Did Synthese bow to Intelligent Design pressure?

Not sure I'd hyperventilate too much over this. It is clear that the disclaimer relates solely to standards of polite discourse, and in no way gives credence to ID.

In my view the last thing we want is to start getting as paranoid as the ID people, seeing conspiracies everywhere. That would tend to make outsiders see the arguments of science as no better than those of ID.

Capt. Haddock said: In my view the last thing we want is to start getting as paranoid as the ID people, seeing conspiracies everywhere.

I just looked at the reference to Beckwith's Catholicism in Forrest's paper. This mention was in a paragraph which was almost entirely biographical, and included several quotes by Beckwith about his beliefs. I don't see anything improper about that, unless there was some sort of misrepresentation of him or his beliefs.

The disclaimer is inappropriate for the following reason - it is not the correct solution to the problem it claims to address.

If there were specific passages in articles that were felt to be too insulting in tone, those specific passages should have been identified, authors should have been consulted, and revised version, retractions of specific insulting passages, and/or more detailed explanations should have been sought.

The disclaimer as it stands is a vague smear, and is not useful.

Is there some background to Fetzer that we ought to be made aware of?

Is there some background to Fetzer that we ought to be made aware of?

So the chief editor lied to the guest editors and the contributors, published their papers (on which they made a profit) anyway and then inserted a disclaimer about how uncivil the contributors were! Amazing. Man, this is really the fast track to ruining your own reputation.

Now exactly what was so uncivil? Where is the quote of the offending material? Did she call him a whore mongering pig or something? Could it be that a creationist simply objected when it was pointed out, politely, that he was full of crap? Could it be that this creationist threatened the editor with some terrible retribution? Why else would an editor sabotage his own journal to please someone who, according to his own journal, was dead wrong? If he disagreed with the paper, why publish it? If he agreed with the paper, why bow to pressure from some guy who was wrong? Obviously there was no problem before publication. Obviously it was only after certain people started objecting that the editor felt the need to do something.

Oh well, at least now I know at least one journal where the editor can be brow beaten into publishing something for political and/or financial reasons having nothing to do with the integrity of the science. Good to know.

harold said: The disclaimer is inappropriate for the following reason - it is not the correct solution to the problem it claims to address. If there were specific passages in articles that were felt to be too insulting in tone, those specific passages should have been identified, authors should have been consulted, and revised version, retractions of specific insulting passages, and/or more detailed explanations should have been sought. The disclaimer as it stands is a vague smear, and is not useful.

SteveF said:

Is there some background to Fetzer that we ought to be made aware of?

He's a 9/11 truther and set up the Scholars for 9/11 Truth movement. Some people in this group then split out to form Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice because, believe it or not, some of the things Fetzer was saying were too crazy even for them. Plus he's into a fair few other conspiracies. He's a fucking nutcase.

John Kwok said:

harold said: The disclaimer is inappropriate for the following reason - it is not the correct solution to the problem it claims to address. If there were specific passages in articles that were felt to be too insulting in tone, those specific passages should have been identified, authors should have been consulted, and revised version, retractions of specific insulting passages, and/or more detailed explanations should have been sought. The disclaimer as it stands is a vague smear, and is not useful.

Am in full agreement here and with DS's comments. However, I am troubled with SteveF's revelation that Fetzer is a 9/11 Truther. As much as I admire Glenn's work as both a writer and especially, as NCSE's Deputy Director, he should have been aware of Fetzer's background and THOUGHT TWICE before agreeing to have him as the co-editor of this special issue.

Fetzer is one of the inner circle of 911 Troothers. He is also well-known as a JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. He may not be in the league of Alex Jones and David Icke, but in my personal opinion Fetzer isn't any more credible than a creationist.

John S. Wilkins said:

John Kwok said:

harold said: The disclaimer is inappropriate for the following reason - it is not the correct solution to the problem it claims to address. If there were specific passages in articles that were felt to be too insulting in tone, those specific passages should have been identified, authors should have been consulted, and revised version, retractions of specific insulting passages, and/or more detailed explanations should have been sought. The disclaimer as it stands is a vague smear, and is not useful.

Am in full agreement here and with DS's comments. However, I am troubled with SteveF's revelation that Fetzer is a 9/11 Truther. As much as I admire Glenn's work as both a writer and especially, as NCSE's Deputy Director, he should have been aware of Fetzer's background and THOUGHT TWICE before agreeing to have him as the co-editor of this special issue.

I didn't know any of that, and of course I in no way support such conspiracy theories. It doesn't change the point, however.

People who are usually wrong can be right once in a while.

The disclaimer is not useful because it is too vague. In essence, it insults all contributors for the ostensible, yet not identified, faults of a subset.

I gather that Fetzer holds a number of very irrational beliefs, to the extent that his overall credibility on many issues is compromised.

However, I still say that the disclaimer is not useful.

A related question is whether Fetzer's irrational beliefs should rule him out as an editor. If the journal in question were of a straightforward, technical nature, say a physical chemistry journal, the obvious answer would be "no", as long as he "compartmentalized", and made only rational editorial contributions. However, Synthese seems to be a wide-ranging, philosophical/sociological journal, and it is less easy to feel absolute confidence that his broader belief structure might not interact with his editing duties.

harold said: The disclaimer is inappropriate for the following reason - it is not the correct solution to the problem it claims to address.

I propose that the best way to understand why individual learners settle on any mature set of beliefs is to see that as the developmental outcome of a series of “fast and frugal” boundedly rational inferences rather than as a rejection of reason. This applies to those whose views are opposed to science in general. A bounded rationality model of belief choices both serves to explain the fact that folk traditions tend to converge on “anti-modernity”, and to act as a default hypothesis, deviations from which we can use to identify other, arational, influences such as social psychological, economic and individual dispositions.

DS said: Why else would an editor sabotage his own journal to please someone who, according to his own journal, was dead wrong? If he disagreed with the paper, why publish it?

harold said: Another important point here is that worthless ideas must be critiqued in adequately strong language. Excessive obsequiousness toward peddlers of harmful ideas is uncivil. It is uncivil to readers as an overall population.

Tone trolling is stupid no matter where it is encountered.

I'm appalled that Synthese would fall into that typical IDist means of avoiding the real issues, whether under threat of legal action or otherwise.

Glen Davidson

Courtesy has nothing to do with it. I’m trying to produce a persuasive argument, and the instant I give the reader any hint that I’m being anything less than cool and objective in my presentation, the reader then has reason to wonder if I’m just another hothead with an axe to grind. Stick to the specifics and the facts and let them speak for themselves.

Glen Davidson said: i make joke, the magic bullet being an out-of-context fallacy.

Don’t sneer at them, don’t call them names, don’t get personal

The learning process is just as much an individual developmental process as the development of legs or puberty. One major difference, though, is that it may seem that we can backtrack in our conceptual development, sometimes called “unlearning”, in a way that we cannot do in biological development. In biology, development involves the triggering of differentiation of cells, so that pluripotent stem cells become less able to turn into specialized cells as the lineage develops. Some evidence exists that our cells can be triggered to produce more potentiated cells in special cases. But overall, once a cell has become a neuronal cell, it won’t turn into a glial cell or a hemopoietic cell. But it seems to me that our conceptual development is not so different from this. Generally, once we have embedded an epistemic commitment in our conceptual set, it is unlikely to revert in proportion to how embedded it is, as we develop. The last in will be first out, but as you go deeper and deeper, it gets less likely that you will abandon that commitment in proportion to the number of other commitments that depend upon it. Conceptual development is mutually supporting, and a deeply embedded beliefmay only be revisable at the cost of many other beliefs

For instance, if one is told early on that the Bible is a reliable guide, interpreted according to some hermeneutic (which includes literalism) and theological tradition, then counterevidence offered later in development will be subsequently deflated for that learner. Contrariwise, if one is exposed early on to scientific results and principles, and is later told that (for example) the Genesis flood is a real event, that proposition will be deflated for that learner on the basis of other cues (such as the dinosaur books they read which told them the world was millions of years old)

When cognitive dissonance exceeds the individual learner’s tolerance limit, then the least deeply embedded of the divergent epistemic sets will be extinguished, forcing a radical revision of prior solutions. The asterisk represents the point at which cognitive dissonance exceeds a tolerance limit for that learner, and commitments revert solely to the other trajectory,

But as a population, the creationist community will be unwilling to endanger their epistemic choices, particularly when they have made an entire scheme out of them. Add to this the community entanglements, and it is most unlikely that they will change willingly.

Glen Davidson said: Every time I've written more extensive evaluations of creationist arguments I've aimed for even-handed language, for the reasons you give.

harold said: I made no argument against basic, neutral, rational argument.

Please link to your blog, by the way, if you don't mind.

Although Wesley alduded to the importance of it his paper, he didn’t delve into what is often referred to as the “affective domain” of human experience.

In making the early childhood commitments to a scientific or a religious/folk worldview, there are many other factors besides “bounded rational choice.”

Feelings of security, being loved, food with potlucks and pies, warmth, smiles, hugs, singing, Christmas presents, and all those emotional bonds that are formed very early reinforce the authority of those in the community who teach you during your childhood what you ultimately come to believe.

One of the major clues to this, in the case of ID/creationists, is their frequent demands for gentle, respectful “dialog” in discussions about the validity of ID/creationism. Part of the reason for this demand is that authority figures within many fundamentalist religious churches have come to expect the deference and adulation they get from the members of their community; and they don’t want to be embarrassed in front of their flock.

But another part of this comes from the beliefs (actually more like feelings) that there is something wrong with or “inhuman” about those who stray from human bonding when they begin exploring an exciting external natural universe. Such children or teenagers often are referred to as “cold and uncaring” or as geeks or nerds or as unloving.

It is quite common for members of sectarian communities to scold or shun youngsters who begin to show signs of “loosing their humanity” while turning their interests toward a “cold and heartless” universe.

We also see these types of emotional traumas when ID/creationists respond to a clinical analysis of one of their beloved beliefs; taking it as a vicious personal attack on them. Anyone who would do such a thing must be “of the Devil.”

Thus, within fundamentalist sectarian communities there is a lot of effort put into demonizing outsiders and inducing feelings of fear and hatred toward such outsiders. People with such deeply ingrained feelings “instinctively” mistrust anything they hear coming from those outsiders. And those outsiders are seen as “prickly and cold” rather than “warm and fuzzy.”

harold said: In other words, if they use heuristics which lead to false and contradictory conclusions when taken to their logical extension, you still declare this to be "bounded rationality", define that as a subset of "rationality", and declare them "rational". I didn't bring up the issue of whether or not they are "rational" - they're objectively wrong, and that's good enough for me - but for the record, I don't accept this particular semantic construction. No-one is perfectly rational, and only people with severe medical problems deny or fail to perceive all possible rationality. There is a spectrum. Everyone could be said to adhere to some type of "bounded rationality". Therefore we should judge people on the overall quality of their particular bounded rationality. I find that of creationists to be poor, and do not perceive that they necessarily qualify for the adjective "rational".

John S. Wilkins said: All rational agents are capable of making errors. If you argue that rationality means not making errors then you exclude all reasoners from being rational. This is too high a standard for any beings apart from Laplacean Demons and Gods. If you accept that rational agents can make mistakes because of their cognitive and computational limitations, you must accept, by parity of reasoning, that people who come to false conclusions can have acted rationally. My argument is simply to understand this and treat them accordingly. I also treat as rational people who believe that it is okay to vote for conservatives and who think their daughter, not mine, is the most beautiful girl in the world. Moral censure should be reserved for those who are duplicitous and willingly ignorant. I do not praise those who are boundedly rational and come up with false conclusions, but neither do I think it is entirely, or even mainly, their fault. I have false conclusions about many subjects that do not directly affect me. I have not had the time to learn about them, and so I think things that are simply wrong (I do not know which ones, though). Am I therefore a poor quality person? Am I irrational? Are you?

I hope you find it Mike, but in the mean time, keep wiping out those individual storm troopers. (I would have thought a navy guy would prefer torpedoes to grenades, but either way is fine with me.)

harold said: I hope you find it Mike, but in the mean time, keep wiping out those individual storm troopers.

harold said: I hope you find it Mike, but in the mean time, keep wiping out those individual storm troopers. (I would have thought a navy guy would prefer torpedoes to grenades, but either way is fine with me.)

All rational agents are capable of making errors. If you argue that rationality means not making errors then you exclude all reasoners from being rational. This is too high a standard for any beings apart from Laplacean Demons and Gods.

No-one is perfectly rational, and only people with severe medical problems deny or fail to perceive all possible rationality. There is a spectrum. Everyone could be said to adhere to some type of “bounded rationality”.

If you accept that rational agents can make mistakes because of their cognitive and computational limitations, you must accept, by parity of reasoning, that people who come to false conclusions can have acted rationally. My argument is simply to understand this and treat them accordingly.

I also treat as rational people who believe that it is okay to vote for conservatives and who think their daughter, not mine, is the most beautiful girl in the world.

Moral censure should be reserved for those who are duplicitous and willingly ignorant.

I do not praise those who are boundedly rational and come up with false conclusions, but neither do I think it is entirely, or even mainly, their fault.

I have false conclusions about many subjects that do not directly affect me. I have not had the time to learn about them, and so I think things that are simply wrong (I do not know which ones, though).

Am I therefore a poor quality person? Am I irrational? Are you?

John Kwok said: As someone who is a Conservative and a registered Republican, I endorse your comments, John. But if you wrote them to defend Fetzger, then I'll have to dissent. Having lived through 9/11, I have nothing but scorn for those who are "9/11 TRUTHERs".

And remember … they shoot a lot, but they can’t hit anything

John S. Wilkins said: ...people who come to false conclusions can have acted rationally.

Moral censure should be reserved for those who are duplicitous and willingly ignorant.

In making the early childhood commitments to a scientific or a religious/folk worldview, there are many other factors besides “bounded rational choice.” Feelings of security, being loved, food with potlucks and pies, warmth, smiles, hugs, singing, Christmas presents, and all those emotional bonds that are formed very early reinforce the authority of those in the community who teach you during your childhood what you ultimately come to believe.

It is quite common for members of sectarian communities to scold or shun youngsters who begin to show signs of “loosing their humanity” while turning their interests toward a “cold and heartless” universe.

We also see these types of emotional traumas when ID/creationists respond to a clinical analysis of one of their beloved beliefs; taking it as a vicious personal attack on them. Anyone who would do such a thing must be “of the Devil.”

Paul Burnett said:

John S. Wilkins said: ...people who come to false conclusions can have acted rationally.

Once or twice, yes. But creationists who keep repeating the same false conclusions over and over, even after having their errors pointed out to them rightfully deserve this reaction:

Moral censure should be reserved for those who are duplicitous and willingly ignorant.

It is our right and our duty to continue to heap scorn on those "cdesign proponentsists" who are scientifically illiterate because of their deliberate willful ignorance.

John Kwok said:

John S. Wilkins said: All rational agents are capable of making errors. If you argue that rationality means not making errors then you exclude all reasoners from being rational. This is too high a standard for any beings apart from Laplacean Demons and Gods. If you accept that rational agents can make mistakes because of their cognitive and computational limitations, you must accept, by parity of reasoning, that people who come to false conclusions can have acted rationally. My argument is simply to understand this and treat them accordingly. I also treat as rational people who believe that it is okay to vote for conservatives and who think their daughter, not mine, is the most beautiful girl in the world. Moral censure should be reserved for those who are duplicitous and willingly ignorant. I do not praise those who are boundedly rational and come up with false conclusions, but neither do I think it is entirely, or even mainly, their fault. I have false conclusions about many subjects that do not directly affect me. I have not had the time to learn about them, and so I think things that are simply wrong (I do not know which ones, though). Am I therefore a poor quality person? Am I irrational? Are you?

As someone who is a Conservative and a registered Republican, I endorse your comments, John. But if you wrote them to defend Fetzger, then I'll have to dissent. Having lived through 9/11, I have nothing but scorn for those who are "9/11 TRUTHERs".

Flint said: One of the ramifications of the reactions you observe seems to be relentless advocacy of religious error. I'm not sure whether the sheer bulldozer determination to deprive others of civil rights (and good education) is more due to demonization of non-model-fitting views or simple fear. But it's real and depressing.

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: One of the ramifications of the reactions you observe seems to be relentless advocacy of religious error. I'm not sure whether the sheer bulldozer determination to deprive others of civil rights (and good education) is more due to demonization of non-model-fitting views or simple fear. But it's real and depressing.

I suspect anyone who has lived in communities, in which there are such fundamentalist notions, will have felt the sting of fundamentalist fear and loathing once these fundamentalists discover anyone that is not one of them. And their children are told to keep their distance from such non-believers and not play with the children of non-believers.

Capt. Haddock said: Not sure I'd hyperventilate too much over this. It is clear that the disclaimer relates solely to standards of polite discourse, and in no way gives credence to ID. In my view the last thing we want is to start getting as paranoid as the ID people, seeing conspiracies everywhere. That would tend to make outsiders see the arguments of science as no better than those of ID.

Stuart Weinstein said:

Capt. Haddock said: Not sure I'd hyperventilate too much over this. It is clear that the disclaimer relates solely to standards of polite discourse, and in no way gives credence to ID. In my view the last thing we want is to start getting as paranoid as the ID people, seeing conspiracies everywhere. That would tend to make outsiders see the arguments of science as no better than those of ID.

Whether or not it gives credence to ID is quite irrelevant. The simple fact is, is that this was a decision made behind close doors so to speak by the Eds in Chief and the contributors were not informed. This is an ad-hoc on the spot change in policy. It is highly unethical, and casts a pall over future special editions now that a precedent has been sent. I think this is also a matter for the publishers, and John and the other authors should object most vehemently. Holy smokes, it is unbeleivable.

John Kwok said: Agreed, it is unbelievable and I hope John Wilkins and the other authors do object most vehemently.

John S. Wilkins said:

John Kwok said: Agreed, it is unbelievable and I hope John Wilkins and the other authors do object most vehemently.

That would be the purpose of this post...

To the author of this thread.
in modern north america nothing is more done then to keep tight rein over what people say and how they say it.
Its a long complaint , mostly from conservatives, of this control or censorship.
In fact creationism says its constantly interfered or censored or expelled here and there.
I find in origin contentions always it gets nasty. Yes I think mostly from the non creationist side for many reasons.

ARE CREATIONISTS RATIONAL? Well how is that not a nasty insinuation? Even if you conclude they are not? i guess you might be fighting against this accusation from your own ranks but it sure seems like your hinting it it has some credibility while not the full story.
I don't care.
Yet if you replaced the word creationists with any other identity you would be charged, probably punished, with doing a 'ism of some species.
In fact just do a scientific test by trying it.
In fact i would suggest DON'T.!

The remedy is for the whole civilization to stop its immoral and illegal attempts to control ideas, conclusions, about anything . Except where obvious malice is being pushed.
Today its not malice in words but malice is charged because of ideas and conclusions . so this means those in charge are the Judge of ideas and conclusions.
You just bumped into it.
Origin wars just show a deeper problem.
Freedom is not welcome from establishments.

Creationism is not science, and should not be treated as though it were science, or even the equal of science.

Creationists who demand such, and all of their apologists and enablers, as well, should be given mountains of abuse because they have done literally everything to earn mountains of abuse.

After all, these are people who consider lying to children to be a holy virtue, and consider the idea of learning to be an unpardonable sin.

Robert Byers said: ARE CREATIONISTS RATIONAL? Well how is that not a nasty insinuation?

Creationists' irrationality is not an insinuation - it’s a statement of fact.

Rolf Aalberg said: ...the people in Switzerland committing suicide by fire in order to be resurrected on Sirius(?).

And remember … they shoot a lot, but they can’t hit anything.

Questioner: "Some of your criticisms of natural selection sound a lot like those of Michael Behe, one of the most famous proponents of 'intelligent design,' and yet you have debated Behe. What is the difference between your views?" Lynn Margulis: The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It's just that they've got nothing to offer by intelligent design or "God did it." They have no alternatives that are scientific. --Interview with Discover Magazine, April 2011, pg 66-67

Robert Byers said: ARE CREATIONISTS RATIONAL? Well how is that not a nasty insinuation?

Margulis still opposes ID, but you guys know that you’re in trouble when a big name evolutionist of her stature, openly states that the creationist critics are correct concerning Natural Selection. E-Yow!!

FL said:

And remember … they shoot a lot, but they can’t hit anything.

You'd be surprised. Think TX, LA, and perhaps TN maybe. Definitely some individual targets as well, such as Antony Flew.

That's why PT is having to monitor Non-Darwinist activity on a weekly (almost daily) basis these days. Doubts-About-Darwin are clearly gaining traction in the USA.

Check out this very recent example:

Questioner: "Some of your criticisms of natural selection sound a lot like those of Michael Behe, one of the most famous proponents of 'intelligent design,' and yet you have debated Behe. What is the difference between your views?" Lynn Margulis: The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It's just that they've got nothing to offer by intelligent design or "God did it." They have no alternatives that are scientific. --Interview with Discover Magazine, April 2011, pg 66-67

Margulis still opposes ID, but you guys know that you're in trouble when a big name evolutionist of her stature, openly states that the creationist critics are correct concerning Natural Selection. E-Yow!!

FL said: Margulis still opposes ID, but you guys know that you're in trouble when a big name evolutionist of her stature, openly states that the creationist critics are correct concerning Natural Selection. E-Yow!! FL (hat tip to Evolution News & Views.)

Flint said:

Margulis still opposes ID, but you guys know that you’re in trouble when a big name evolutionist of her stature, openly states that the creationist critics are correct concerning Natural Selection. E-Yow!!

But of course, from your own quote (and from a creationist source at that), it's clear that Margulis did not say that. She said that evolutionary theory, like ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC THEORY, must be open to scientific criticism. NOTE: SCIENTIFIC criticism.

Then she goes on to say that the creationists have no scientific alternatives of any kind, they just claim it's magic.

Margulis clearly thinks we have a lot remaining to learn about how evolution actually works, what all the mechanisms are and how they all interact. And this is as correct about evolution as it is about anything else within the scientific domain. FL is projecting onto Margulis something she did not say, and did not mean. This is "creationist honesty" in action once again.

Take it to the Bathroom Wall guys.

FL is still pissed and is trying to provoke anyone he can.

Stanton -

The minds of these seething right wing authoritarian fundamentalists are tricky for the rest of us to understand.

You must recognize the obsession with anger and vengeance. Their actual desire is to "overturn" everything which they think was a "loss" for them, back to 1900 (if not 1850). My impression is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seems to have been what provoked this (prior to the 1970's, it was uncommon for economic reforms associated with presidents named Roosevelt to be targeted openly).

At any rate, FL and his fellow travelers are filled with rage that "creation science" lost in court. They don't give a damn whether life evolves - I'm not saying they secretly believe it does, I'm saying that they don't have the abstraction abilities to give a damn (which does not mean that they have low IQ scores or learning disabilities which can easily be measured).

What they want, all they want, is to force public school children to memorize some form of religion-tinged evolution denial in science class, and they want to do whatever they can in legislatures and court rooms to create that situation.

This is why, for example, if I ask these supposed prophet-like paragons of religion who the designer is, what the designer did, when the designer did it, and how the designer did it, they refuse to answer. Why don't they Testify the Word of the Lord? Because they understand perfectly that the whole point of ID to disguise the religious nature of creationism, and the entire, sole, exclusive, and unitary reason for doing that is to deny that it is religious in court to avoid Lemon test violations.

It's all about political power. If Jesus appeared to FL and told him that he, Jesus, was about to usher in an infinite time of joy and goodness for humanity, but that Texas wouldn't have an anti-evolution bill, FL would be bitterly disappointed.

Lynn Margulis: The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism.

harold,

Yup. The chain of inference isn't hard to follow. Creationists know that if children can still reason about evidence when they get old enough to do so, they have little hope of their indoctrination taking hold.

And one important way to do that is to neutralize the corrosive effects of public school education, especially science education.

But to subvert public education, they must jump legal hurdles. There are two complementary ways to do this: Misrepresent creationism as some sort of science or at least eliminate restraints on creationist schoolteachers while hiring more of them; and working to get more Scalias onto the Supreme Court.

ID is an attempt to do the first of these (although the Dover decision was definitive, evolution is still the don't-mention third rail of education in much of the US). And broad political action is active nationwide to pass laws couching the castration of science education in neutral-sounding encoding.

The domino-effect feedback model seems clear -- the more little creationists they can brainwash, the more votes they have to elect creationist politicians. Who can then appoint creationist judges. Who can then bless more intensive brainwashing in the schools, and around we go.

Hey, this sort of thing (with variations) has been happening in the middle east for a thousand years. It can work! Just look, no more middle eastern science.

FL:

That statement is ambiguous. Margulis did NOT say that natural selection doesn't happen. So there are two ways to parse the quote you've provided:

1) One or more specific criticism creationist make, none of which is specified, is correct in her opinion.

2) Creationists are right to criticize current evolutionary theory, which is admittedly incomplete.

Now, what you did is, you chose the first of these interpretations, you (not Margulis) picked natural selection as the specific criticism, and then you put that into her mouth. Naughty boy, FL.

Flint said: The domino-effect feedback model seems clear -- the more little creationists they can brainwash, the more votes they have to elect creationist politicians. Who can then appoint creationist judges. Who can then bless more intensive brainwashing in the schools, and around we go. Hey, this sort of thing (with variations) has been happening in the middle east for a thousand years. It can work! Just look, no more middle eastern science.

FL said: Just a note for Flint, who said, "FL is projecting onto Margulis something she did not say, and did not mean." Guys, it's right there. Discover Magazine. Page 68. It's online.

Lynn Margulis: The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism.

There's no "projection" here. There's no need to parse it; it's very clear all by itself. Whatever other opinions you choose to express about Evolutionist Margulis or her public statement, at least one should have enough integrity to acknowledge that she actually said it. Sheesh!!

Stanton said: Do you think we're stupid enough to take your worthless word that this is all she said about the matter?

....you (not Margulis) picked natural selection as the specific criticism.

Questioner (Discovery Magazine): “Some of your criticisms of natural selection sound a lot like those of Michael Behe, one of the most famous proponents of ‘intelligent design,’ and yet you have debated Behe. What is the difference between your views?” Lynn Margulis: The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism.

I wonder if FL agrees with Margulis's great contribution to biology: recognition that our own mitochondria were once free-living bacteria a billion or so years ago, and that we eukaryotes were originally an amalgamation of bacteria, amoebae, and other components of the "goo".

I was just now in the bathroom reading that very article. Now, FL, why don't you quote the sentences with which she follows that one?

Now, FL, why don’t you quote the sentences with which she follows that one?

Just Bob said: I was just now in the bathroom reading that very article.

FL said: No wonder Mike wants to move this stuff to the Bathroom Wall. Reading-Comp-Malfunctions all over da place?? FL

FL said:

Now, FL, why don’t you quote the sentences with which she follows that one?

Please check my previous post: April 15 10:53 AM And even check Stanton's previous post: April 15 11:10 AM The specifc "follow" sentence that you're talking about, has already been quoted previously. Please check. No wonder Mike wants to move this stuff to the Bathroom Wall. Reading-Comp-Malfunctions all over da place?? FL

Check out this very ancient example: There is no God. [punctuation and capitalization quoted exactly] Psalm 14:1 (KJV) The Bible still promotes belief in God, but you guys know that you’re in trouble when a big name psalmist, of the stature of King David, openly states that the atheist critics are correct concerning God's existence. E-Yow!! Oh, and there are 11 more examples of that exact statement in other places in the Bible! Shouldn't that tell you something? Wowie-Yowie!!! Look 'em up, FL.

What is it everyone keeps calling you here? Oh, yeah, a liar.

Name-calling is fine, Just-Bob. At this point, the readers can check and see for themselves that nothing was quote-mined. Margulis's sentences were quoted correctly (and I even said out loud that Margulis "still opposes ID"; check that sentence too).

Bottom line: What she said, she hath said. Your inquiry, and others', has been answered. But I won't keep on rehashing it. It's done.

FL

Margulis’s sentences were quoted correctly (and I even said out loud that Margulis “still opposes ID”; check that sentence too).

Flint said:

Margulis’s sentences were quoted correctly (and I even said out loud that Margulis “still opposes ID”; check that sentence too).

She didn't quite say that she "opposes" ID, as though this were a political issue. She said that ID has no SCIENTIFIC alternatives to offer, nothing but magic. Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting what was said. Deliberate misrepresentations are dishonest.

Flint said: They said they just couldn't understand why none of those fine Christians who made promises showed up, and I commented that us atheists take our promises more seriously. We've never heard from them since! We did not fit the model, I guess. The cultural gap is wider than most commentators seem to understand.

Scott F said: My wife used to go to lots of dog shows. There was one fundamentalist family who had the same breed of dog, so we saw them a lot. The family had a 17 year old daughter. When the daughter one day discovered that my wife was not only not a fundamentalist "True Believer", but was a former Christian turned atheist and thought the whole thing silly, the young lady's incredulous response was, "But, but, you're so nice". Yes, the fundamentalist cannot even imagine that a non-believer could be a nice person. It's what they are taught.

Since it is obvious to me that none of you has bothered to read any of my research on JFK, 9/11, or the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, how can you possibly know that I am some kind of "conspiracy nut" with "irrational beliefs"? Do you have some kind of privileged access to the truth that allows you to draw these inferences without considering any of the evidence?

No one who has actually studied my books and articles on the assassination of JFK, the atrocities of 9/11, or the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone would entertain such absurdities. Just to show how little you understand about all of this, the special issue was my idea and I invited Glenn to join me, in case the facts of the matter make a difference.

During 35 years of offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I have found that what faculty fear most is embarrassment and, for that reason, primarily, they are unwilling to extend themselves beyond the boundaries of their narrowly defined domains. Some of us are different and believe that we have an obligation to contribute to sorting things out when that might make a difference to society.

I graduated magna cum laude from Princeton, served as a commissioned officer in the US Marine Corps, and earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. I have published extensively on more traditional topics as well as more controversial ones. Here is a sampler of some of my work on those subjects, which are arguably of far greater importance to the American people than those that preoccupy most academicians:

"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

"Reasoning about Assassinations"
http://assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf

"The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco" (with Jim Marrs)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html

"JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn't"
http://www.voltairenet.org/article165721.html

"RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/10/rfk-outing-cia-at-ambassador_22.html

"The NTSB Failed Wellstone" (with John Costella)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070605_wellstone.shtml

"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html

"Conspiracies and Conspiracism"
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4161-Conspiracies-and-Conspiracism

Many of these appeared elsewhere, too: "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", for example, was published under a slightly different title in GLOBAL RESEARCH; "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon" in a longer version at rense.com; "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" has just appeared in THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO (March 2011), pp. 19-32.

I have also edited three books about JFK, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson but defends the "lone gunman" theory, has described as the only "exclusively scientific" books ever published about the assassination.

I co-authored AMERICAN ASSASSINATION: THE STRANGE DEATH OF SENATOR PAUL WELLSTONE (2004) with Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, a Native American scholar, where our research has been substantiated by a new (15 part) documentary, "WELLSTONE: THEY KILLED HIM" (2010), from snowshoefilms, which you can find on YouTube.

And I edited the first book from Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which I also founded, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and produced its first DVD, "The Science and Politics of 9/11" (2007). Those who doubt the breadth and the depth of support for 9/11 research should become acquainted with several thousand experts and scholars with photos, bio sketches, and statements at http://patriotsquestion911.com.

Does anyone find evidence here that I am a "conspiracy nut"? or that I am "irrational" with regard to my beliefs about the assassination of JFK, the atrocities of 9/11, or the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone? Are none of you aware that what is irrational is for you to judge one of your peers without considering the relevant evidence?

It stuns me how effortlessly faculty will dismiss the research of someone else on subjective or "political correctness" gounds. A small point, perhaps, but how can you be so cavalier in dismissing a colleague, especially one whose most recent book, his 29th, co-edited with the late Ellery Eells, is THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010)?

Aw, man, you guys had to go and hurt his feelings. What a bunch of meaniebutt poopyheads you are. No cookies for you!

/stern

Glen Davidson said:

Robert Byers said: ARE CREATIONISTS RATIONAL? Well how is that not a nasty insinuation?

It's a nasty reality that they're not--obviously with respect to evolution and their religion, not regarding everything. This is why meaningful dialog is rarely possible between the pro-science and the anti-science sides. They're offended that we tell the truth, we're offended that they're constantly conjuring irrational conspiracy theories and telling flimsy falsehoods. There have been studies of how the rational areas of the brain are essentially shut down when religion or politics are evoked in most minds. I don't see any point in linking to any of them, as it never told us anything that wasn't obvious anyhow. Byers, whose drivel is nearly legendary in its irrationality and attempts to shut down rational inference in others, is offended at the objective fact that creationists are irrational. How could he not be, even though it is irrational to object to rational judgments of obvious irrationality? Glen Davidson

Wolfhound said: Aw, man, you guys had to go and hurt his feelings. What a bunch of meaniebutt poopyheads you are. No cookies for you! /stern

Mr Fetzer, you're an embarrassment, please disasociate yourself from the anti-creationist movement. You can only do harm to this vital cause.

Some of you apparently have a knack for finding
new ways to disgrace themselves. I am only surprised to find so many together here on a site devoted to the discussion of issues related to evolution. What have you--Wolfhound, Stuart Weinstein, and SteveF--ever done to make yourselves feel so self-important and display such arrogance?

I notice, in particular, that none of you has offered any evidence to suggest that I am wrong about JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone, which speaks volumes about your lack of moral grounding. This has nothing to do with feelings but with reason, rationality, and a sense of social responsibility. Once again, you are exhibiting the immature sensibilities of small children.

William Clifford wrote about the ethics of belief, in which he wisely counseled that no one is entitled to believe anything for which they lack appropriate evidence. Yet the three of you appear to have swallowed the "official"--but provably false--accounts of some of the most significant events of recent American history, hook, line and sinker. Trivial quips and ignorant remarks are not substitutes for logic and evidence.

I would not be surprised if my contributions to the debate over evolution and creationism-- which include THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005), where I explain why humans are not the only animals with minds, and RENDER UNTO DARWIN (2007), where I discuss evolution in relation to creationism, morality without religion, and abortion, stem-cell research, and cloning--exceed what you have done yourselves.

I suspect that simply co-editing "Evolution and Its Rivals" was a more substantial contribution to exposing sophisticated forms of creationism than the three of you have contributed together, which may explain the insecurity you display when confronting those who are doing more by resorting to the kinds of fallacies I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid.

Jesse Ventura, whom I admire, is performing a public service in making the public more aware of the extent to which the USA is devolving into a fascist state. His contributions are extensive and valuable, which includes his latest book, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ (2011). With this crowd, I take it, the government doesn't have anything to worry about!

I'm too busy worrying about the chemicals the government is putting in our food in an attempt to enact mass mind control to go through the list, so can somebody tell me how many points Mr. Fetzer has scored on the Crackpot Index with his two posts? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

James H. Fetzer said: Since it is obvious to me that none of you has bothered to read any of my research on JFK, 9/11, or the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, how can you possibly know that I am some kind of "conspiracy nut" with "irrational beliefs"? Do you have some kind of privileged access to the truth that allows you to draw these inferences without considering any of the evidence? No one who has actually studied my books and articles on the assassination of JFK, the atrocities of 9/11, or the plane crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone would entertain such absurdities. Just to show how little you understand about all of this, the special issue was my idea and I invited Glenn to join me, in case the facts of the matter make a difference. During 35 years of offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I have found that what faculty fear most is embarrassment and, for that reason, primarily, they are unwilling to extend themselves beyond the boundaries of their narrowly defined domains. Some of us are different and believe that we have an obligation to contribute to sorting things out when that might make a difference to society. I graduated magna cum laude from Princeton, served as a commissioned officer in the US Marine Corps, and earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. I have published extensively on more traditional topics as well as more controversial ones. Here is a sampler of some of my work on those subjects, which are arguably of far greater importance to the American people than those that preoccupy most academicians: Does anyone find evidence here that I am a "conspiracy nut"? or that I am "irrational" with regard to my beliefs about the assassination of JFK, the atrocities of 9/11, or the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone? Are none of you aware that what is irrational is for you to judge one of your peers without considering the relevant evidence? It stuns me how effortlessly faculty will dismiss the research of someone else on subjective or "political correctness" gounds. A small point, perhaps, but how can you be so cavalier in dismissing a colleague, especially one whose most recent book, his 29th, co-edited with the late Ellery Eells, is THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010)? Some of you apparently have a knack for finding new ways to disgrace themselves. I am only surprised to find so many together here on a site devoted to the discussion of issues related to evolution. What have you--Wolfhound, Stuart Weinstein, and SteveF--ever done to make yourselves feel so self-important and display such arrogance? I notice, in particular, that none of you has offered any evidence to suggest that I am wrong about JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone, which speaks volumes about your lack of moral grounding. This has nothing to do with feelings but with reason, rationality, and a sense of social responsibility. Once again, you are exhibiting the immature sensibilities of small children. William Clifford wrote about the ethics of belief, in which he wisely counseled that no one is entitled to believe anything for which they lack appropriate evidence. Yet the three of you appear to have swallowed the "official"--but provably false--accounts of some of the most significant events of recent American history, hook, line and sinker. Trivial quips and ignorant remarks are not substitutes for logic and evidence. I would not be surprised if my contributions to the debate over evolution and creationism-- which include THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005), where I explain why humans are not the only animals with minds, and RENDER UNTO DARWIN (2007), where I discuss evolution in relation to creationism, morality without religion, and abortion, stem-cell research, and cloning--exceed what you have done yourselves. I suspect that simply co-editing "Evolution and Its Rivals" was a more substantial contribution to exposing sophisticated forms of creationism than the three of you have contributed together, which may explain the insecurity you display when confronting those who are doing more by resorting to the kinds of fallacies I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid. Jesse Ventura, whom I admire, is performing a public service in making the public more aware of the extent to which the USA is devolving into a fascist state. His contributions are extensive and valuable, which includes his latest book, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ (2011). With this crowd, I take it, the government doesn't have anything to worry about!

James H. Fetzer said: Some of you apparently have a knack for finding new ways to disgrace themselves.

Once upon a time I decided to cook up an "Evil Overlord versus conspiracy theories" list -- oddly, though it seems a natural fit, nobody seemed to have done it before.

Anyway, when I am an Evil Overlord:

* I will not set up memorials or create public artworks with hidden -- much less overt -- clues about my Secret Organization and its Evil Conspiracy.

* I will not disperse mind-control chemicals in visible contrails. They will be made transparent and invisible so they can be spread without anyone noticing.

* I will not paint my helicopters black so they will look suspicious. They'll be painted like civilian medical helicopters so nobody will pay any attention to them.

* I will not allow my minions to make any statements in public or in correspondence that could even vaguely hint they had foreknowledge of my Evil Conspiracy.

* I will not attempt to pull off an Evil Conspiracy that demands the cooperation of several thousand people in different and often antagonistic government organizations that have a persistent history of leaks. I will ABSOLUTELY not conceive of an Evil Conspiracy that demands the cooperation of outright enemies, such as the CIA and the KGB.

* I will run my Evil Conspiracy past a class of first-graders. If they find the scheme easily uncovered, foolishly risky, gross overkill, ridiculously complicated, or flatly illogical, then I'll have to revise the plan.

* I will not employ as agents high-school dropouts, alcoholics, people with a history of mental-health difficulties, convicted pedophiles, or other losers. If I'm going to have a serious conspiracy, obviously I'll employ people with decent qualifications and no evident personal problems.

* I will not use a mind-control system that can be defeated by a layer of tinfoil, or even two layers of tinfoil.

* I will not arrange "mysterious deaths" for unimportant witnesses ten or twenty years after they have testified. If they're honestly a threat to me, they won't live long enough to take the stand; if they're not, I won't draw attention to my plot by killing them.

* I will not invite a conspiracy theorist to my Global Mind Control System Facility and tell him all about how it works so he can announce it on the internet. Similarly, I will not give low-ranking minions clearance to all the details of my Evil Conspiracy so they can go public later. Such information will be distributed on a NEED TO KNOW basis. Low-ranking minions will believe they're working on consumer products.

* If a conspiracy theorist actually does find a "smoking gun" that implicates my Evil Conspiracy, he'll have an accident or simply disappear before he has time to tell everyone about it on the internet.

* If a conspiracy theorist actually has no clue and spins conspiracy theories so wild that nobody will believe them, I will do everything I can to help and encourage him to maximize confusion over the issue.

Robert Byers said: ...for yEC we say we already have a high standard of authority to start from.

We are not anti-science.

In fact, James H. Fetzer makes me think of Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher who was said to have gone insane in 1889, though I suspect he was a lunatic for most of his so-called life but his madness didn't become obvious for many years. Anyway, Nietzsche wrote a book titled Ecce Homo (Latin for "behold the man"), with chapter titles like, "Why I Am So Wise", "Why I Am So Clever", "Why I Write Such Good Books" and "Why I Am a Destiny".

Dale Husband said: In fact, James H. Fetzer makes me think of Friedrich Nietzsche ...

James H. Fetzer said: ...none of you has offered any evidence to suggest that I am wrong about JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone...

Let's not forget Pearl Harbor, chemtrails, 100-MPG cars, vaccines, and of course HIV as the cause of AIDS.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: ...for yEC we say we already have a high standard of authority to start from.

The only problem is that your "high standard of authority" is a Bronze Age myth! The fact that your "high standard of authority" has utterly no standing whatsoever in the world of actual science is why you and your fellow travelers are trying so hard to dumb down and destroy science.

We are not anti-science.

Riiight.

I notice, in particular, that none of you has offered any evidence to suggest that I am wrong about JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone, which speaks volumes about your lack of moral grounding.

This has nothing to do with feelings but with reason, rationality, and a sense of social responsibility. Once again, you are exhibiting the immature sensibilities of small children.

William Clifford wrote about the ethics of belief, in which he wisely counseled that no one is entitled to believe anything for which they lack appropriate evidence.

Yet the three of you appear to have swallowed the “official”–but provably false–accounts of some of the most significant events of recent American history, hook, line and sinker. Trivial quips and ignorant remarks are not substitutes for logic and evidence.

I would not be surprised if my contributions to the debate over evolution and creationism– which include THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005), where I explain why humans are not the only animals with minds, and RENDER UNTO DARWIN (2007), where I discuss evolution in relation to creationism, morality without religion, and abortion, stem-cell research, and cloning–exceed what you have done yourselves. I suspect that simply co-editing “Evolution and Its Rivals” was a more substantial contribution to exposing sophisticated forms of creationism than the three of you have contributed together, which may explain the insecurity you display when confronting those who are doing more by resorting to the kinds of fallacies I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid.

Jesse Ventura, whom I admire, is performing a public service in making the public more aware of the extent to which the USA is devolving into a fascist state. His contributions are extensive and valuable, which includes his latest book, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T WANT YOU TO READ (2011). With this crowd, I take it, the government doesn’t have anything to worry about!

James H. Fetzer said: Some of you apparently have a knack for finding new ways to disgrace themselves. I am only surprised to find so many together here on a site devoted to the discussion of issues related to evolution. What have you--Wolfhound, Stuart Weinstein, and SteveF--ever done to make yourselves feel so self-important and display such arrogance? I notice, in particular, that none of you has offered any evidence to suggest that I am wrong about JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone, which speaks volumes about your lack of moral grounding. This has nothing to do with feelings but with reason, rationality, and a sense of social responsibility. Once again, you are exhibiting the immature sensibilities of small children. William Clifford wrote about the ethics of belief, in which he wisely counseled that no one is entitled to believe anything for which they lack appropriate evidence. Yet the three of you appear to have swallowed the "official"--but provably false--accounts of some of the most significant events of recent American history, hook, line and sinker. Trivial quips and ignorant remarks are not substitutes for logic and evidence. I would not be surprised if my contributions to the debate over evolution and creationism-- which include THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005), where I explain why humans are not the only animals with minds, and RENDER UNTO DARWIN (2007), where I discuss evolution in relation to creationism, morality without religion, and abortion, stem-cell research, and cloning--exceed what you have done yourselves. I suspect that simply co-editing "Evolution and Its Rivals" was a more substantial contribution to exposing sophisticated forms of creationism than the three of you have contributed together, which may explain the insecurity you display when confronting those who are doing more by resorting to the kinds of fallacies I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid. Jesse Ventura, whom I admire, is performing a public service in making the public more aware of the extent to which the USA is devolving into a fascist state. His contributions are extensive and valuable, which includes his latest book, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ (2011). With this crowd, I take it, the government doesn't have anything to worry about!

mrg said: Let's not forget Pearl Harbor, chemtrails, 100-MPG cars, vaccines, and of course HIV as the cause of AIDS.

harold said: To summarize your basic thesis - everyone who doesn't accept your authority is morally inferior and a "stooge" of the government.

John Kwok said: You [James H. Fetzer] are a disgrace to the fields of the philosophy and history of science, and I support SteveF's request that you disassociate yourself from NCSE and other credible organizations and people involved in fighting creationists. IMHO you are no better than your fellow "historian" Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer. I saw one of the World Trade Center buildings in flames soon after the first plane hit it. I also saw the dust clouds that resulted from the implosions of both buildings and the resulting funeral pyres. We know quite well who was responsible for 9/11 and why both towers imploded. As someone who was among the many New Yorkers present witnessing all or part of 9/11, I find your "research" absurd, obnoxious, and quite frankly, damnable lies and nonsense that detract substantially from the ample data demonstrating that we know what happened with those towers and with the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon itself. I wish Glenn hadn't solicited your asssistance in co-editing that Synthese special issue. Usually Glenn doesn't make any mistakes, but this one was most definitely a colossal error on his part.

I am not the biggest fan of Noam Chomsky – mostly because of his writing style, which is reminiscent of fingers scraped across a blackboard

Since the nature of rationality has been among the subjects of my research and publication, I would observe that someone is high in rationality of beliefs when they revised, reject, or leave them in suspense in relation to the available relevant evidence. None of you seems to have made the least effort to determine what my beliefs (about JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone, for example) actually are, which is one sign that rationality of belief is not a virtue valued on this forum.

If anyone were serious about this, the could visit the home page for Scholars for 9/11 Truth and read some of our work, such as "Why doubt 9/11?", which is archived in the upper-left-hand corner, which summarizes twenty major points that undermine or refute the official account of 9/11. Or they could view one or another of my public presentations, such as "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?", http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ where some of you may appreciate the import of wars being based upon staged events.

If you really wanted to know more about the history of Scholars, you could scroll down the home page to my "Founder's Corner" and read about it. Or check out some of the articles I have published in which it is discussed, including, for example, "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op" and, more recently, "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan". Or Allan Weisbecker's "Response to Kevin Ryan (from a Mexican surfing MadMan)", for an independent point of view. But none of you actually seem to care.

Another is to suggest that my qualifications for this special issue are suspect. That follows from ignorance about my positions on other issues, where no one seems to bother figuring them out. So one fallacy (the ad hominem) is compounded by another (begging the question), where I am supposed to be discredited from co-editing a special issue on "Evolution and Its Rivals" based upon false and unjustified assertions about my views on JFK, 9/11, and such.

No one seems to to be aware that I have had extensive experience in
editing, even serving as an editor of SYNTHESE for ten years and founding and editing MINDS AND MACHINES for another ten. I would be surprised if anyone here has as much experience with regard to the editing of books and journals as have I. (See, for example, my academic home page at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ ) Whatever the reasons that have been alleged by those who suggest that I was a poor choice to co-edit this special issue, which I would invite Glenn to edit with me, there is no evidence to substantiate that claim! NONE!

So my concern is not about the rationality of creationist but that of their critics. Those represented here seem to be willing be accept "magic bullets" and fantastic stories about a "lone, demented gunman", which have long since been proven to be false, much less the story about 9/11, which was drafted by its executive director, Philip Zelikow, a year before he shared it with the members of his own staff. The official account is just fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible things.

Zelikow's area of academic specialization, by the way, turns out to be the creation and maintenance of public myths, which is precisely what he gave us about 9/11. As for the "magic bullet", among the articles I have recommended reading (if you have any interest in my actual views) is "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. As a test of your sincerity (which I profoundly doubt), just take that as a measure of your ability to adjust your beliefs to new evidence.

It is both surprising and disappointing to find so many here who are willing to believe anything, regardless of the evidence, when it suits their psychological dispositions. There is nothing about my research on JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone that justifies the kinds of remarks that have come from mrg, John Kwop, and many others, who are willing to be reckless in their charges against me. Like Michael Moore, I only believe those conspiracy theories that are true! I agree that there are many here who have no more credibility than creationists, but I am not among them.

mrg | April 14, 2011 8:47 AM | Reply
Fetzer is one of the inner circle of 911 Troothers. He is also well-known as a JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. He may not be in the league of Alex Jones and David Icke, but in my personal opinion Fetzer isn’t any more credible than a creationist.

John Kwok replied to comment from John S. Wilkins | April 14, 2011 9:02 AM | Reply

John Kwok said:

Am in full agreement here and with DS’s comments. However, I am troubled with SteveF’s revelation that Fetzer is a 9/11 Truther. As much as I admire Glenn’s work as both a writer and especially, as NCSE’s Deputy Director, he should have been aware of Fetzer’s background and THOUGHT TWICE before agreeing to have him as the co-editor of this special issue.

I didn’t know any of that, and of course I in no way support such conspiracy theories. It doesn’t change the point, however.

James H. Fetzer said: Since the nature of rationality ...

mrg said:

James H. Fetzer said: Since the nature of rationality ...

TL:DR

I perused the Synthese articles defending Darwinian metaphysics against intelligent design and I was not overwhelmed. They have not come up with an alternative explanation of the Carnot-Dembski curve that relates the level of information to system complexity.

The Darwinians just assume that complexity increases without any information input. This makes about as sense as saying temperature increases without the addition of heat. When challenged, they just get angry and call names.

Mike Elzinga said: Looks like credential waving.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: I perused the Synthese articles defending Darwinian metaphysics against intelligent design and I was not overwhelmed. They have not come up with an alternative explanation of the Carnot-Dembski curve that relates the level of information to system complexity. The Darwinians just assume that complexity increases without any information input. This makes about as sense as saying temperature increases without the addition of heat. When challenged, they just get angry and call names.

James H. Fetzer said: Since the nature of rationality has been among the subjects of my research and publication, I would observe that someone is high in rationality of beliefs when they revised, reject, or leave them in suspense in relation to the available relevant evidence. None of you seems to have made the least effort to determine what my beliefs (about JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone, for example) actually are, which is one sign that rationality of belief is not a virtue valued on this forum. If anyone were serious about this, the could visit the home page for Scholars for 9/11 Truth and read some of our work, such as "Why doubt 9/11?", which is archived in the upper-left-hand corner, which summarizes twenty major points that undermine or refute the official account of 9/11. Or they could view one or another of my public presentations, such as "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?", http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ where some of you may appreciate the import of wars being based upon staged events. If you really wanted to know more about the history of Scholars, you could scroll down the home page to my "Founder's Corner" and read about it. Or check out some of the articles I have published in which it is discussed, including, for example, "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op" and, more recently, "The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan". Or Allan Weisbecker's "Response to Kevin Ryan (from a Mexican surfing MadMan)", for an independent point of view. But none of you actually seem to care. Another is to suggest that my qualifications for this special issue are suspect. That follows from ignorance about my positions on other issues, where no one seems to bother figuring them out. So one fallacy (the ad hominem) is compounded by another (begging the question), where I am supposed to be discredited from co-editing a special issue on "Evolution and Its Rivals" based upon false and unjustified assertions about my views on JFK, 9/11, and such. No one seems to to be aware that I have had extensive experience in editing, even serving as an editor of SYNTHESE for ten years and founding and editing MINDS AND MACHINES for another ten. I would be surprised if anyone here has as much experience with regard to the editing of books and journals as have I. (See, for example, my academic home page at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ ) Whatever the reasons that have been alleged by those who suggest that I was a poor choice to co-edit this special issue, which I would invite Glenn to edit with me, there is no evidence to substantiate that claim! NONE! So my concern is not about the rationality of creationist but that of their critics. Those represented here seem to be willing be accept "magic bullets" and fantastic stories about a "lone, demented gunman", which have long since been proven to be false, much less the story about 9/11, which was drafted by its executive director, Philip Zelikow, a year before he shared it with the members of his own staff. The official account is just fine as long as you are willing to believe impossible things. Zelikow's area of academic specialization, by the way, turns out to be the creation and maintenance of public myths, which is precisely what he gave us about 9/11. As for the "magic bullet", among the articles I have recommended reading (if you have any interest in my actual views) is "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. As a test of your sincerity (which I profoundly doubt), just take that as a measure of your ability to adjust your beliefs to new evidence. It is both surprising and disappointing to find so many here who are willing to believe anything, regardless of the evidence, when it suits their psychological dispositions. There is nothing about my research on JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone that justifies the kinds of remarks that have come from mrg, John Kwop, and many others, who are willing to be reckless in their charges against me. Like Michael Moore, I only believe those conspiracy theories that are true! I agree that there are many here who have no more credibility than creationists, but I am not among them. mrg | April 14, 2011 8:47 AM | Reply Fetzer is one of the inner circle of 911 Troothers. He is also well-known as a JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. He may not be in the league of Alex Jones and David Icke, but in my personal opinion Fetzer isn’t any more credible than a creationist. John Kwok replied to comment from John S. Wilkins | April 14, 2011 9:02 AM | Reply John Kwok said: Am in full agreement here and with DS’s comments. However, I am troubled with SteveF’s revelation that Fetzer is a 9/11 Truther. As much as I admire Glenn’s work as both a writer and especially, as NCSE’s Deputy Director, he should have been aware of Fetzer’s background and THOUGHT TWICE before agreeing to have him as the co-editor of this special issue. I didn’t know any of that, and of course I in no way support such conspiracy theories. It doesn’t change the point, however.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: I perused the Synthese articles defending Darwinian metaphysics against intelligent design and I was not overwhelmed. They have not come up with an alternative explanation of the Carnot-Dembski curve that relates the level of information to system complexity. The Darwinians just assume that complexity increases without any information input. This makes about as sense as saying temperature increases without the addition of heat. When challenged, they just get angry and call names.

mrg said:

darwinism.dogBarf() said: I perused the Synthese articles defending Darwinian metaphysics against intelligent design and I was not overwhelmed. They have not come up with an alternative explanation of the Carnot-Dembski curve that relates the level of information to system complexity. The Darwinians just assume that complexity increases without any information input. This makes about as sense as saying temperature increases without the addition of heat. When challenged, they just get angry and call names.

DD ... you don't really think anyone takes this seriously, do you? Admit it. You only came here to try to pick fights. You know that. We know that. Tells us otherwise, nobody's going to believe you.

harold said: Bigfoot is the former Loch Ness Monster. He's an excellent swimmer. He swam to or somehow got to North America at some point during the mid-nineteenth century. EXACTLY when credible Loch Ness Monster sitings dropped off and Bigfoot sitings picked up.

darwinism.dogBarf() said:

mrg said: DD ... you don't really think anyone takes this seriously, do you?

The Gibbs-Helmholtz-Dembski free information theorem ...

darwinism.dogBarf() said: The Gibbs-Helmholtz-Dembski free information theorem makes as much sense to me as any of the other equations in the textbooks. It only seems that the establishment is denying the recognition of intelligent design theory merely for political reasons.

"The slower, weaker, younger okapi get eaten."

That's pretty clear information from the environment, dogbarf, and it affects the differential success rate of the various traits that arise, by random variation, in the okapi population.

If variation isn't random, as it appears to be -- point mutations, indels, gene-crossing, duplication, imperfect replication, and so on -- then you have to show how anyone, regardless of their social behaviour, can see that it isn't.

"Gee, that's a big number" and word salads aren't evidence.

To paraphrase Guns 'N' Roses, "Get In The Lab."

Point to a change between generations and show where, how, and when Go- sorry, a designer (wink, wink) stepped in.

Or are you a "microevolutionist" but not a "macroevolutionist"? (That's kind of like being a "microtravellist": "You can walk across the street, but not across town.")

darwinism.dogBarf() said: It only seems that the establishment is denying the recognition of intelligent design theory merely for political reasons.

I'm in the minority on this site, in that I enjoy a good parody poster once in a while.

For everyone else, to put your minds at ease, just remind yourselves that, although there is most certainly a Gibbs-Helmholtz equation...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs%E2%80%93Helmholtz_equation

There is no...

"Gibbs-Helmholtz-Dembski free information theorem"

There cannot be, most obviously because Gibbs and Helmholtz were not alive during the time periods in which Dembski has been active.

Hoary Puccoon -

Thank you for recognizing the truth. Unfortunately, the "sheeple" prefer blind obedience to orthodoxy. They reject my genius and childishly ridicule my revealed truth about Bigfoot.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: The Gibbs-Helmholtz-Dembski free information theorem makes as much sense to me as any of the other equations in the textbooks. It only seems that the establishment is denying the recognition of intelligent design theory merely for political reasons.

mrg said: Let's not forget Pearl Harbor, chemtrails, 100-MPG cars, vaccines, and of course HIV as the cause of AIDS.

James H. Fetzer said: Jesse Ventura, whom I admire, is performing a public service in making the public more aware of the extent to which the USA is devolving into a fascist state. His contributions are extensive and valuable, which includes his latest book, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ (2011). With this crowd, I take it, the government doesn't have anything to worry about!

darwinism.dogBarf() said: I perused the Synthese articles defending Darwinian metaphysics against intelligent design and I was not overwhelmed. They have not come up with an alternative explanation of the Carnot-Dembski curve that relates the level of information to system complexity. The Darwinians just assume that complexity increases without any information input. This makes about as sense as saying temperature increases without the addition of heat. When challenged, they just get angry and call names.

Stuart Weinstein said: Not to mention the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Or the World Wide Zionist conspiracy (of which I am a card carrying member and so is Madoff). Not to mention the Zionist role in 9/11.

mrg said:

Stuart Weinstein said: Not to mention the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Or the World Wide Zionist conspiracy (of which I am a card carrying member and so is Madoff). Not to mention the Zionist role in 9/11.

Oh begeezus, a card-carrying member of the ZOG!

Stuart Weinstein said:

James H. Fetzer said: Jesse Ventura, whom I admire, is performing a public service in making the public more aware of the extent to which the USA is devolving into a fascist state. His contributions are extensive and valuable, which includes his latest book, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ (2011). With this crowd, I take it, the government doesn't have anything to worry about!

I just love Jesse the Body too. And I watched his interview with Piers Morgan. WHat a hoot! Jesse's argument why he's so sure the WTC was brought down by a conspiracy? Well after all he was a Navy Seal, and they blow up things, and ... and well the WTC were things and he knows how to blow things up, and by God the WTC was blowed up.

Let's not be unfair to Chomsky here. He is very, very critical of US foreign policy and some other things, but as far as I know, his objective appraisals are accurate. Many may argue with some of his subjective, value-driven judgments, but those are two separate things. I concede that I don't follow his output closely, but when I have been exposed to it, I did not see evidence of delusion or dishonesty, just strong and unusual subjective viewpoints. I stand ready to be corrected if hard evidence to the contrary is provided.

As for Jesse the Body, he makes an amusing but very poor case for a WTC conspiracy. And let me tell you, as far as emotional preferences go, there is almost not much on earth I would love more than seeing George W. Bush or Dick Cheney get busted by Jesse Ventura for being the "real mastermind" behind the WTC attacks. But the world is complex. Ossama bin Laden and his moronic, brainwashed, amoral followers actually killed, maimed, traumatized and humiliated thousands of innocent and irrelevant people, including vast numbers who courageously responded, including professionals and non-professionals. Coincidentally, in the process, they actually did a favor to those whom they ostensibly opposed. However, the evidence suggests that it really was a coincidence, a product of human hate and irrationality.

Paul Burnett said:

James H. Fetzer said: ...none of you has offered any evidence to suggest that I am wrong about JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone...

Just to round things out, where do you stand on the moon landings, Bigfoot, UFOs, Atlantis, the Holocaust, the Loch Ness monster and the Bermuda Triangle? I'm sure you must have well-researched opinions on all these important topics.

Speaking of rays, whether you're concerned about mind control beams, or about rays targeted at your precious bodily fluids, be sure to use a genuine tin foil hat. http://www.edisontinfoil.com/foilsale.htm

Aluminum foil is a poor substitute - the Trilateral Commission is responsible for getting genuine tin foil off the market. But as you can see, a few courageous vendors still stock it.

There are many sources of beams and rays out there - not just the Trilateral Commission, but the aliens, the CIA, ZOG, Ted Kennedy (yes, I know, according hidebound orthodoxy he's "dead"), communists (they never give up), and teenage computer hackers, to name just a few. (Mercifully, it seems that Radical Islamists, for some inexplicable reason, don't use beams and rays.)

harold said: Let's not be unfair to Chomsky here. He is very, very critical of US foreign policy and some other things, but as far as I know, his objective appraisals are accurate. Many may argue with some of his subjective, value-driven judgments, but those are two separate things. I concede that I don't follow his output closely, but when I have been exposed to it, I did not see evidence of delusion or dishonesty, just strong and unusual subjective viewpoints. I stand ready to be corrected if hard evidence to the contrary is provided.

harold said: Let's not be unfair to Chomsky here. He is very, very critical of US foreign policy and some other things, but as far as I know, his objective appraisals are accurate.

Stuart Weinstein said:

harold said: Let's not be unfair to Chomsky here. He is very, very critical of US foreign policy and some other things, but as far as I know, his objective appraisals are accurate. Many may argue with some of his subjective, value-driven judgments, but those are two separate things. I concede that I don't follow his output closely, but when I have been exposed to it, I did not see evidence of delusion or dishonesty, just strong and unusual subjective viewpoints. I stand ready to be corrected if hard evidence to the contrary is provided.

So what's your take on Chomsky's work on the Cambodian killing fields?

So this (Khmer Rouge atrocities) appears to be an example of Chomsky letting some kind of bias go beyond provoking subjective judgments, and lead him to denial of historical reality.

It's a shame, because overall, although a gadfly, he has some good traits, and is generally, in his own way, on the side of human decency. However, I can't defend denial of evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#Position_on_Cambodian_atrocities_criticized

Hopefully Chomsky will respond to recent requests by the Cambodian press that he reverse his statements on that topic.

Everything else at this link, with the caveat that many of his views are extremely controversial and judgmental, seems to represent criticism of scholarly work in linguistics or subjective, normative stances on political issues.

All those shadowy organizations are just a blind to conceal the REAL power: OWGEC, The One-World Government Evolutionist Conspiracy.

If you reveal our existence, you will be disappeared.

harold said: So this (Khmer Rouge atrocities) appears to be an example of Chomsky letting some kind of bias go beyond provoking subjective judgments, and lead him to denial of historical reality.

Just Bob said: All those shadowy organizations are just a blind to conceal the REAL power: OWGEC, The One-World Government Evolutionist Conspiracy. If you reveal our existence, you will be disappeared.

mrg -

I pretty much agree, but Stuart has a good point. The atrocities of the Pol Pot regime are at this point pretty well documented. Chomsky should retract earlier understatements.

But yes, it isn't quite in the same category as the common kind of stuff that you mention.

Of interest, my grandfather, who was anything but a conspiracy theorist type, went to his grave in 1979 not believing in the Apollo moon landing.

He was married late, my mother was not his oldest child, and he was well advanced in age by 1969 (at least 80; his exact birth date isn't 100% clear, and he may well have been somewhat older). He didn't pay any attention to television or radio, and spent all his time growing vegetables and doing similar things. He was well aware that all the kids around him were obsessed with a "moon landing" but assumed that it was fiction from movies or comic books. I once almost had him convinced but we were walking down a country road and he decided to "ask the next person we see". To my irritation (but not unexpectedly) the next person was another WWI veteran, who "had never heard of" the lunar landing.

Stuart Weinstein said:

mrg said:

Stuart Weinstein said: Not to mention the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Or the World Wide Zionist conspiracy (of which I am a card carrying member and so is Madoff). Not to mention the Zionist role in 9/11.

Oh begeezus, a card-carrying member of the ZOG!

Don't mess with the Zohan!

In response to my observation that none of you has offered any evidence that I am mistaken, harold offered an interesting reply:

harold | April 16, 2011 10:22 AM | Reply
James Fetzer -

I notice, in particular, that none of you has offered any evidence to suggest that I am wrong about JFK, 9/11, or Wellstone, which speaks volumes about your lack of moral grounding.

harold's reply:

"This is silly. No-one is obliged to rehash all the evidence on these diverse topics, on this site, just because they made the obvious point that you are known to espouse certain views. Plenty of information that will allow the interested to follow these topics in sites devoted to them has been provided.

"Also, logically, you are required to show evidence that supports your own views as better than the next best alternative (I’m not saying to try to do this right here and right now). It is not reasonable for you to advance claims, and then suggest that the onus is on others to perfectly disprove your claims. To be taken seriously, you need to show why your claims are better than other explanations."

None of you appears to have looked at any of the evidence I have cited, where I have given you links to dozens of articles and five books of mine. I am not citing them to present my views, but to provide the evidence that supports them. These articles are chock full of evidence and arguments. Why don't you read my "Reasoning about Assassinations", for example, which I presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal?

I find harold's response very much like that many creationists advance to those who advocate evolution:

"This is silly. No-one is obliged to rehash all the evidence on these diverse topics, on this site, just because they made the obvious point that you are known to espouse certain views. Plenty of information that will allow the interested to follow these topics in sites devoted to them has been provide."

Here's another of harold's baseless posts, which demonstrates that he has no idea what he is talking about:

"Ossama bin Laden and his moronic, brainwashed, amoral followers actually killed, maimed, traumatized and humiliated thousands of innocent and irrelevant people, including vast numbers who courageously responded, including professionals and non-professionals. Coincidentally, in the process, they actually did a favor to those whom they ostensibly opposed. However, the evidence suggests that it really was a coincidence, a product of human hate and irrationality."

Egad! Has harold paused to consider that the entire iraq invasion was justified by false claims, none of which was greater than the myth that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Did Osama arrange for the "stand down" of the US Air Force that morning? Did Osama set off explosions in the subbasements of the Twin Towers 14-17 seconds before those planes allegedly hit them? Did Osama arrange for three steel-and-concrete reinforced buildings to collapse due to fire, when that has never happened before 9/11 or since?

Does he realize that the fires burned neither hot enough nor long enough to weaken the steel, much less melt it? that the buildings came down at approximately free-fall speed, 9 second for the South Tower and 11 for the North, according to the National Institute of Standard and Technology? that they were largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which was necessary to preserve "the bathtub", the destruction of which would have led to the flooding of lower Manhattan, including the subways and PATH train tunnels?

Most glaringly, harold does not seem to be aware that Osama died on or about 15 December 2001. I published a press release from Scholars, "Osama tape appears to be fake" (28 May 2006). David Ray Griffin published a book about it, OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? (2009). And Gordon Duff, YEARS OF DECEIT: US OPENLY ACCEPTS BIN LADEN LONG DEAD (5 December 2009), has written http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/12/05/years-of-deceit-us-openly-accepts-bin-laden-long-dead/ . harold simply does not know what he is talking about.

Citing Chomsky in this context is rather amusing. He has denied that a conspiracy was involved in the death of JFK and alleged that, if there had been, it would have been of no consequence, since "no policy issues were involved"--as though having a war in Vietnam, abolishing the CIA, reforming the FED, and cutting the oil depletion allowance were not significant policy issues! See, for example, James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE (2008) Visit YouTube and click on "Fetzer on Chomsky" for two interviews, where I not only assail him for his absurd position about JFK but also critique his linguistic theory.

He has been equally remiss about 9/11 but others, such as Paul Craig Roberts, have not been taken in. harold and others who think they understand 9/11 really should visit http://911scholars.org and read "Why doubt 9/11?", where I lay out twenty major findings that refute the government's official account. Since the co-chairs of The 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and William Hamilton, have not admitted that they were deceived by the Pentagon, especially, and were given three different stories about 9/11, how can anyone who has not studied the evidence possibly know what is true or false about it?

And what justified this arrogance in wanting to censor research on subjects that are of such enormous importance to understanding our nation's history? Isn't that the issue raised on a lesser scale by the Editors-in-Chief in their efforts to censor or repress research on intelligent design? All of you find that offensive; but it is at least equally offensive when so many of you seek to pillory those of us who have committed ourselves to assess whether or not what we have been told about JFK, 9/11, and Wellstone is true, where the evidence--with which I am familiar but most, if not all, of you are not--establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.

harold asks me to present the evidence that supports my position, but I have already done that. Read "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", where I explain the nature of conspiracies, how that phrase is used as a rhetorical club to bash those who are attempting to expose falsehoods and reveal truths, and how scientific reasoning can enable us to do better. I explain the principles of scientific reasoning and how they apply to the study of JFK and of 9/11. The other articles I have linked expand upon that approach. By studying my views before you condemn them, you will demonstrate a modicum of rationality and distinguish yourselves from the creationist you abhor.

Can I just interject here and suggest that Professor Fetzer's views on conspiracies is irrelevant to the question of the journal's editors in chief, and a lot of this could be read as validating guilt by association. Moreover, unless you have read his arguments and responded to them point by point - an activity I certainly do not want to engage in - all the rest is either question begging or ad hominem. Asking commentators on Panda's Thumb not to engage in these no doubt psychologically satisfying activities is like being Knut against the tide, but I should point out that they remain fallacies nonetheless as they stand.

To Professor Fetzer I suggest that he has already said his piece now. Any further laundry lists of links and off-topic arguments should be taken elsewhere.

I am in general opposed to conspiracy theories largely on the basis that conspirators are people, and people never rigidly keep secrets, since interests vary by individual, and it is almost a logical necessity that someone will think it is in their interests to spill the beans. Also I doubt that any government, let alone one as big as the United States', could engineer a conspiracy so well. The evidence is against it.

Generally conspiracy theories ride on confirmation bias and affirming the consequent (possibly the same fallacy), and unless there is some evidence to the contrary that is likely and overcomes my objections above, I do not propose to take this one seriously, after my initial readings shortly after the event. But I do wonder what Prince Phillip and the Masons were doing on the grassy knoll (weak attempt at defusing humour)...

John S. Wilkins said: Can I just interject here and suggest that Professor Fetzer's views on conspiracies is irrelevant to the question of the journal's editors in chief, and a lot of this could be read as validating guilt by association. Moreover, unless you have read his arguments and responded to them point by point - an activity I certainly do not want to engage in - all the rest is either question begging or ad hominem. Asking commentators on Panda's Thumb not to engage in these no doubt psychologically satisfying activities is like being Knut against the tide, but I should point out that they remain fallacies nonetheless as they stand. To Professor Fetzer I suggest that he has already said his piece now. Any further laundry lists of links and off-topic arguments should be taken elsewhere. I am in general opposed to conspiracy theories largely on the basis that conspirators are people, and people never rigidly keep secrets, since interests vary by individual, and it is almost a logical necessity that someone will think it is in their interests to spill the beans. Also I doubt that any government, let alone one as big as the United States', could engineer a conspiracy so well. The evidence is against it. Generally conspiracy theories ride on confirmation bias and affirming the consequent (possibly the same fallacy), and unless there is some evidence to the contrary that is likely and overcomes my objections above, I do not propose to take this one seriously, after my initial readings shortly after the event. But I do wonder what Prince Phillip and the Masons were doing on the grassy knoll (weak attempt at defusing humour)...

John S. Wilkins said: Can I just interject here and suggest that Professor Fetzer's views on conspiracies is irrelevant to the question of the journal's editors in chief, and a lot of this could be read as validating guilt by association.

Moreover, unless you have read his arguments and responded to them point by point - an activity I certainly do not want to engage in - all the rest is either question begging or ad hominem.

The philosophers are organizing a boycott of Synthese.

Ingo said: The philosophers are organizing a boycott of Synthese.

I don't know if anyone has bothered counting, but I think this may be the first thread with more posts sent to the wall then left in discussion.

dpr