Paul Krugman on ID

Them's fightin' words. What exactly did Gould say that was wrong? I'm not claiming that he was infallible, but to claim that much of what he said was wrong is going too far, unless it's in the same sense that much of what Maynard Smith or Hamilton said was also wrong.

I always loved Gould as a historian of social trends and intellectual movements.

My main beef with popular evolution writers is that they dance around molecular biology. I realize that Gould wasn't trained in molecular biology, of course. But it seems pretty clear that modern molecular biology is the lynch pin of the theory of evolution. Given what we know about molecular biology and genetics, it's impossible for life NOT to evolve.

My second beef, and Gould doesn't do so badly on this score, is that popular writers on evolution invariably seem to try to tie it to unrelated social debates. I happen to agree with Gould, at least in spirit, on political matters, so that may be part of why I perceive him as less annoying in this regard. But a book that JUST explains evolution would also be nice.

Them's fightin' words. What exactly did Gould say that was wrong?

— PZ Meyers

I'm with PZ. If you're going to criticize S.J. Gould or any other scientist, either be specific in your own criticism, point directly to some other scientist's detailed criticism, or skip the criticism entirely. Taking broad, unsupported swipes against *scientific* positions with which you disagree smacks of creationist rhetoric rather than honest participation in reasoned argument.

I think a good indicator of the impact of evolutionary theory on economics can be found in books like Game Theory Evolving by Herb Gintis. It is one of the new things in economics. Just showing once more why evolutionary theory is an important concept for students to understand.

I agree with you that the neo-cons' flirtation with the ID people was silly, but their motivations are poorly understood. Bailey's article demonstrates a shallow understanding of the issue, but his lack of historical knowledge (or at least not connecting to it in the piece) make it unhelpful.

Bailey has the Strauss and the neo-con (and Platonic, for that matter) attitude toward religion and philosophy precisely backwards. Putting thousands of pages and years in a few sentences: Religion, whether based on truth or illusion, is the collected wisdom of a culture, nation, people, etc.; that is, it is the truth of how their people should live. I.e.: Religion is not the "opiate of the people," it is the essence of the people. (Actually, Marx's meaning of 'Opiate' was not very far from this. Bailey uses the line incorrectly, but so does almost everybody else.) Philosophy leads to the recognition that at the deepest level, this is arbitrary, which is an extraordinarily dangerous realization. Strauss proposed three reasons for the existence of "secret writing," and one of them is to ensure that anybody who can puzzle this knowledge out of a text will have to have the wisdom not misuse this knowledge.

But now, everybody knows. When Nietzsche said G-d was dead, he spoke out of fear and despair. Nietzsche wrote philosophy; the 20th century read an instruction manual. The 21st century continues apace. 9/11 was another application. The neo-cons are grasping at anything to try to combat this, mistakenly I believe, but understandably.

Krugman's piece is childish McCarthyism, intellectually useless and dangerous to anyone who tries to use it against a knowledgeable opponent. I am against use of ID in the classroom, and Krugman's piece will do nothing but advance the agenda of those who would put it there.

PZ, Krugman--right or wrongly--does offer specifics. In particular, he points out that

1. neither Gould nor Dawkins were heavy on the math side of evolutionary theory; and

2. and that their very public debate could lend itself to the ID/ Creationist/ postmodernist nonsense that Evolutionary Theory is somehow about how to "interpret" Darwin-- as if Origin of the Species was scripture or The Scarlet Letter.

Let's say you find Krugman's points absolutely unconvincing. Fair enough. I own--and have read--nearly every book SJG published. Great, great stuff.

But I think Krugman's more general point still holds--and perversely, I blogged on this exactly this Monday in regard to H Allen Orr, whose work I think really should have a wider audience. So I'll be vulgar and vain and quote myself:

"When we rely too much on an individual scientist, because he or she is an exceptionally gifted communicator, we risk not only misunderstanding the science in question but also the related cultural and policy issues."

At some point, the law of diminishing returns sets in when the public depends on one or two primary interpreters of science--celebrity scientists.

Putting down SJG is not the answer. But acknowledging to a wider audience, that although his work remains tremendously valuable, one scientist is never the be-all and end-all of his or her profession.

Btw, the same could be said of Krugman & economics for those who agree w/ his politics.

Still, this is an important article--and I thank Panda's Thumb once again (as always) for being on top of the news and issues.

I'm with PZ. If you're going to criticize S.J. Gould or any other scientist, either be specific in your own criticism, point directly to some other scientist's detailed criticism, or skip the criticism entirely.

Krugman's piece is childish McCarthyism, intellectually useless and dangerous to anyone who tries to use it against a knowledgeable opponent. I am against use of ID in the classroom, and Krugman's piece will do nothing but advance the agenda of those who would put it there.

— Jeff Z

Jeff Z -

"Krugman's piece is childish McCarthyism, intellectually useless and dangerous to anyone who tries to use it against a knowledgeable opponent. I am against use of ID in the classroom, and Krugman's piece will do nothing but advance the agenda of those who would put it there."

I found Krugman's piece highly accurate, and I must say, I find your use of the term "McCarthyism" grossly inappropriate.

Krugman identified ID as part of a broader trend of privately funded pseudoscience, a phenomenon which arises when scientific advances are regarded as inconvenient by some private parties. To a large extent, this can't be denied even by the PROPONENTS of ID. They might reject the label "pseudoscience", but they don't deny that ID is entirely funded by biased private parties, that it involves no experimental work, that it never even offers alternate testable explanations for the experimental results of others, and that, when pressed, its proponents admit that they can't really even explain what ID means.

ID is a political and financial movement. It's political, because its purpose (which it serves rather poorly) is to placate fanatics, and maintain their uneasy alliance with the Republican party. It's financial because keeping the Republican party in power, which is one major goal of ID, however poorly it may serve that goal - and I certainly don't dispute that many relatively honest Republicans despise ID and would like to reject the "help" it offers, but that doesn't change the fact that this is one goal of ID - has massive financial consequences for many people. If you dispute that the Republicrats, as Lenny Flank refers to them, are tied to ID, please explain why all politicians who voice support for it, at all levels from the county school board to the White House, are Republicans.

Krugman points out that other scientists face similar attacks by pseudoscientific propaganda. He mentions climatologists. Another example is the years of attacks on medical epidemiologists by the tobacco industry's pseudoscience shills.

Concerning comment 41438 by Jeff Z. I didn't understand your final sentence concerning Krugman's piece. Are you referring to the "withering critique of ID"? If so could you offer some more detail about why you see it as McCarthyism, and why you think it furthers the cause of ID. It seemed to me he was only pointing out that their strategy was similar to strategy that had proved successful in other instances, and that it could be successful in this case.

You all might want to see http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi/tablet-01063, which is a response from the Vatican's {Jesuit} astronomer to the Archbishop of Vienna's strange op-ed piece in the New York Times. Seems some Catholic theologians did learn something from the Galileo Affair. The Independent (London) has a story as well. Also see my blog: http://www.cabbageskings.blogspot.org

test

Whew. Finally. The administrators of PT are forced to throw wide nets to ban JAD. I was caught in one such net. Haven't been able to comment for two or three days. It's good to be able to comment again. I was beginning to feel like the whole site was one big Tim Sandefur thread.

Jeff Z writes: "When Nietzsche said G-d was dead, he spoke out of fear and despair." Nice to know that telepathy works not only across space but across time so that it is possible to read the mind of a dead philosopher 120 or so years after the fact. If one relies on second best evidence, i.e. what Nietzsche actually wrote, it appears that Nietzsche wasn't at all unhappy about the Death of God. Indeed, he sounds positively gleeful about it when he doesn't just treat it as a matter of fact. It isn't a central part of his philosophy. It's background.

Believers think that the death of God (or G-d) is a big deal, but to Nietzsche it was something that only out-of-touch old hermits didn't know. ("Could it be possible? This old saint in the forest has not yet heard anything of this, that God is dead!")

I have my doubts about the public piety of the Neocons. They may intimate that they are just being Straussian in promoting the holy lie, but they evince an unhealthy fascination with religion. I haven't done it for a while, but if you read Commentary you will encounter plenty of evidence that various neocons have begun to fall for their own propaganda. Their hypocrisy is not sincere.

Krugman's piece is childish McCarthyism, intellectually useless ... [etc.]

I'm with PZ. If you're going to criticize S.J. Gould or any other scientist, either be specific in your own criticism, point directly to some other scientist's detailed criticism, or skip the criticism entirely. Taking broad, unsupported swipes against *scientific* positions with which you disagree smacks of creationist rhetoric rather than honest participation in reasoned argument.

— G Felis

I have one minor beef with Gould, which is really a criticism of Michael Shermer. Gould conributed a blurb for the cover of Why People Believe Weird Things, in which Shermer made the mistake of stating that a child gets 25% of his genes from each parent. Did Gould actually read the book first? He may not have been trained in MolBio, but that's a pretty obvious mistake.

[...] Shermer made the mistake of stating that a child gets 25% of his genes from each parent.

— BB

Paul Krugman is probably the least credible columnist writing in America today. The Lying in Ponds (http://www.lyinginponds.com) website has consistently ranked him number 1 or 2 on their objective partisanship scale. Any column he writes that mentions Bush in connection with any subject at all is properly understood simply as unprincipled Bush-bashing, because that's the dude's raison d'etre.

So Krugman beating up on Bush over ID isn't helpful to those of us who oppose ID. Similarly, Dawkins is getting carried away with his political partisanship, attacking Bush constantly even though he's not an American. He went so far as to say that all Bush voters are "stupid". And his work in the ID wars has lately become more and more soft.

The people best situated to attack Bush on ID are those who are generally supportive of Bush on the war, the economy, school choice, and that whole set of issues. And there's been no shortage of attacks from this sector of the political spectrum (center and right) on the suggestion that ID be taught in biology classes. See Krauthammer for example, or any of the RINO blogs (Balloon Juice, Ace of Spades, Roger Simon, Protein Wisdom, Don Surber, etc.)

The fact is that politics by its very nature is the enemy of science, and neither side of the political spectrum has been immune to the abuse of science in the pursuit of its agenda. The junk social science that's been churned out of left-leaning universities is a scandal of major proportions, much bigger than funny games with climatology or the work of the tiny little Disco Institute club.

Let me suggest that people who want to take on the cause of fighting ID would do well to check their other partisan beliefs at the door, lest they be confused for Krugmans.

Paul Krugman is probably the least credible columnist writing in America today. The Lying in Ponds (http://www.lyinginponds.com...) website has consistently ranked him number 1 or 2 on their objective partisanship scale. Any column he writes that mentions Bush in connection with any subject at all is properly understood simply as unprincipled Bush-bashing, because that's the dude's raison d'etre.

Paul Krugman is probably the least credible columnist writing in America today. The Lying in Ponds (http://www.lyinginponds.com) website has consistently ranked him number 1 or 2 on their objective partisanship scale. ... Let me suggest that people who want to take on the cause of fighting ID would do well to check their other partisan beliefs at the door, lest they be confused for Krugmans.

Isn't a columnist who's always right but criticizes only one party better than one who is always wrong but attacks both parties equally? Well sure. The Lying in Ponds rankings are not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of the pundits; the intention is to carefully analyze only partisanship. A columnist could theoretically be substantive and accurate and and witty and wise, yet highly partisan. I'm very skeptical about that, but anyone is free to argue that a particular columnist is partisan but good.

I think you guys get the point.

Now if you want to see a devastating critique of ID, go check Krauthammer's piece in Time:

This conflict between faith and science had mercifully abated over the past four centuries as each grew to permit the other its own independent sphere. What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion. This new attack claims that because there are gaps in evolution, they therefore must be filled by a divine intelligent designer.

How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.

To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.

As he's a right-winger and a Bush supporter, this has the potential to convince some people. Krugman is actually helping the ID'ers.

Them's fightin' words. What exactly did Gould say that was wrong? I'm not claiming that he was infallible, but to claim that much of what he said was wrong is going too far, unless it's in the same sense that much of what Maynard Smith or Hamilton said was also wrong.

You can see why Myers is upset that anyone would dare to criticize Gould, since both employ similar rhetorical styles. But it's true that strawman attacks are ineffective, so it would be good for Myers to learn that even if it's too late for Gould.

Paul Krugman is probably the least credible columnist writing in America today. The Lying in Ponds (http://www.lyinginponds.com...) website has consistently ranked him number 1 or 2 on their objective partisanship scale.

— Richard Bennet

So Krugman beating up on Bush over ID isn't helpful to those of us who oppose ID.

The people best situated to attack Bush on ID are those who are generally supportive of Bush on the war, the economy, school choice, and that whole set of issues. And there's been no shortage of attacks from this sector of the political spectrum (center and right) on the suggestion that ID be taught in biology classes. See Krauthammer for example...

The problem with Gould is the same as with other popularizers like Sagan. In order to avoid the detailed technical issues they turn to generalizations, analogies, and arm-waving. The problem is that non-scientists (i.e. most of the population) gets the idea that generalizations, analogies, and arm-waving are the way science is done. As a result, they wind up not being able to distinguish Gish from Gould.

We need to find a way of providing simple, understandable explainations that also give the listener an appreciation of the detailed work upon which the explaination is based.

Except in this column, he didn't do any Bush bashing at all. He only mentions Bush once, and it's not even in connection with ID.

Well, what he did was tie ID to the Neo-con movement, the people who tell Bush what to do. So let's take the column for what it is, an argument that ID should be rejected because it's neo-con propaganda.

Now I would submit that this is the weakest argument that's ever been put up about ID, and that it's easily dismissed on several grounds, such as: 1) the Neo-con movement is not religious; there's a whole other type of conservatism that is religious, but they're essentially at war with neo-cons for control of the Republican Party; and 2) Tom DeLay is not a neo-con; and 3) there is no connection between corporate interest and ID; think Genentech or Monsanto.

Krugman hates ID, and he hates neo-cons, so he manufactures a connection that enables him to channel all of his hate into one column. This is retarded.

As Krauthammer (a real neo-con) points out, the ID issue is religion encroaching on the turf of science; so it's not Republicanism encroaching on science as Krugman maintains.

Now the virtue of Krauthammer's position is that it allows Republicans and neo-cons can sign up to fight ID; Krugman would reduce the size of the army down to the relatively much smaller number of latte-sipping liberals who see high taxes, gay marriage, and affirmative action as natural consequences of evolution.

Paul Krugman is probably the least credible columnist writing in America today. The Lying in Ponds (http://www.lyinginponds.com...) website has consistently ranked him number 1 or 2 on their objective partisanship scale. Any column he writes that mentions Bush in connection with any subject at all is properly understood simply as unprincipled Bush-bashing, because that's the dude's raison d'etre.

Well, what he did was tie ID to the Neo-con movement, the people who tell Bush what to do.

— Richard Bennet

Objectivity isn't necessarily at odds with supporting one side more than another.

Sometimes one side is more consistently right.

I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement - a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.

I will definitely respond to those questioning my Krugman comments, and I meant what I said.

I don't have time now, but it will be up by noon EST on Saturday.

point directly to some other scientist's detailed criticism

attacking Bush constantly even though he's not an American

— Richard Bennett

The junk social science that's been churned out of left-leaning universities is a scandal of major proportions

— Richard Bennett

Krugman hates ID, and he hates neo-cons

— Richard Bennett

This is retarded.

— Richard Bennett

I was beginning to feel like the whole site was one big Tim Sandefur thread.

Carlos, there aren't enough "right-leaning universities" to effectively propagandize, and that's why the right has think tanks. And don't try and tell me that any social science department in any major US university isn't completely dominated and controlled by various flavors of leftist ideology (unless you want to send me rolling on the floor with spasms of laughter.) That battle's over and the left won.

You people could do with a little strategic thinking yourselves. How are you going to defeat ID, by getting all the Greens and the Dean Democrats fired-up to storm the school boards? There aren't enough of them to do anything, and that's the lesson of the last ten elections.

Defeating ID and getting junk science out of the schools can be done by building a bi-partisan coalition of concerned citizens, recognizing that both the left and the right stand to lose a little in the process. Simply bashing away at the right in some mad and unprincipled way isn't going to but it - there aren't enough of you people, and your skills aren't that good. You've already lost tremendous ground by helping the ID'ers spread the belief in "the controversy" and I don't know how you're going to win even that much back.

I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine.

So this is what I'm telling you: forget the politics and concentrate on religion and science.

Krugman has no truck with the journalistic practice of treating both sides of an issue as if there were no such thing as truth. Now it is perfectly reasonable to bitch about what he says if you think he is wrong, but right-wing critics who complain about him simply because he is a vehement opponent of right-wing politics are just being inconsistent since they are supposed to be hostile to relativism. Of course this tactic is humanly understandable since, to judge by the hectoring irrelevance and mere dishonesty one finds on the anti-Krugman websites, conservatives are quite incapable of meeting his actual arguments head on.

In case you think I'm Tim Sandefur ... I'm not.  Tim always posts with his full name, and I always post as ts.  We're two totally different people.

— ts

Paul Krugman is probably the least credible columnist writing in America today. The Lying in Ponds (http://www.lyinginponds.com...) website has consistently ranked him number 1 or 2 on their objective partisanship scale. Any column he writes that mentions Bush in connection with any subject at all is properly understood simply as unprincipled Bush-bashing, because that's the dude's raison d'etre.

I believe his point was that Sandefur tends to disallow comments on his posts, which is his right. He hates comments. Sometimes I see why. :)

I suppose that anyone who consistently wrote negative things about poverty, smallpox, and Saddam Hussein would lack credibility, by this reasoning.

The problem is, whether we like it or not, ID is a political issue.

Krugman has no truck with the journalistic practice of treating both sides of an issue as if there were no such thing as truth.

The neo-cons have written negative things about Saddam Hussein, tying him to terror attacks on the US, a robust WMD program, and to terror attacks on Israel. Are they credible in your naive view of the world?

ts, are you so desperate for attention you're going to buzz around me all day until I give you some? Arguing on a thread with you present is like being pecked to death by a duck.

We're talking about obsession and its power to distort reasoning.

Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman

I served briefly on an Enron advisory board in 1999

— Paul Krugman

About SJG: I've always considered him as mainly a writer on the history of science, rather than someone aiming to popularize the details of the current state of ToE. He was excellent at this, extremely.

About Paul Krugman: Even in a struggle such as the one science is engaged in with the worst, and utterly untruthful, forces of right-wing Xian insanity, I take NO comfort in seeing Paul Krugman on my side, as the nation and world he promotes would be as bad, or worse, than that the DI would install (and which would rot its course very, very quickly) given complete victory.
If Paul Krugman says it, either there's something wrong with it, or its being abused for his own purposes.

About this thread: I have never read through a discussion this unpleasant on these boards before. And may I never see such a thing again.

ts, are you so desperate for attention you're going to buzz around me all day until I give you some

Sorry to post again, but...

ts, you're being a real jerk, here. Do stop.

ts, you're being a real jerk, here. Do stop.

I think the problem with all these Krugman bashers is they always complain about his partisanship not his arguments. No one is saying Krugman isn't partisan; he's an ardent liberal and Bush-basher but the real question is; is he wrong? What arguements does Krugman make that are factually incorrect? Does he lie? I know his greatest critic, Donald Luskin, is consistently dishonest in his criticisms of Krugman but as far as I can see Krugman's columns tend to be pretty factual. As long as he's not misrepresenting the facts or making stuff up I don't see anything wrong with being critical even harshly so. I really don't think its neccesary to give equal treatment to two parties in a debate if one party is full of crap. Complain all you want about his partisanship but if you can't tackle his actual arguements then I don't see your point. As long as the facts are on his side I don't see any reason for him to let-up, if even half of what he says his true then these people should be bashed and bashed constantly - the rest of the NYT including Brooks and Trienry, give these Republicans a break what's the problem with having one columnist put the heat on?

if you can't tackle his actual arguements then I don't see your point.

I have to say that "probably the least credible columnist writing in America today" is a severe mischaracterization of Mr. Krugman (or alternatively, a snub to G. Gordon Liddy and Max Boot). Mr. Krugman's qualifications in economics are unimpeachable, and his columns usually stick pretty close to his area of expertise, so he's an applicable authority. Mr. Bennett's trackbacked post describes Mr. Krugman as a "partisan hack," which I frankly don't see as a tenable position: Mr. Krugman's work is, as columnists go, meticulously researched and sourced. His background of academic rigor shows clearly. The "least credible" comment is also, it seems, a misuse of Lying in Ponds' measurements. LiP is, judging from what I read on their page, in the process of testing an as-yet unverified hypothesis, not bringing down tablets from Horeb.

I have a bit of a bone to pick with this idea that "Krugman is actually helping the ID'ers," too. It simply flies in the face of logic to assert that having an NYT columnist explain why ID is rubbish is helping the cause of ID. It's perfectly rational to assume that fence-sitters do exist on this issue, and Krugman is in a good position to help persuade such people of the bankruptcy of ID.

Wow, that's quite a number of posts while I was writing. I must be slowing down.

As long as the facts are on his side I don't see any reason for him to let-up

— Sir_CB

Sean, I would suggest to you that the number of people who find Krugman persuasive and are still on the fence about ID is a pretty small number.

The point is quasi-religious attachment to ideological stakeouts, truth and reason be damned.

I realize that this is beyond your mental and ethical capacity to comprehend...you clearly have nothing intelligent to say...

Now the virtue of Krauthammer's position is that it allows Republicans and neo-cons can sign up to fight ID; Krugman would reduce the size of the army down to the relatively much smaller number of latte-sipping liberals who see high taxes, gay marriage, and affirmative action as natural consequences of evolution.

Politics isn't simply about facts, Sean, it's about winning. You may very well be looking for facts, but I've already found mine, and I'm looking to share.

Call me naive, then, but I'd rather not vote for the party that's been winning by lying.

I think we'd agree on this much: it is best that policy be informed as much as possible by verifiable facts and as little as possible by unsubstantiated or impossible-to-prove statements.

If I take that statement as a given, I have to put myself on Krugman's side: he's providing a policy vision based on facts. A "reality-based" policy, if you will.

Yet somehow, "truth and reason" for each of us, tends to lead to the political convictions we already hold.

This sort of insecure puffery

Sean, verifiable facts don't exist in every aspect of public policy that requires an immediate decision, and in point of fact we often have to act on incomplete information. So politics isn't simply a matter of being right on the questions of fact that can be easily determined, it's also a matter of being right in those areas where we're required by the insufficiency of our knowledge to guess.

Science and politics are different disciplines, if you will.

Krugman is no more reality-based than faith-healer Benny Hinn, he just puts on a good show.

Uh, Flint, I wasn't praising Bennett.

He got that.

Anyone notice that all the rancor that is here now, wasn't here a few weeks ago?

I wonder why that would be . . . . . . .

Anyone notice that all the rancor that is here now, wasn't here a few weeks ago?

— Lenny Flank

Puffery is praise

I wonder why that would be ... ...

Krugman's piece is childish McCarthyism, intellectually useless and dangerous to anyone who tries to use it against a knowledgeable opponent.

— Jeff Z.

You can see why Myers is upset that anyone would dare to criticize Gould, since both employ similar rhetorical styles.

— Richard Bennett

You were praising yourself.

I realize that this is beyond your mental and ethical capacity to comprehend...you clearly have nothing intelligent to say...

This is nothing compared to the "good" old days of Great White Wonder and JAD.

I realize that this is beyond your mental and ethical capacity to comprehend...you clearly have nothing intelligent to say...That is not me praising myself. But don't let facts get in your way.

PZ Myers: What exactly did Gould say that was wrong?

When you put yourself in a position of being fit to judge my mental and ethical capacity you praise yourself implicitly.

— Richard Bennett

Along with registration, it would be great if a user could turn off display, on his end, of comments by a given commenter. Anybody who thought that Richard Bennett had nothing to say, could click a (hide) link next to his name, and no more Richard Bennett posts would appear. For instance.

But anyhow, since the left has been hijacking science for 30 years (longer if you go back to Lysenko), it's about time the right caught on to the game and started playing too, sad as it may be.

— Richard Bennett

But anyhow, since the left has been hijacking science for 30 years (longer if you go back to Lysenko), it's about time the right caught on to the game and started playing too, sad as it may be.

— Richard Bennett

I'm afraid political misuse of science goes way back beyond 30 years ago, Mr. Bennett. Far Rightists misused biology to push eugenics 100 years ago, as has been discussed on this site, in length, approximately ten thousand times.

Stephen J. Gould and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

For me, the big question is whether Stephen J. Gould was correct on the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. Now as I understand it, with the vast majority of species which reproduce by sexual means, what we find is that there are long periods of stasis, then relatively short periods during which evolutionary change takes place, that is, punctuated equilibria models win-out over gradualism (although the reverse is the case among primitive species which reproduce by means of fission):

"Among more complex organisms, however, the opposite consensus had developed. As paleontologists had known for over a century, most species are stable for millions of years, and change so rapidly that we rarely witness it in the fossil record. Of the hundreds of studies that have been reviewed elsewhere (Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 1986; Gould, 1992), a few stand out (Stanley, 1992). Cheetham (1986) and Stanley and Yang (1987) examined all the available lineages of their respective groups (bryozoans and bivalves) through long intervals of time, using multivariate analysis of multiple character states. Both concluded that most of their species were static through millions of years, with rare but rapid episodes of speciation. Williamson (1981, 1985) examined the details of evolution of molluscs in Lake Turkana, Kenya, and showed that there were multiple examples of rapid speciation and prolonged stasis, but no gradualism. Barnosky (1987) reviewed a great number of different lineages of mammals, from mammoths to shrews and rodents, that lived during the last two million years of the Ice Ages. He found a few examples of gradualism, but many more which showed stasis and punctuation."

"My own research (Prothero and Shubin, 1983; Prothero, 1992; Prothero, Heaton, and Stanley, in press) examined all the mammals with a reasonably complete record from the Eocene-Oligocene (about 30-35 million years ago) beds of the Big Badlands of South Dakota and related areas in Wyoming and Nebraska (Figure 2). This study not only sampled every available lineage without bias, but also had much better time control from magnetic stratigraphy (Prothero and Swisher, 1992) and wider geographic coverage than the studies by Gingerich cited above. With one exception (gradual dwarfing in the oreodont Miniochoerus), we found that all of the Badlands mammals were static through millions of years, or speciated abruptly (if they changed at all)."

PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AT TWENTY: A PALEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Skeptic vol. 1, no. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 38-47
By Donald R. Prothero, Ph.D.

http://www.skeptic.com/01.3.prothero-punc-eq.html

Now I do not believe that punctuated equilibrium theory is as revolutionary as Gould and Eldredge once tried to make it out to be. But at the same time, I by no means regard it as trivial, either. It has become a part of the wider synthesis of Darwinist evolutionary thought, an important part. It is time to move beyond the personalities and on with the science.

(Of course, please correct me if you believe I am mistaken.)

Humans may have evolved during a few rapid bursts of genetic change, according to a new study of the human genome, which challenges the popular theory that evolution is a gradual process. Researchers studying human chromosome 2 have discovered that the bulk of its DNA changes occurred in a relatively short period of time and, since then, only minor alterations have occurred. This backs a theory called "punctuated equilibrium" which suggests that evolution actually occurred as a series of jumps with long static periods between them.

Defeating ID and getting junk science out of the schools can be done by building a bi-partisan coalition of concerned citizens, recognizing that both the left and the right stand to lose a little in the process. Simply bashing away at the right in some mad and unprincipled way isn't going to but it - there aren't enough of you people, and your skills aren't that good.

Whatever the case, I certainly don't think it's legitimate to say that Krugman was making "an argument that ID should be rejected because it's neo-con propaganda." That argument was neither stated nor implied.

Always happy to. The problem is, whether we like it or not, ID is a political issue. The ID movement is not just about pushing religion, it's about pushing religion for certain ideological ends. Read the Wedge Document for example and see them blaming evolution for communism, the welfare state, modern art, and pretty much everything else they hate. They don't speak of "cultural renewal" for nothing. And even if their agenda weren't political, they are using the political process to push it.

I believe his point was that Sandefur tends to disallow comments on his posts, which is his right. He hates comments. Sometimes I see why. :)

and E "persons who view affirmative action, gay marriage, and high taxes as natural consequences of evolution."

I think the problem with all these Krugman bashers is they always complain about his partisanship not his arguments.

and E "persons who view affirmative action, gay marriage, and high taxes as natural consequences of evolution."

— Sean M

Wrong, I'm afraid. The problem here is we are talking about beliefs, not things like logic or mathmatics and people sometimes hold illogical, inconsistent and downright whacky beliefs.

— Steve Verdon in reply

I agree with Richard here. In the comments at least there is a strong liberal bias

a disdain for non-liberals. Example, steve's snide comments about Timothy Sandefeur... I believe his point was that Sandefur tends to disallow comments on his posts, which is his right. He hates comments. Sometimes I see why. :) Zing, we have a winner.

a strong does dose

Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an "intelligent designer"? It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that "design" proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of "designing" the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own "designer." If "design" can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian "designer" would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another "designer." One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause. By the very nature of its approach, "intelligent design" cannot be satisfied with a "designer" who is part of the natural world. Such a "designer" would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: it would not explain biological complexity as such. The only "designer" that would stop their quest for a "design" explanation of complexity is a "designer" about whom one cannot ask any questions or who cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study--a "designer" that "transcends" nature and its laws--a "designer" not susceptible of rational explanation--in short: a supernatural "designer."

　　What petty and unclever people those who pose as "conservatives" in America are, however their position may apparently match the truth, the facts, or my inclinations, on any issue! And how VERY often they have to make their mean, little public, from a very safe place.

My concern with Krugman's column is not its factual accuracy as such, but whether it advances or hinders the progress of putting ID and Creationism in the classroom, whether as itself or if its arguments are used by someone who believes that it does.

Anyone who is trying to stop the spread of non-scientifc ideas into a science class has three handicaps when trying to advocate his case:

1) In the current intellectual climate, objective truth has been replaced by subjective value. "Being judgemental" is seen as pernicious and all "cultures" are seen as equally true, with science as just one more "culture." The "default" positin of the people you are speaking to will be to let ID into the classroom, because evolution has no grounds to assert it is any more "true" than ID is.

2) This is obviously absurd, but the people you are trying to persuade are not going to have the scientific knowledge to understand why. You have to educate them, but you're not going to have the tume to do it, nor are they going to have the inclination to listen to a serious, detailed scientific discussion, instead, they are going to judge you by the way you conduct your argument.

3) ID does not have to win the argument. They don't even have to tie. All they have to do is be let in the game, and they have achieved their goal. We, on the other hand, have to prove they are absolutely wrong; any less, and we lose.

Our (anti-ID and Creationism) argument is that science is based on verifiable data, objective experimentation design, reproducible results, peer-review, etc., so when you present your case, you sure better not leave these criteria behind and start using the criteria of the people you are opposed to, or you will merely strengthen their position.

I'm approaching Krugman's article from that perspective.

Paragraph 1: "I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of 'intelligent design.' No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine..."

This is a pure McCarthyite trope. Kristol is claimed to be guilty of something he has no connection to, based on the fact that they have (supposedly)done something that he did too.

Much worse, though, from the point of view of this critique, Krugman is saying that his subjective verbal construction has the same intellectual authority as the objective physical fact. Krugman admits Kristol has nothing to do with ID, but believes at the same time he is responsible for it. Who does that type of thinking help? You or ID?

Paragraph 2)"Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking."

The sentence is not "delicately worded," it's perfectly straightforward. More importantly, if anyone to whom you are speaking was an adult in 1978, as I was (though a very young one!), you have now lost any credibility you have. You might as wll write a check to the Discovery Institute and talk about baseball instead. The late 1970's were horrible economically. Look at what Krugman is saying: Kristol believed a strong private sector was the correct economic policy, even though academic research had proven that this was in fact bad economic policy.

Now imagine making this argument in support of keeping ID out of the classroom because academics should only deal with objective facts. Hmmmm...your audience thinks, the 70's were awful, then the private sector was strengthened by implementing supply-side economics and tax cuts, then the economy took off and hasn't stopped since, yet according to this guy, all the professors and universities with their objective studies had proven that this could not possibly happen. Hey, this guy still seems to believe it couldn't possbily happen, but I was there and I saw it, and I still see it. Now this guy is claiming that these professors and universities with their objective studies have proven that evolution is true and ID is false...yeah, sure okay, and the US is an economic basket case which is so much worse off than we were in 1978.

"Like, you mean, Mr. Evolution advocate, if only we had done what the Europeans had done and kept taxes high and devalue the public sector at the expense of the private sector, why we'd be doing as economically well as they are?"

So, now, to advance the case of science and evolution, you've taken the position that overwhelming physical evidence is meaningless; that academic research is always right, even when it is contradicted by the same meaningless physical evidence; that cause and effect are unrelated; that your subjective opinion is stronger science than everybody else's objective observations; etc.

Unfortunately, I have to stop and will not be able to get back to this until Sunday night. I apologize. I'll get to the Nietzsche comment to.

I want to conclude, though, by issuing a warning: Krugman's purpose is not to use Kristol to discredit ID, it is to use ID to discredit economic positions he does not agree with. He is using you to pursue his squalid little academic vendettas and if you let him, he will hurt us even more than this editorial already has.

A few comments:

First, as to Krugman's case against ID, I think he made valid points. ID is as much political as it is religious. Neo-conservatism started as a secular view and there are still secular Neo-cons. But their agenda has been entirely subordinated to the religious right-or is it that the religious right is simply being manipulated by the neo-cons? At any rate, the relationship has become symbiotic.

As for his columns I tend to agree with him. Still, there is a valid point to some of the critiques of his most recent column. If we want to defend science education it will not help to alienate people who might be allies. The defense of science education should not be tied a priori to criticism of Bush or Republicans. But-and here is the point that secular Neo-cons or Libertarians should consider carefully-the Bush administration has chosen to ally itself with anti-science forces in the US. It has exhibited this on stem cell research, on Terry Schiavo, on global warming and now on ID.

The Republican Party and the Conservative movement in general (not necessarily every conservative) have implicitly (and if you read some of the ID writings explicitly) bought lock, stock and barrel into a conservative version of post-modern epistemology. One of the points I did agree with that conservatives tended to make about University campuses in the 1980's and 1990's was that anti-science and anti-rational inquiry points of view had drowned out the old left points of view that had anchored its views in scientific approaches to knowledge. The conservative movement, including some conservative scholars, are now buying into this themselves.

Secular Neo-cons would be well served to try and clean up their own house.

Finally, I will add that I found much of Krugman's article on his website on evoluton and economics to be misleading, jaundiced, biased and downright confused and misleading.

Paragraph 1: "I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of 'intelligent design.' No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine..." This is a pure McCarthyite trope. Kristol is claimed to be guilty of something he has no connection to, based on the fact that they have (supposedly)done something that he did too.

He is using you to pursue his squalid little academic vendettas

The defense of science education should not be tied a priori to criticism of Bush or Republicans.

ts,

Your strategy in replying to me (as evidenced by previous encounters) seems to be to take quotes out of context and interpret them to mean things that I did not intend. This does not make me optimistic about exchanges with you.

Your strategy in replying to me (as evidenced by previous encounters) seems to be to take quotes out of context and interpret them to mean things that I did not intend. This does not make me optimistic about exchanges with you.

Finally, I will add that I found much of Krugman's article on his website on evoluton and economics to be misleading, jaundiced, biased and downright confused and misleading.

ts: That is McCarthyism! I don't disagree with what you wrote and you don't disagree with what I wrote, factually. But guilt by association is not proof. Ugh--I give up.

Verdon, Bennett:

Apparently, what you're saying is that we (i.e., the People's Cadre of Latte-Sipping Liberals) must sign on to a framing of the issue that seems inextricably linked with many, many notions we consider false, laughable, insulting, dangerous, or some combo thereof (e.g., the "high taxes, gay marriage, and affirmative action as natural consequences of evolution" mini-rant: F, L, I but not D).

You can see why we might have problems with that, right? Further, please explain why such a lock-step approach is necessary. Sure, the "on-message or else" tactic has worked well for Republicans the last five years. But in this case, when there's plenty of non-manufactured evidence and legal, logical support on our (anti-ID) side, why can't you talk to your cohorts in terms they find meaningful and resonant, while we do the same?

If all the gods ever worshipped made themselves visible and circulated notarized affidavits declaring Krugman their messenger on Earth, his every utterance sanctioned as truth -- you and yours still wouldn't listen to him. Which is fine; it's a free country, and all. But given that, it seems both pointless and silly to critique his presentation from your POV. Better, I'd think, to concentrate on the pundits you folks would actually listen to. Has anyone other than Krauthammer spoken up? Who else might, or might be persuaded to?

Krauthammer and George Will have both spoken up against ID. But that's the small intellectual fraction of the modern conservative movement. The much larger Sean Hannity fraction, you might call them GED Conservatives, are creationists.

Bennett: The people best situated to attack Bush on ID are those who are generally supportive of Bush on the war, the economy, school choice, and that whole set of issues.

Verdon: Krugman is seen, and I think rightfully, as being more than a bit unhinged with the Bush Administration.*  As such he is probably not a good standard bearer or even a good foot soldier in the battle against ID.

ts,

Please just don't bother to respond to me and I will do you the same courtesy. It is clear there is no basis for dialogue between the two of us.

Please just don't bother to respond to me and I will do you the same courtesy. It is clear there is no basis for dialogue between the two of us.

But guilt by association is not proof. Ugh--I give up.

— Jeff Z.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mccarthyism 1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence. 2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.

Jeff Z, I think your analysis of Krugman's column is spot-on. In essence, he doesn't argue with the substance of ID, merely with its genesis in the vast right-wing think tank conspiracy operating outside the control of the academic priesthood who ultimately must decide what the rest of us are allowed to read. He calls upon fellow travelers in the liberal media to step-up to the partisan challenge and keep unseemly notions out of the press, much as he does in his own journalistic role, of course.

The Bailey article linked by Reuland carries this McCarthyite reasoning a step further, invoking the Straussian justification for conspiracies to distort truth and connecting Kristol directly to the ID movement.

Krugman's complaint isn't so much with ID as a doctrine as it is with the rebellion against academic authority, and Bailey's isn't so much with junk science as it is with the accumulation of power and influence by the state. It's interesting that the two of them take the same evidence and use it to support completely opposite conclusions about the political system.

Krugman makes his typical error: everything he says is true as far as it goes, but he fails to show a complete picture. There are left-wing think tanks as well (Urban Institute, for one), and there are huge numbers of left-wing academics essentially doing political activism at taxpayer expense; he's only one of them. And the complaints about the media are fairly comic coming as they do from the hard left; reporters are overwhelmingly liberal and their stories are subtly biased in that direction whether they think so or not. If reporters fail to understand science we need look no further than the school system that failed to educate them to lay the blame.

But his complaint is understandable: "We control the schools, we control the universities, we control the media, but still these right-wing bastards are kicking our asses. Woe unto us, they must disarm, only we can play this game."

I wonder what would happen if the media actually took his advice and actually started reporting that ID was a disingenuous attempt by a vast network of the corporate overlords of the Christian right to keep our children ignorant of the ways of science and reason. Somehow, I don't think it would turn out as most of us here would like.

Krugman correctly identifies ID as a political and cultural issue of some significance. Unfortunately, he doesn't know how to win in this arena, as he's demonstrated that repeatedly since Nov. 2000. Thanks for the diagnosis, Doctor, I'll shop elsewhere for a remedy.

ts,

You are of course free to comment on anything you like. Just don't expect me to pay attention in the future or deem it worth my while to respond. For the record:

I did not say that Krugman had a priori tied defense of science education to criticisms of Bush and Republicans. I said that I thought to do so would be a poor strategy. I prefaced that comment by stating that Krugman had made many valid points and I added after that comment a brief analysis about how neoconservatism in general had allowed its secular principles to get swallowed up by its religious allies. All those comments were made in response to points that had been raised by several people over the course of the thread.

The term "a priori" means simply "prior to". Thus to tie criticism of ID to criticism of conservatism in general "a priori" would be to take a position that automatically identified and conflated the two, prior to responding to specific comments by specific conservatives. That would be a priori. I wonder if anyone else had a problem seeing the point.

Nor did I employ an "ad hominem" against you. An "ad hominem" means to attack a person, rather than an argument. If I had said everyone knows that ts' wife works for the CIA and she put him up to that last post, that would be an ad hominem. Criticizing your style and saying that you misquoted me is not ad hominem.
Last night I had begun and was about half way through a post that was intended to make some general points in response to Krugman's address to the European Associatin for Evolutionary Political Economy, linked above. I know a good deal about EAEPE, having previously given a paper years ago at one of its sessions.I am broadly sympathetic to its approach, though it is a pretty diverse group of people so its not quite fair to say that it has "one approach" -other than an a priori view that static, maximizing general equilibrium models are a poor way to build a general theory of economics.

Halfway through my post, the great Walrasian auctioneer in the sky struck my computer with a lightning bolt (actually, it was probably more like a power line) so the post did not make it through. That is the one point you are correct on. My comments about Krugman's address should be expanded upon and backed up. I had intended to follow up with such a post later today. In fact, if I were not wasting my time responding to your inanity, I might be doing so right now.

I'm reluctant to do so now, as I suspect this thread is winding down. Furthermore, doing so is real work. So I reserve my right as a card carrying member of several evolutionary economic organizations to just respond with a great big raspberry to typical, condescending, bs by the Neo-Classical mainstream.

Incidentally, I have in the past posted links to recent works by legitimate academics who address some of these issues.

I will be happy to provide a few titles if anyone is interested in reading what evolutionary economists really have to say.

Now all that said, I will conclude by pointing out what a great big waste of time (mine and everybody else's) this post is. Since engaging with you requires responding to arcane points twisted out of context and nit picking over the use of clear terms like "a priori", I choose not to engage with you in the future.

I will be happy to provide a few titles if anyone is interested in reading what evolutionary economists really have to say.

I will be happy to provide a few titles if anyone is interested in reading what evolutionary economists really have to say.

Here are a few things to get started:

The Evolution of Institutional Economics by Geoff Hodgson is my recommended startig point. Hodgson's book is important because it analyzes the break between the social scientists and natural scientists and how this affected evolutionary economics. It's a little parochial for the non-economist, but he addresses a lot of issues that are of relevance outside of the academic infighting of economists.

There is a fairly recent edited volume out that includes essays by Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis. Bowles and Gintis have branched out into evolutionary game theory.

Boyd and Richerson (who are actually anthropologists) have a very thought provoking work out called Not by Genes Alone. They are not economists but they pull together a lot of threads and a lot of their work is closely related to what Bowles and Gintis are doing.

I also like ( a lot) what some economic anthropologists are doing (anthropologists who write about economic evolution but who are not technically speaking "economists"). Marvin Harris' Cultural Materialism and his Rise of Anthropological Theory are must reads (IMO). Harris accepted the application of sociobiology to infra-human species but rejected its application to humans. Still, he agreed that humans had bio-psychosocial tendencies and put a lot of emphasis on how humans interacted with ecological systems.

There's a lot more out there, but these are a few suggestions to get started.

Just don't expect me to pay attention in the future or deem it worth my while to respond

Nor did I employ an "ad hominem" against you. An "ad hominem" means to attack a person, rather than an argument.

Criticizing your style and saying that you misquoted me is not ad hominem.

On the outside chance that anyone is still reading this, I'm not delivering the critique I promised, simply because it is not worth wasting the time. I don't know if ID and Creationism are going into he classroom one way or the other, but the Evolutionists are their best allies. WIth such enemies, they can't lose.

To Steve Verdon and Richard Bennet and Chip Poirot (and a few others, who did not post as much): Forget it. I have been posting to various blogs about this issue, and have gotten almost nowhere. I had a lengthy conversation with a computer scientist this weekend and should have taken a nap instead. The responses you have received here are a perfect representation of the fanatical viciousness, self-rightousness, inability to learn, inability to respond to argument, etc. of these people. Find another cause to use your education, integrity, and intelligence on. I am.

As an utterly pointless gesture of futility, I am going to respond to Panda's latest post by explaining patiently why W's pronouncement on Creationism and ID was a huge victory for our side, then stand back and watch the muck tide of hatred and idiocy roll over me.

Then I'll take that nap.

To Steve Verdon and Richard Bennet and Chip Poirot ... The responses you have received here are a perfect representation of the fanatical viciousness, self-rightousness, inability to learn, inability to respond to argument, etc. of these people.

As an utterly pointless gesture of futility, I am going to respond to Panda's latest post by explaining patiently why W's pronouncement on Creationism and ID was a huge victory for our side, then stand back and watch the muck tide of hatred and idiocy roll over me.

Jeff Z,

What Bush said simply aligns the conservative movement more deeply with conservative Lysenkoism. I use Lysenkoism in a very loose sense (rather than it's original identification with Lamarckian inheritance) to refer to the subordination of science to politics. The conservative movement, as I opined in a previous post has now adopted the same tactic and epistemology of the PoMo-Deco left.

Now, as I stated-not all conservatives do this. There are still those out there who identify conservatism with rational discourse and who are pro-science. But their voices are becoming marginalized in the movement. On that score, I agreed with Krugman.

Where conservatives (or anybody else) continue to argue for a reality based model of the world, there is a basis for dialogue and rational discussion of views.

Politically, what Bush did was "smart" in so far as American politics have become less and less reality based and critical thinking has become rarer and rarer in the political debate.

And ts does (this time) accurately summarize my views. Some of what Tim Sandefur posts is provocative and interesting. At least he is an example of a conservative/libertarian committed to a scientific world view. Although, as ts notes, I have and will continue to criticize Tim (or anyone else) who engages in what I view as misrepresentation of my profession.

And ts does (this time) accurately summarize my views.

— Chip Poirot

Actually, I misstated that. I don't always try to accurately summarize CP's views, because in fact I don't try at all, except in that one instance above. My one line response to one line of CP's to which he reacted so rashly was not meant to characterize his views at all; it was my own assertion, which I thought relevant with all the Bush bashing from Bennett et. al., that Krugman was not guilty of "a priori" tying his critique of ID to criticism of Bush and Republicans, and my suggestion that an individual article can't possibly manifest such an "a priori" connection. That's a judgment about peoples' psychology that I think we would be better off not making, especially when Krugman's own explicit claims as to his concerns go to degradation of American values, institutions, and quality of life.

ts & Chip: I can't think of a better example, ts, of what I'm talking about than your statement that you characterize my assessment of certain thread participants as a "a pile of fanatically vivious self-righteous and self-serving garbage," becasue I don't even seem to be aware that Poirot's views are nearly 180 from Verdon's and Bennett's."

If you look at what I've said, I'm not criticizing people for their views. It would make no sense on this thread, because almost everyone has the same views. I have the same view as you, which is that we don't want ID and Creationism taught in biology class as science, because it is not science.

What I'm talking about is learning our opponents' objections to our position, analyzing where their weaknesses, contradictions, and possible points of ageement, and then acting in the way that best advances our case. Chip and Verdon and Bennett do this--you and everyone else don't. (Although, for the most part I have to say that this last message from you was much more effective and analytical than some of your early ones were. I know that is a condescending comment--but before (or after, if necessary) you destroy me verbally, you might want to look back at your posts and think how to best make your case.)

Whether Chip and I (or Verdon or Bennet) agree is beside the point. It is the methods we use that will help our side, and the methods of you and pretty much everyone else on this thread that are a gift to the opposition.

My point about Krugman is not whether you agree or disagree with him (I'm not going to pretend that I don't think his column and fame have corrupted him intellectually and turned from and interesting and thoughtful economist into a fanatical gasbag, because I do) it's as to whether or not using his column and type of reasoning will help or hurt us.

Well the personal is political, or some such rot. Look, whether it is or it isn't, it's still your choice to play it one way or another. I'm suggesting to you that playing it as a liberal vs. conservative issue means liberals lose, because they always lose.

This column of Krugman's is, in my opinion, far from a "withering critique of ID" as Steve claimed; rather, it's a weak attempt to subsume ID inside a generic right-wing conspiracy that's attempting to take control of American intellectual life away from its rightful owners in the universities and turn it over to the great unwashed.

It's factually wrong insofar as it implies broad neo-con support for ID;

Some of the strongest and most effective opponents of ID are neo-cons, as I've pointed out.

A smart tactician would play divide-and-conquer with the right on this issue, and pit the neo-cons and the libertarians against the paleo-cons.

I read statements like these and I have to wonder if we're talking about the same article. Krugman does nothing like this. This is you reading into the article what you wish based on your preexisting attitude towards Krugman, not actually reading to understand his point.

When Bennett called Krugman a "partisan hack", at first I thought it was meant in a pejorative way. Having explored his site a little, and as you can see from his comments here, "partisan hack" is probably meant as high praise.

think you'll see that the argument Krugman attempts to float goes like this: "ID is no good because it was cooked-up in a conservative think tank."

Anybody who talks about Bush's critics as "the politically correct left with all its quotas, male-bashing, and speech codes" obviously learned his politics from trash radio. He probably also thinks that Hilary Clinton is a Marxist, etc.

The Republican right has been cheapening American public discourse with vituperation and character assassion for decades. They are mere thugs who have no business feeling sorry for themselves when somebody disagrees with them strongly. If anything, Krugman understates the degradation of our national life at their hands. Bush no longer has supporters. They're really accomplices, fellow travellers who should be held personally responsible for the war crimes and financial corruption of the administration. I hope somebody is taking names...

See, that's what shrill's like.

Randi Rhodes said on Air America that Bush wants to replace evolutiuon teaching with a creationism-only curriculum. Now that's shrill.

Without a doubt, he's pointing out that think tanks can distort the true nature of academic discourse by fomenting controversies where none exist --- something that I hope would concern everyone, regardless of their politics.

— Steve Reuland

What I'm talking about is learning our opponents' objections to our position, analyzing where their weaknesses, contradictions, and possible points of ageement, and then acting in the way that best advances our case. Chip and Verdon and Bennett do this---you and everyone else don't.

— Jeff Z

Randi Rhodes said on Air America that Bush wants to replace evolutiuon teaching with a creationism-only curriculum. Now that's shrill.

Ah yes, think tanks undermine the authority of politically-correct academics and create an alternate route for advocacy research to enter the public sphere. Academics hate this, but ordinary people cheer it.

— Richard Bennett

I don't know if I could have cut-and-pasted my remark from DI or not, because this opinion about the present state of universities isn't unique. As a stopped clock is right twice a day, it's possible they could have cut-and-pasted this statement as well.

It is a fact that "the usual standards of academic integrity and rigor" aren't what they used to be, especially in social science departments where research is outcome-based and qualitative studies substitute for quantitative ones. The standards of integrity and rigor are so bad in psychology and sociology that serious scholars have formed breakaway professional associations, and physical anthropologists are building firewalls from cultural anthropologists. And then there's Post-Modernism.

Parents with children in college these days know what's going on, and most of it is anything but the triumph of reason over irrational forces.

The ID'ists are objectively wrong, but you can't prove that by simply ranting about think tanks - you have to prove it on the merits, not by claiming association with an unsavory (to you) crowd.

The McCarthyite tactics are both predictable and unpersuasive.

"Air America" liberals, which probably make up a larger fraction of the electorate than evangelical Christains

— Steve Reuland

you have to prove it on the merits, not by claiming association with an unsavory (to you) crowd

Politics isn't simply about facts, Sean, it's about winning. You may very well be looking for facts, but I've already found mine, and I'm looking to share.

The McCarthyite tactics are both predictable and unpersuasive.