This is something that none of the antiscience supporters seem to get.

Sometimes I wish the public were better educated, not just about the achievements of science, but about critical thought in general . . .

Then, the public would be less open to manipulation by charlatans such as Jenny McCarthy or Michael Behe . . .

Then, a more rational populace might not vote into power such idealogues as Jindal . . .

And good education would not be placed in such profound jeopardy.

Erm . . .

There are still papers published in “real” science journals, that should not pass peer review. So science is not immune from this.

On the other hand, the nice thing about real science is that other scientists will attempt to replicate research. if they run into problems, that attracts more skeptical attention to the original research – a slightly different response from what happened with Sokal. While there would be some traditionalists, who would defend the peer reviewers who were duped, there would be plenty of scientists critical of their ability to be duped. If the data do not make sense, in the way that Sokal’s vocabulary did not make sense, why would any competent peer review panel consent to publication?

Real science is not perfect, but real science is self-correcting. Mistakes can be made, but the result is progress.

I would advocate for the same approach to anti-science groups, such as Creationists, but they already parody themselves so well. The anti-vaccinationists seem to have immunized themselves to parody of their scientific methods by playing sacrificial roulette with their children. To gamble with the life of one’s own child like that puts these kooks far beyond the reach of any rational approach. It would take a Scientologist, or Kim Jong-il, or some similar out-of-mind person, to reach them.

Ah, yes, leaving Social Text with masses of egg on face…

And leaving us “real” scientists with a warm fuzzy glow, safe in the knowledge that social “science” couldn’t tell science from garbage.

Yes. “The Sokal affair (also Sokal’s hoax) was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University Press). In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal’s words: “publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions..”

A wonderful way of pointing out that the Emperor is not only naked, but ugly (or is that butt ugly?).

Wasn’t Alan Sokal the person who got a paper published in a sociology journal by just stitching loads of complicated words into sentences that sounded like technical English but didn’t actually mean anything?

William Dembski in particular would have students believe that science is all about using complicated language that gives the impression of thoughts so deep as to be impenetrable to the layperson, which is wrong.

Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science, by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, addresses this particular issue. One of the distinctions between science and sophistry is that the language of science is used to improve communication, not to confuse communication.

Within the humanities, the response to the book was bitterly divided. Some were delighted, some enraged; reaction was polarized between impassioned supporters and equally impassioned opponents of Sokal.[2] Critics of Sokal and Bricmont charge that they lack understanding of the writing they were criticizing. Responses from the scientific community were far more blunt and supportive.

Blunt and supportive.

William Dembski in particular would have students believe that science is all about using complicated language that gives the impression of thoughts so deep as to be impenetrable to the layperson, which is wrong.

Gee, what does that remind me of? Hmmmm….texts written two and half millennia ago in a language few are familiar with, documents that have been endlessly redacted and revised according to the times, stories regarding esoteric tribal matters and mythologies, the whole thing “analyzed” by those in the know to mean just about anything they want it to mean…

Nah, coincidence, I’m sure.

You may very well think that; I could not possibly comment.

You have the “crank” and “sophism” articles bookmarked, don’t you?

The pro-ID teaching materials (e.g. the book Of Pandas and People) are full of lies, obfuscation, logical fallacies and extraordinarily poor scholarship (this last point is giving the authors of such works the benefit of the doubt). William Dembski in particular would have students believe that science is all about using complicated language that gives the impression of thoughts so deep as to be impenetrable to the layperson, which is wrong.

According to Wikipedia, that is known as sophism:

In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are derogatory terms, due the influence of many philosophers in the past (sophism and Platonism were enemy schools).

A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience’s prejudices and emotions rather than logic, i.e., raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques. An argument Ad Hominem is an example of Sophistry.

A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual.

Sophistry means making heavy use of sophisms. The word may be applied to a particular text or speech riddled with sophisms.

For the record, I think that all of the available evidence supports evolution, and that intelligent design is really just a modified version of Judeao-Christian religious belief that does not have scientific support and should not be taught as a science. I am just suggesting that the practical consequences of teaching intelligent design might not be as serious or negative as many people fear.

I think I see your point, Paul, but I feel that there is something you have overlooked.

The pro-ID teaching materials (e.g. the book Of Pandas and People) are full of lies, obfuscation, logical fallacies and extraordinarily poor scholarship (this last point is giving the authors of such works the benefit of the doubt). William Dembski in particular would have students believe that science is all about using complicated language that gives the impression of thoughts so deep as to be impenetrable to the layperson, which is wrong.

I consider it fundamentally wrong to expose students to books that convey such a poor impression of science and scientific writing. No real scientist would write in the way that Dembski writes. No real scientist would cling to their cherished idea once it had been shown to be wrong (Michael Behe, I’m lookin’ at you!).

Discussion of ID would not belong in a science class. Perhaps instead it could be discussed in a class on philosophy (to exemplify the many logical fallacies it uses) or rhetoric (at which the ID crowd is especially good, because the facts are certainly not supporting them).

With regard to Lou and the novel-writer, I’m late to the party. But, I see that Nigel has quite soundly shredded their comments already. Always a pleasure to read.

Thanks, Todd. Glad to be of service.

“I’ve got blisters on me fingers!” — Nigel

Ah, maybe that would explain all the typos in my more recent posts.

Nigel:
The plagues that Moses predicted would come if his people weren’t freed can be accurately described by what happens with a major volcanic eruption,

No. Not really. Not unless you engage in semantic acrobatics again.

Actually, one of the History/Discovery/Science channel shows dealt with the ‘plagues’ as a volcanic eruption.
Do NOT remember the title

Hmmm…

I was under the impression that there were superficial resemblances (such as might explain the origin of the “plagues” story) but that the details were clearly divergent. But having you point this out has made me realise I can’t recall where I read that so I can’t really comment on how reliable my information is.

Oh, and stop telling people they’re going to hell. That’s not for you to decide.

IVAN3MAN seems to be the one, who understands that. Embedding pictures does appear to be something that has an intelligent design.

I got it to work.

Are you inviting me to a party, or making fun of me for not being invited to many parties?

http://www.partiallyclips.com/index.php?id=1594&b=1

http://www.partiallyclips.com/index.php?id=1594

I’ve seen one or two of those shows. I believe it was on the History Channel. The problem as I saw it was even more basic than just twisting things around. The basic, fundamental issue that doomed the whole thing was that they began with the assumption that the events actually happened. They began with the conclusion (“these events happened”), then fit hypothetical evidence (who needs real evidence) to the conclusion.

They didn’t even bother with trying to find actual evidence.