up2in2

Expelled, No Reason Allowed

In the ’Documentary’ film Expelled, Ben Stein et al (The Filmmakers), assert that proponents of a doctrine referred to as Intelligent Design have had their position on, or belief in, Intelligent Design, “ruthlessly and systematically suppressed” (@15:40 – Mr. Shermer) by the Scientific Community. Moreover the makers of this film characterize the Scientific Community and those who support Darwin’s theories as being prejudiced and negatively biased against the consideration of any notion of Intelligent Design by the Scientific Community and of exercising a sort of institutional discrimination against those who believe in and argue for Intelligent Design. They assert a fundamental and far-reaching conspiracy within academia that persecutes those who assert Intelligent Design doctrine; and they do this without holding theories of Intelligent Design to scientific standards and by using indirect and dishonest strategies including fallacious arguments and slanted language imagery and language. They attack the personal beliefs and professional credibility of proponents of Darwin’s theories and then conflate these personal beliefs about the existence of God and other deities with scientific principles - they even go so far as to imply that scientists do not entertain theories of Intelligent Design because they are inherently evil (by comparing them to historical figures of psychopathic and evil quality) or because they are atheists. Finally, the film is profoundly one-sided and biased, which belies a fundamental prejudice by, and undermines the credibility of, many of the individuals involved in the making of the film as well as the film as whole.

In general the argument of the film is formulated as follows. Meet Party A (the ‘expelled’ – gasp!). Party A has a position on or belief in some theory called Intelligent Design. Party A included this position or belief in their work in the Scientific Community. By the way, the Scientific Community is categorically opposed to theories of Intelligent Design (No Intelligence Allowed). The film then concludes that the Scientific Community rejected either Party A or the work of Party A because their work includes some mention of, or association with, a theory of Intelligent Design. (‘Expelled’ – oh my!). Furthermore, these instances are presented as evidence that the Scientific Community rejects any notion of Intelligent Design. This final piece of the film’s argument is, at best, the fallacy of hasty generalization – using insufficient (yet related) data to make a general (yet faulty) conclusion.

This argument is founded on a false premise created by the tacit assumption that the Scientific Community operates in an arbitrary and mysterious fashion. In fact, the Scientific Community relies on a clear and well-defined set of principles known as the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is founded on fundamental values and practices of precision, openness, peer review, testability, and appropriate revision. The Theory of Intelligent Design fails to meet any of these criteria so as to be considered a scientific theory. First, precision: Intelligent Design is not well defined in the film. Second, openness: the film does not present any evidence for Intelligent Design; it does present opinions, but not objective evidence. Third, peer review: the film claims that the plaintiffs’ works were subjected to peer review, but that the plaintiffs suffered persecution for their personal views, not for their science. Fourth, testability: the film does put forth a possible testable feature, a designer’s signature, but includes no criticism of this and fails to articulate just what would constitute a ‘designer’s signature. Fifth, appropriate revision: the film proposes no mechanism consistent with scientific principles whereby Intelligent Design theory can be revised.

In addition to presenting an unsound argument The Filmmakers make use of many indirect and dishonest strategies for support their position. I will discuss but a few here. The term ‘expelled’ is one powerful slanter (uses of language in the service of a positive or negative characterization) implicit in the title of the film, Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed. ‘Expelled’ is used in the film to refer to what has happened to various academics that have supported Intelligent Design in some fashion (the ‘expelled’). The use of the word ‘expelled’ is hyperbolic in that it creates an impression of the ‘expelled’ as victims of an oppressive force. ‘Expelled’ means a permanent and forceful removal (from Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) yet many of those interviewed in the film that were ‘expelled’ still hold positions in Academia – which provides direct counter-examples to this piece of the film’s overall argument.

The Filmmakers commit two (at least) notable informal fallacies. One is the equivocation fallacy of accent that is committed when the film fails to include germane rebuttal from the ‘expellers’ (‘expellers’ being Academic institutions or individuals who were actually involved in the ‘expelling’). Surely The Filmmakers could have found and included direct commentary from the actual ‘expellers’ to give a more complete view of the events described in the film. To be fair, the film does include citations from documents that do seem to show instances of censure, but there is no follow up with the authors of these citations. In short, the film is a one-sided presentation as it does not include responses to the accusations made by the film by those that have done the ‘expelling’. This can be described as the equivocation fallacy of accent – i.e. information favorable to the position of the authors is emphasized while information to the contrary is de-emphasized (in the case of this film, it is absent).

Another informal fallacy is committed when the film does include comments from members of the scientific community (Dawkins, et al), which are presented as evidence to refute The Filmmakers claims. But these comments are generally not germane to the argument presented, as the individuals who make them are not directly associated to the events discussed. Here the film commits the defective induction fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority (presenting statements or data from a source not appropriately related to the argument). These comments are made by members of Academia who have closely and firmly held opinions, but the fact that none of these parties have no direct involvement in the events in question is conveniently lacking in the presentation.

In a clever twist of continuity, the film focuses on the personal beliefs of members of Academia and uses a sort of combination hyperbole/innuendo/stereotype slanter to distract the audience from any rational treatment of the fundamental arguments of the film (Innuendo being the assertion of a position without having to actually be held accountable for the assertion and stereotype being the characterization of a group in order to foster a certain opinion about an individual or sub-group). The most glaring example of the use of these indirect and dishonest techniques is the position that Richard Dawkins’ atheism casts suspicion on Darwinism and the Scientific Community because Hitler and Stalin were atheists. The film spent significant time showing imagery of Fascism and atrocities associated with Hitler and Stalin, I believe, in an effort to say that atheism and Darwinism is evil and therefore the Scientific Community is evil without having to actually formulate that argument. The film also confuses cause and effect in the commission of another innuendo when they assert that Richard Dawkins is anti-Intelligent Design (and therefore not to be trusted) because he is an atheist. In fact, Mr. Dawkins says just the opposite – that he is an atheist because of what he has learned as a scientist. A more complete discussion is beyond the scope of this essay.
The Filmmakers have gone to great lengths to present their position that ‘theories’ of Intelligent Design and their advocates have been unfairly excluded from participation in the Scientific Community. They created a movie with numerous interviews, various locations (even a trip to Paris – that can’t be cheap), first class editing, and powerful imagery that is meant to influence popular opinion about the Scientific Community. In fact, the film attempts far less positive support of any theory of Intelligent Design or advocate for Intelligent Design than it does slander and mischaracterize the Scientific Community and its responses to Intelligent Design Theory and those who advocate for it. That is, the film is largely an unreasonable, illogical, and messy attack on the Scientific Community – though a sophisticated one. And in terms of credibility the film fails miserably. It lacks any coherent authority, fails to present data from both sides of the controversy it attempts to highlight, and never really articulates (except through innuendo) what the point is. What it does do is present an entertaining, yet desolate of reason, film designed to stir emotions and appeal to uneducated intellect. Besides not providing credible sources for the film assertions I wonder what are The Filmmaker’s motivations? I find it hard to believe that Ben Stein’s money might be an issue, but I have no data on his financial health and I can only speculate on other motivations for making this film. Perhaps Ben Stein, et al merely believe that God deserves more support. Too bad they couldn’t just say that. Instead they have gone to great lengths to defame the character of one modern society’s fundamental institutions, Science and Academia in an effort to build up themselves and their position. That’s slimy AND incredible.

DM

Almost 40... that's minus 5
Visions of mortality
In my eyes
Had influenza many times before
This time's different
PANDEMIC

H1, N1, what should I do?
Run for the hills?
Vaccinate? Hallucinate?
Look out...
IT'S THE SWINE FLU

CDC has guidelines
Vaccine clinic got waiting lines
I don't really qualify
Should I worry...
Got health on my side
DON'T PANIC

H1, N1, what should I do?
Run for the hills?
Vaccinate, Hallucinate?
Look out...
IT'S THE SWINE FLU

Runnin the streets in '92
I got the news
Doc says I'm fine... I see the dead line
17 years and all's well
Should I fear a brand-new spell?
DON'T SWEAT IT

H1, N1, what should I do?
Run for the hills?
Vaccinate, Hallucinate?
Look out...
IT'S THE SWINE FLU

It appears, that today
Spectacle is the way
Literacy, it can't keep up
Everyone seems to think like a pup
Do you know? What should we do?
Or is it too much to think
While runnin...
From the swine flu?
GONNA GET IT

H1, N1, what should I do?
Run for the hills?
Vaccinate, Hallucinate?
Look out...
IT'S THE SWINE FLU

California 2009

I came back to my home state Christmas Eve, 2008... just about two years (to the day) after arriving in Nevada, I returned from my relocation-to-Reno experience. Since coming back, I've been splitting my time between San Diego and the Bay Area. Most recently I did a short gig (five weeks) for the U.S. Census Bureau in Alameda and Contra Costa County. My pleasure in returning to my home state of California cannot be over-stated. I agree that wherever I go, there I am... and I'm forking thrilled to be in California again.





I did learn some valuable things when I was living in Reno... for example:

1. 2-for-1 Prime Rib dinners at Baldini's taste a lot better than the market-rate prime rib dinner at some other restaurant. In addition, the cheap wine that is included with the 2-for-1 dinners is pretty good after the first glass.

2. Having California license plates and/or California ID increases the likelihood of being treated favorably by Nevada's or Reno's finest peace officers.

3. The deck is stacked heavily in favor of landlords and employers in Nevada.

4. My best friend from High School, Mike Haines, is still one of my favorite people even though he lives in Reno.

5. (Corollary to 4.) There is no substitute for old friends.

6. Winter in Reno is not as cold as Summer in San Francisco.

7. Nobody walks in Reno either (kinda like LA).

8. Casino gambling is not one of my vices.

9. Very few things that this world has to offer can be found in Reno.

10. Most of the all-you-can-eat sushi in Reno is pretty good, and sashimi is usually not included in the all-you-can-eat offerings.

11. To win at casino gambling requires 'leaving' while you're ahead. That is, if one continues to gamble when they are 'ahead' they will likely end up losing money... duh.


****



I think that Barack Obama is doing a great job as President. I also hear plenty of people voicing there dis-pleasure with our latest President, but in most of these cases, I hear people expressing opinions without much sense of reality. In short, I hear a lot of predjudice in the minority these days... I don't mean 'pre-judging' because of Mr. Obama's race/ethnicity; I mean a simple committment to disapproval without any coherent reasoning. To those who find themselves in the minority as a function of Obama being President:

Try and be a good sport here. If you must judge situations and people, try considering some facts before engaging in character assasination. Also, it's OK to say, "I don't know". We don't always have to have an opinion on a given person or situation. Anyone can pick a side to throw in with - it's one of our more primative abilities. I wish people would make more effort to resist these primative urges to define the world in terms of 'Us vs. Them' and exercise their judgement in a more thoughtful and open-minded way.

For fork's sake, we're all on the same team. We all want to survive and progress as a species... I believe that we are too quick to engage in battles for the sake of fighting and winning... we tend to be too concerned with being right.

For God's sake, please don't confuse me with the facts; I've already made up my mind!

Seriously, try and support your President... and if you want to be heard, take a minute and write a letter to your congressional representative(s). Stop whinning and do something constructive.

Truly,

Your (Back in Neighborhood) Ugly 5-Man.

"Spooning leads to forking."
-- Letters from the (Razor's) Edge.

Hello friends, enemies, and the rest of blogland! I come before the keyboard today with something semi-serious to say.

This post is in honor or one of my favorite people. His name is John (though I like to call him Jack); he's a WASP Republican with a nice house in the burbs, a loving family, and (evidently) some fancy for Local Food - he's had a nice vegetable garden over the years and now has plans for a chicken coop (hey, did you check the local zoning on this?). He named his son Jackson, and I like to think that his first choice was Duncan, but, this not being politically viable, gave me the nod with "Jackson".



John and I met over 20 years ago at UCD one October morning. We were gathered outside Recreation Hall for our first rowing workout - I accused him of being drunk; he thought, "who is this goofball? he won't last the week." Truth is, he was right - I could do twelve push-ups. Suffice it to say we've shared a lot of life together as friends over the years. I'm grateful for knowing him.



John's birthday is April 18th - that's this Friday. He has always made a point of remembering my birthday, and I still have to call him in early April every year (actually when he calls me on the 8th, I ask him when his b-day is!).



Here's a picture of my friend John;




















if you think you know this man, please call him and wish him well on another year of life.



UN5M

There I was... having walked through the Valley of Death (not really sure what I feared - but pretty sure it wasn't Evil - the Tree People perhaps? Leticia the cleaning lady? I then struggled over to the Valley of Crap where "they" could not travel; here the smell of my fellows' waste permeated what was left of my body and soul - guilt and shame were my masters.

I reached the top of the mountain over the Valley of Crap and found the Guru Bard (druid by night) in peaceful repose - the aroma of healthy exersion rose from his glowing skin.

I asked if how I was living was the 'right' way. He replied, "life is not a multiple choice question, it just is: I suggest that when it is a meadow, you should eat of it; when it is a highway, drive it like you stole it."

I then asked him if the Not A Super Hero Blog was too serious OR did he like it. He laughed and said, "yes, Grasshopper." He then added (as if an afterthought), "Remember, Satan means Republican. Vote early; vote often."

Of course, Mike is a dog; but these are pictures of two other fine canines: Barney and Shakespeare...

.... anyway (where's this going Mister?!?)

I say to Mike one recent day (a fine high desert evening) out in front of the our respective brick hovels, "You know what?". To which he replies, "no, but I know her stupid sister, Who."

If that isn't funny, then John Mundelius has too much to do!

As always,

Your Ugly (neighborhood) 5-Man

d.