is equivalent to promoting ID 2) That creationism is the same as ID 3) That ID advocates advocate mandating the teaching of ID in high school biology classes

Abbey concludes:

Sadly, neo-Darwinists do argue with that by stereotyping critics of evolutionary theory as religious zealots, by reducing the debate to the simplistic but familiar terms of science vs. faith, and by persecuting researchers like the Smithsonian’s Rick Sternberg for keeping an open mind. Pernicious caricatures notwithstanding, the signatories to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism now stand at over 500 scientists, including several who earned their doctorates from Stanford. As science advances, why has this number continued to grow?

Abbey’s letter is the 2nd on the page. Additionally, Casey Luskin blogged Abbey’s letter, making sure to juxtapose the words “Stanford” and “ID” in the title.

On Feb. 22nd, Biology graduate student Jai Ranganathan wrote a rebuttal to the editorial (“No room for intelligent design”). After concisely critiquing some of ID’s classic examples, he concludes:

Should there be a greater role for religious influences within the public square? There is certainly plenty of room for discussion on this issue, and reasonable people can disagree. But let’s have an honest debate and not attempt to muddy the water with unscientific ideas like intelligent design.

The following day, Feb. 23rd, Stanford Geophysics professor Norman Sleep attacked the science of ID (“Intelligent design must meet evidentiary standards”) with this choice quote from Galileo:

“Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something.” It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.”

Lastly, I responded to Tristan Abbey’s letter on Feb. 28th (“Intelligent design fails as a science”). Those interested can follow the link. However, since I’ve copied everyone else’s conclusion, here’s mine:

ID should be rejected as science because it utterly fails as a science. The religious foundations of ID may help explain why its proponents, many of whom have advanced degrees, continue to advocate its teaching, despite its complete failure to gain any acceptance within the mainstream scientific community. It is entirely possible that a religiously-based theory of origins could be scientific; but ID isn’t, regardless of its inspiration. The sooner people realize that accepting evolution doesn’t require the abandonment of faith, the sooner we can put this sad episode behind us.

Please note: the Daily Stanford website seems to load really slowly, so be patient.

One other thing. In my response, I said:

While Abbey may be trivially correct to claim that ID is not creationism, ID in fact evolved directly from creationism, and was designed specifically to avoid the constitutional challenges that doomed creation science in the 1980s.

(boldface mine)

Do you agree with the boldfaced statement, or do you think that ID is creationism (or at least a form of it)? Should ID critics nail them on this point (of which there is ample evidence), or concede it and move on? My personal opinion is that it’s a semantic argument, depending on how “creationism” is defined. The more important issue is the close relationship between creationism and ID, which doesn’t depend on whether or not ID is creationism. Like a wise PTer said (who disagreed with me on this issue), “A serpent is a tetrapod but not a quadruped.”

edited to give the correct name of the newspaper, which is not “The Daily Stanford”. Doh!

126 Comments

I think, that to the extent creationism explicitly advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis (I’m not sure it does in ALL its flavors), and ID (in public) denies any relationship to the Bible or other religious texts, the two are “trivially” not the same.

What do people think?

Greetings,

ID certainly is creationism. It simply ignores the details of creationism. But when its core tenet, that biological systems – read CSI and IC – cannot have evolved and had to be created by a being, is examined, that is creationism pure and simple.

Finally, Rosenhouse’s fine article in CSICOP should answer this question once and for all.

The content of ID is a subset of that seen in “creation science”, “scientific creationism”, and “creationism”. Two boxes holding the same content are the same thing in my book, no matter how many different labels may get affixed to the second box.

Do you agree with the boldfaced statement, or do you think that ID is creationism (or at least a form of it)? Should ID critics nail them on this point (of which there is ample evidence), or concede it and move on? My personal opinion is that it’s a semantic argument, depending on how “creationism” is defined. The more important issue is the close relationship between creationism and ID, which doesn’t depend on whether or not ID is creationism. Like a wise PTer said (who disagreed with me on this issue), “A serpent is a tetrapod but not a quadruped.”

My view would be that there is nothing inherently wrong with creationism. If the evidence seemed to point to creationism (meaning god molded us out of clay with his bare little hands and then demanded tribute kind of thing) then creationism would be the best explanation. Saying that ID=creationism therefor it’s bad (hold on Lenny) is not the point. The reason that religion is separate from the state in america is precicely because it does not. If everyone talked to god and we all knew what heaven and hell looked like etc., then there wouldn’t be a problem. But that’s not what happens. Someone realized that no one has an idea which holds any more water than any other idea etc. snd poof! better not let government, those with the “legitimate use of force” at their disposal, have anything to do with it.

Being far more serious than normal, that is the point of the FSM. Any idea fits just as well as any other. It’s not that they are wrong, it’s simply that they are not verified by evidence. Any evidence. Creationists could provide evidence for God. They could get god on oprah for example. A god that could be personified could go on oprah. Unless that’s not what god is like. Maybe god couldn’t go on oprah. IDers like to say that a bacteria living in your stomache couldn’t imagine you. But you couldn’t go on the ecoli live show either. You could potentially abduct and probe the ecoli but you can’t tell it much. For one thing it’s too stupid. That, by the way, is an analogy.

wesley, why can’t I log on to AtBC? Check these comments: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives[…]omment-83063

I just find it funny that the original letter writer complains about “stereotyping” in the same sentence he makes a blanket statement using the word “neo-Darwinists”…

“I think, that to the extent creationism explicitly advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis (I’m not sure it does in ALL its flavors), and ID (in public) denies any relationship to the Bible or other religious texts, the two are “trivially” not the same.”

But creationism does not advocate the literal reading of Genesis. Muslim creationists don’t believe in Genesis at all.

Dizzy writes “I think, that to the extent creationism explicitly advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis (I’m not sure it does in ALL its flavors), and ID (in public) denies any relationship to the Bible or other religious texts, the two are “trivially” not the same.

What do people think?”

I think you enjoy being deceived. Cuz if you read the Kitzmiller decision, you would know that IDers are lying thorugh there teeth when they claim that religion and religious texts have nothing to do with it.

But creationism does not advocate the literal reading of Genesis. Muslim creationists don’t believe in Genesis at all.

The Islamic creation myth is very similar to that in Genesis - God creates everything in a strict structure, puts Adam and Eve (well, Hawwa) in a beautiful garden in Paradise, disobedient angel persuades them to eat the wrong fruit, casting out, misery, etc. Which, as Islam is (among other things) a synthesis of Jewish and Christian traditions and ideas, isn’t so surprising.

Islamic creationism is a bit more complex, because there are fewer details in the Quran than in Genesis (no days, for example) but the Quran is held to be more authoratitive than most Christians hold the Bible. I wouldn’t care to dabble in the theological arguments there, as I don’t have the background to assess the various Islamic apologetics I’ve read about why evolution is anti-Islam - although here too there are some very familiar themes. You’ll find many people say that there is no such concept as ‘random’ in Islam, which although that’s one interpretation of Christianity’s omnipotent and omniscient god is not something I think mainstream Christians would be happy asserting without misgiving.

Lots of people and traditions in Islam have no problem with evolution. I think it’s important to remind ourselves that Islam is no more one faith than is Christianity: it’s the fundies (admittedly more powerful in Islam) that are the problem.

R

Creationism is as creationism does. Once you invoke the supernatural, no matter how far you must regress silly arguments to get to that supernatural causation, you’re dealing with creationism.

Matt Inlay Wrote:

Do you agree with the boldfaced statement [that ID is not creationism], or do you think that ID is creationism (or at least a form of it)?

I think that ID can refer to both what ID could be in theory and what ID actually is in practice. In theory, “intelligent design” could encompass a scientific inquiry which was not creationism, and on that basis ID proponents accuse ID critics (arguably, with some justification) of being unfair when insisting that ID is necessarily equivalent to creationism.

In practice, however, ID almost always boils down to creationistic attempts to undermine and oppose the theory of evolution, and the few efforts that are not overtly creationistic anti-evolutionary efforts are frequently merely token gestures whose sole purpose is to offer rhetorical evidence against the claim that all ID is creationistic.

Consider: the core of Intelligent Design theory is that observed phenomena were produced as a result of deliberate and intentional purpose and design. Now, the only difference between a cause-and-effect relationship and a design-and-production relationship is the existence of actual pre-existing intent in the latter case. In order to actually infer design scientifically, the ID proponent must have some means of objectively and scientifically detecting pre-existing intent, based on an examination of the end results alone.

This kind of technology has enormously practical application in criminology and forensics, and is worth millions–if it actually exists and actually works reliably. Is it genuinely being developed and applied outside the narrow arena of anti-evolutionary arguments?

Didn’t think so.

1) That criticism of “neo-Darwinism” is equivalent to promoting ID

Oh my God! I must have seen the equivalent of Bigfoot! This guy must be totally ignorant of junk like the bogus statement that the 500 “scientists” signed in support according to the Discovery Institute, and he obviously hasn’t read the Ohio model lesson plan.

2) That creationism is the same as ID

So what if it isn’t identical. To the ID scam artists that he is defending there is no difference between ID and creationism except what they can use to scam people with.

3) That ID advocates advocate mandating the teaching of ID in high school biology classes

Gee, I wonder who wrote the Wedge document? Who cares about mandating? What did they try in Dover? Who was claiming that they were going to teach the scientific theory of ID on the Ohio state board? The Discovery Institute used to have essays from both Meyer and Dembski supporting teaching this junk, they just switched to the teach the controversy scam when ID turned out to be too bogus for even them to try and foist it off in the public schools.

The sad fact is that if ID had as much fact behind it as these “myths” we would already be teaching it.

Ron Okimoto

We know from the history of ID that it evolved as a means of presenting Creationism in the public-school forum where presenting Creatonism was prohibited. Now, just suppose Dembski was really as smart as he thinks he is, and actually developed scientific data, hypotheses, and explanations that made a new field of Intelligent Design scientific. Just like progress in chiropractic brought that field from a mystical subluxation-based practice to a modern medical endeavor (no, wait, bad example–it’s still quackery). Um, just like progress in homeopathy (no, that’s another bad example). Just like therapeutic touch (oh, hell, another bad example).

Let’s face it, research in Intelligent Design has not progressed any further than where it was several hundred years ago when some people thought they could find indirect yet physical evidence of God by imagining aspects of the universe to exhibit design.

What aspect of ID are we talking about here? The situation is quite blurred due to the vacuity of ID and the motivations of its adherents.

I believe we can make a pretty good case that Dembskian ID concepts are derived directly from the late YEC Dr Henry Morris’ musings on the probability of abiogenesis. This is by Dembski’s own admission, when he wrote to Morris after the granddaddy of creation “science” expressed reservations about ID proponent’s habit of concealing the Gospel to promote the ID agenda. CSI and all that are merely mathematical formalisations of Morris’ far more mathematically immature proposals. They also don’t correct the flaws that dog the premises surrounding the original creation “science” probability arguments.

Therefore, I believe that we can safely say that this particular aspect of ID is a subset of creationism.

However, it must be pointed out that “subset” != “the same as”. Dembskian ID itself cannot fairly be called “creationism in disguise” because it makes no claims about Genesis specifics like the Global Flood, Tower of Babel, The Fall, Age of the Earth etc. All of these areas have been (deliberately) ommitted. A proper presentation of this form of ID would not raise these points. In fact, Dembskian ID cannot even state a single designer! For these reasons, creationist ID proponents are nervous about lesson plans teaching positive information about ID. ID = paganism is not a message that would go down well with their creationist flock!

This is where the water’s are muddied and creationism gets more heavily involved. We don’t see any positive proposals for ID being proposed for school lessons. Instead of teaching ID itself, the DI likes to push the “Teach The Controversy” (TTC) strategy. If this is all the public are going to see of ID, then there is no difference in their eyes between it and creationism. They both use exactly the same anti-evolution arguments.

The DI is creating a big problem for itself via TTC. The strategy is being sold under the ID banner, yet the TTC arguments are pretty much exclusively creation science. It’s no surprise then, that creationsts as well as ID critics make the following connections, ID = TTC = Creationism! This farce has already come to get the DI in Dover. All it takes is a few deluded creationists not getting “the message” and starting to mandate creationist arguments under an ID banner. We saw this again in California and we’ll see it again in other states make no mistake.

So, to sum my muddled thoughts up. ID itself is not creationism, although it can be shown to be derived from it. It is the DI’s strategy of “Teach The Controversy” that has done so much to confuse the issue. So much so that their own supporters are out of control and getting themselves destroyed in court.

Clear as mud ;)

Andrew

RupertG: I don’t know about now, but a very strong form of occasionalism (after a fashion) used to be found in parts of Islam. (In particular, the view that God moves each atom individually at each “tick of the cosmic clock”.)

ID is creationism. It was deliberately crafted, packaged, marketed and sold by people interested in pushing the creationist agenda. It differs from creation science only in having been stripped of references that clearly tie it to Biblical YEC. But stripping the box of its labels does not change the contents.

Having done this, the apologists for ID have argued post hoc that ID is not creationism because it does not officially mention God and the Bible. But this presupposes that ID arose on its own, independent of creationism. As abundantly demonstrated, it did not. It has superficially abandoned direct reference to YEC, thereby tolerating acceptance by Old Earth Creationists and folks of other flavors and muddying the waters, but this in no way detracts from its heritage or purpose. The most telling point is that there is no reason to accept ID as valid unless one a priori accepts the proposition that God created things in one way or another. Thus, it is creationism.

I noted over at AtBC that Abbey’s opinion piece listed, with great disdain, all the things that ID is supposed not to be, but you would think that in a piece defending the worthiness of ID as science, that somewhere he would get around to mentioning what it is. But he didn’t. Why do you suppose that is?

Is ID == creationism? I think so. But I also think that question rapidly devolves into a not very interesting semantic distraction. So I’m in favor of not conceding the point, and moving on.

hehe Wrote:

“I think, that to the extent creationism explicitly advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis (I’m not sure it does in ALL its flavors), and ID (in public) denies any relationship to the Bible or other religious texts, the two are “trivially” not the same.”

But creationism does not advocate the literal reading of Genesis. Muslim creationists don’t believe in Genesis at all.

Young Earth Creationism does, as I understand it.

I think the “right” answer has been covered above, i.e. “creationism” is a blanket term that includes YEC/OEC/etc. and (in spite of IDers’ denials) ID.

Stuart Wrote:

I think you enjoy being deceived. Cuz if you read the Kitzmiller decision, you would know that IDers are lying thorugh there teeth when they claim that religion and religious texts have nothing to do with it.

I said they don’t publicly refer to religious texts. Most of DI’s public statements don’t. The Kitzmiller decision went into good detail about how disingenuous this is (and yes, I’ve read it cover-to-cover, at least twice).

There was an article (on PT?) about how this presents an inherent difficulty for IDers: they need to tell the public it isn’t rooted in religion, but they need to tell their supporters it is.

I suppose I view this debate in a slightly different light.

ID and Creationism are both subsets of the “Determinstic God” viewpoint to me. Once you believe that a supernatural creator of any sort was directly responsible in a naturalistic manner, regardless of how you sort out the details, the end result is the same.

Thus, for me, I can toss ID and Creationism, Muslim or Christian, all into the same bucket. That is the “religion driving natural causation” bucket, and it’s the one I’d like to see kept away from public schools.

The details may change, but the essential components of both ID and Creationism are “inherited” from their parent category, and those are the details we are concerned about. Thus, they are the same in the ways which are of relevance to me - religiously motivated and scientifically vacuous (or falsified).

The name of the newspaper is “The Stanford Daily”, not “The Daily Stanford.”

Grad

AD Wrote:

Thus, for me, I can toss ID and Creationism, Muslim or Christian, all into the same bucket. That is the “religion driving natural causation” bucket, and it’s the one I’d like to see kept away from public schools.

Actually, Wikipedia does pretty much just that, except they call the whole bucket “Creationism.” ID is in there under “Neo-Creationism.”

Those myths were: 1) That criticism of “neo-Darwinism” is equivalent to promoting ID 2) That creationism is the same as ID 3) That ID advocates advocate mandating the teaching of ID in high school biology classes.

Let’s put an end to these “myths” once and for all:

1, If the criticism of “neo-Darwinism” includes the phony “critical analysis” or “teach the controversy” promoted by anti-evolution activists, it will promote ID, and classic creationism (see “2” below) to boot. That’s because most audiences are preconditioned to infer their favorite origins myth from any perceived weakness of evolution. The activists know it, so their promotion is intentional. If the criticism only involves the legitimate scientific controversies, however, it will not promote ID, and will likely promote rejection of ID and classic creationism. But the activists have no interest in discussing the scientific controversies in context.

2, “Creationism” has many definitions. ID is not classic creationism, meaning any of several mutually contradictory positions that try to support its own alternative “what happened and when,” and identify the designer. But “creationism” in general, has been defined by default as any strategy to misrepresent evolution, and then bait-and-switch with an irrelevant and scientifically useless argument from design, even if the design part is conveniently left out of science class. In that sense, “creationism” definitely includes ID, and the phony criticisms of “neo-Darwinism.”

3, Most major ID advocates do not advocate mandating the teaching of ID in high school biology classes. But they know that the designer-free phony “critical analysis” that they do promote, will indirectly promote ID and classic creationism anyway (see “1” above).

Any argument that is not perfectly clear on these issues, whether pro-ID or anti-ID, is misleading. Given common public misconceptions, anything misleading usually helps ID/creationism.

Bottom line: ID, perhaps more than any pseudoscience or political strategy, has mastered the art of the “half-truth.” Ignore it at your own peril.

As Lenny Flank would be more than happy to say,IDiots just can not stop talking about their religious beliefs. Consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) “The Bible … is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological. These are not scientific words and this is not a scientific theory. As such, it should not be included in public-education science classes; such inclusion would give a false impression of scientific methodology If you take the Biblical account of creation as literally true scientific fact, then yes, evolution contradicts the Bible, if you interpret the Bible as allegorical, as a product of human scribes, or as exclusively a work of theology, then perhaps evolution and the Bible can peacefully coexist.

Pernicious caricatures notwithstanding, the signatories to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism now stand at over 500 scientists, including several who earned their doctorates from Stanford.

Earned their doctorates at Stanford? How many are faculty members at Stanford? How many PhDs does Stanford award each year? How many of them are named Steve?

Let’s start with the most general definition of creationism as any explanation for the origin and diversity of life on earth that postulates the existence of a purposeful entity behind it. Is anyone prepared to split hairs about the difference between a “creator” and a “designer”? They have different connotations in common usage, but at core they refer to the same kind of entity–namely a purposeful entity behind whatever we observe, whether we call it “design” or “creation.”

In the generic sense, ID is thus a kind of creationism, period.

In practice, ID happens to be a disingenuous offshoot of evangelical Christian creationism. It’s a theory that virtually nobody believes, because the ones who proclaim it loudest really believe a lot more than ID states, while even the weakest statement of ID (encompassing, for instance a naturalistic designer) wins so few non-religious adherents as to be neglible.

By conceding a literal definition of creationism which ties it to the bible, we are setting ourselves up for trouble with the vedic creationists or any other non-judeo-christian flavour of religious group. This troubled me during Dover - by conceding that the generic term “creationism” which is not actually IN the bible or any other relgious text, is a unique set of beliefs tied to the Judeo-Christian bible is a trap. Creationism is ANY set of beliefs which posit that the universe and its inhabitants were created. It doesn’t matter if you call it an intelligent agent, a giant turtle, a FSM or a god. It doesn’t matter if you believe the literal truth of the bible or any other doctrine. It is creationism because it involves creation by someone/something. Just because the groups in the 1980s WERE western traditional biblical types doesn’t mean that we need to continue defining creationism the same way.

If some group which did NOT have a history of christian evangelism (such as the people at the DI have) had came forward and pushed a theory similar to ID into Dover schools, could the legal strategy employed have prevailed? I ask this because throughout the trial ID was labelled as a descendant of creationism tied specifically to the judeo-christian accounts of genesis. Now here we are, considering conceding the DI’s fine-line distinction that ID is not really creationism because it doesn’t specifically identify the county where the garden of Eden was located.

Tristan Abbey was not even trivially correct that ID is not creationism - ANY idea which includes the bringing about by sudden creation is creationism

Thomas Gillespie:

Creationism is ANY set of beliefs which posit that the universe and its inhabitants were created.

I completely agree, so let me restate my last comment succintly: no, Abbey’s statement is trivially incorrect. ID is a kind of creationism that uses the word “designer” in preference to “creator.”

People who are critical of Natural Selection as the mechanism of speciation are free to design experiments or look for fossil or other evidence that puts the idea to the test.

How often have you seen someone ask to see the science provided by ID? Hmmm?

As I said before, if evidence showed creationism, if everyone could talk to god for example, then creationism would not be the sore subject it is today. But because, when we do talk to god, no one ever seems to hear the same thing, we can’t nail down what it is that we should be teaching. But with regard to NS as the mechanism for speciation we can nail down what it is that we should be teaching because there is a long scientific history of evidence and experiments all indicating the same thing.

So, is ID creationism? Is ID trying to tell us that the evidence points to this entity that no one ever seems to agree on? As soon as the ID sciences provide us with a shred of evidence that we could empirically test for a designer, then ID becomes legitimate. Until then, whether creationism or just plain dishonesty, it is at the very least, lacking in any evidence whatsoever.

Moreover, have you been reading UD lately? THey are watering ID down so much that it is too fluid to even define. THe purists can point to IC or whatever but they are as much as admitting NS+RM over there where Dembski and DS hang. I’m not sure what they are trying to promote any more.

To use a specific example, suppose I wrote voluminous papers on a new “theory of burning” suppressed by the scientific establishment. My theory was that burning substances gave off a kind of essence of burning–that all flammable substances have, after the loss of which they cease to be flammable–and I kept using that phrase, and I identified myself as a burning essentialist (abbreviated BE).

If you retorted that this was phlogiston theory, long discredited, http://www.jimloy.com/physics/phlogstn.htm then how long could I get away with countering “No I am not a phlogistonist. I am a burning essentialist”? Ten seconds, a minute? Definitely not 15 years, right?

Why let the IDers get away with the same farce?

“Designer” is merely another word for “creator.” Therefore, IDers are creationists. QED.

Matt

This article by Jason Rosenhaus answers the question, at least to my satisfaction.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentde[…]erences.html

D’oh what that

thats what !

k.e, I know, I used to be a fundie. People will believe any junk if they think the source is a trustworthy one, like the pulpit, or books by other Christians.

Tis really funny, fundies call people like me “back-sliders”. It never occured to them that we might just be “front-sliders”. :-D

Speaking of MP, I think I’ll watch “Life of Brian” again tonight… it’s just that the girls in that movie are REALLY ugly… and they got these deep voices… lol At least it’s educational. Romanii… hehehehe. latin lessons at the tip of a sword. Could we teach some people the basics of science like that?

Yeah the MP “Cannon” total genius. Every time I reread or see it, a new “view” pops “into existence”. I especially like it when someone “corrects” me with and MP quote.

The crazy thing is the MP crew knew more about philosophy,religion and history than most people ever will. They must have had some interesting teachers all raised on classical and modern liturature but it takes a good mind to come up with what they did.

Not all the women were ugly …there was Judith at the ‘games’. And the classic dig at postmodernism. Where Stan wants to be a woman and uses postmodernist rhetoric to argue that he should be able to have a baby because “It’s my (Stan’s) right as a man”

Of course what would a Western European view be without the concluding alien rescue scene .….”Deus Ex Machina”.

Renier said Larry is really freaking me out. It is hard to diagnose what is wrong with him, but I’ll bet it is even harder to pronounce.

A neurosis definitely. I had some fun with searching on fundamentalist insert any neurosis a while back, it is a pretty widely recognized and serious problem including some wacko psycho sexual problems.

Larry like Stan in TLOB is a victim OF his own mind.

To rationalize the lies that were told to him in his childhood and his own constant repeating of them he HAS to change truth/reality and for a literal objectivist it’s simple .…the Goebbles two step. Good old identity politics and literal objectivism leading to a hyper rationalistic technocratic tyranny…hint its been done before.

He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future! — Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935

Have a look at this Discussion about orality and literacy

I was thinking this morning about how arguing with IDiots is alot like MP’s “Cheese Shop” sketch:

Customer: It’s not much of a cheese shop scientific theory, is it?

Shopkeeper IDiot: Finest in the district!

Customer: (annoyed) Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.

Shopkeeper IDiot: Well, it’s so clean, sir!

Customer: It’s certainly uncontaminated by cheese supporting evidence.…

[snip]

Customer: Have you in fact got any cheese science at all?

Shopkeeper IDiot: Yes,sir.

Customer: Really?

(pause) Shopkeeper IDiot: No. Not really, sir.

Customer: You haven’t.

Shopkeeper IDiot: No sir. Not a scrap. I was deliberately wasting your time, sir.

Customer: Well I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to shoot you.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Inlay published on March 1, 2006 11:18 PM.

New CSICOP Column was the previous entry in this blog.

Report on the U. Kentucky Law ID lectures is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter