PZ Myers posted Entry 1913 on January 14, 2006 12:46 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1908

The Tangled Bank

The next edition of the Tangled Bank will be held at Grey Thumb.blog on Wednesday, 18 Jan 2006. Send in those links to wonderful science writing to tangledbank@greythumb.org, host@tangledbank, or me by Tuesday evening.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #71969

Posted by keiths on January 15, 2006 2:45 AM (e)

Off topic –

An interesting new tactic over at Uncommon Descent. DaveScot has started closing comment threads when he wants to get the last word in, or when the thread topic veers into uncomfortable territory.

Example: Thunar posted the following link to an article, written by Mark Perakh, which describes how he discovered that Dembski had anonymously praised his own books and trashed those of his critics on Amazon.com:

http://www.talkreason.org/PrinterFriendly.cfm?article=/articles/reviews.cfm

DaveScot posted the following reply to discredit Perakh, then immediately closed the thread to further comments so that noone could rebut him. Observe how he manages the slander the entire nation of Russia while missing the fact that Perakh is Ukrainian, not Russian:

DaveScot wrote:

Mark Perakh is a crazy Russian physicist known to say all sorts of crazy things. Russians are notoriously paranoid conspiracy theorists and bald faced liars. My favorite example was when I questioned his credentials and his response was essentially “the communists took my papers”. Evidently Mark doesn’t know the classic American excuse “my dog ate my homework”. I had a field day with that one.

In this case, it would again appear that Mark’s proof disappeared in an unfortunate circumstance beyond his control. A mysterious software glitch in Amazon Canada magically and momentarily revealed the name “William Dembski” behind an anonymous reviewer’s handle. Wow! What’re the odds? At any rate Mark’s “the Canadian software ate my proof” is par for the course for this guy.

The short answer is Perakh, like a million other lunatics, doesn’t deserve a response to his paranoid accusations.

Comment #71988

Posted by blipey on January 15, 2006 5:00 AM (e)

Actually, CommonSense posted a reply in which he pointed out some flaws to DaveScots above post–namely that he was attacking Mark, but answering the very plausible argument that he made. CommonSense even acknowledged that Mark’s case may have been based on a large portion of circumstansial evidence–reasonable, plausible evidence. He then asked DaveScot if it were not the circumstancial evidence that a previous commentor had wanted rebutted.

DaveScot then erased the comment.

CommonSense posted at least one other comment after that, mentioning that Dave had not really answered anyone’s questions. I think inoculated mind or maybe bling also had a comment erased at this point.

This is not to disagree with you keiths, I just think it is even more ethically deplorable. It appears that DaveScot will now:

1. Go through a thread to edit it as it is being formed
2. Close it when he has it edited to heis liking.

Which, of course, is par for the course–but more proactive.
It can’t be too long before UD just falls apart–that’s got to be too much work for one man.

Comment #71998

Posted by Alan Fox on January 15, 2006 5:26 AM (e)

Keiths, see this comment on this thread.

As the bathroom wall has been mothballed, we are now asked to post OT items " rel="external nofollow">here, but I hope admin will consider bringing back an OT thread again. ATBC is fine but doesn’t have the immediacy of PT.

WRT to Professor Perakh, not once has Dembski attempted to honestly address Professor Perakh’s criticisms, but (working through his sycophants) uses these despicable smear tactics. It is (perversely) a compliment to the Professor that Dembski has to resort to this sort of tactic, showing that Dembski cannot honestly address or rebut valid criticism of his own work, and resorts to shabby ploys like this example. And the man claims to be a scientist!

Comment #72001

Posted by Alan Fox on January 15, 2006 5:32 AM (e)

Oops,

OT items here, sorry.

Comment #72007

Posted by keiths on January 15, 2006 5:51 AM (e)

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the pointer to your comment and to the off-topic thread at ATBC. I’m a newcomer to PT, as you know, so I’m still learning the “customs” here.

Comment #72144

Posted by steve s on January 15, 2006 1:06 PM (e)

How many Keiths do you represent?

Comment #72164

Posted by mathew on January 15, 2006 1:34 PM (e)

Damn it. I’ve just entered the thread to post the following:

“Thunar’s comment links to an article which contains serious accusations against Dr. Dembski. Has he answered these charges? If so, could someone post a link to his response to the accusations?

Comment by bradcliffe1 — January 14, 2006 @ 4:41 am

bradcliffe

Mark Perakh is a crazy Russian physicist known to say all sorts of crazy things. Russians are notoriously paranoid conspiracy theorists and bald faced liars. My favorite example was when I questioned his credentials and his response was essentially “the communists took my papers”. Evidently Mark doesn’t know the classic American excuse “my dog ate my homework”. I had a field day with that one.

In this case, it would again appear that Mark’s proof disappeared in an unfortunate circumstance beyond his control. A mysterious software glitch in Amazon Canada magically and momentarily revealed the name “William Dembski” behind an anonymous reviewer’s handle. Wow! What’re the odds? At any rate Mark’s “the Canadian software ate my proof” is par for the course for this guy.

The short answer is Perakh, like a million other lunatics, doesn’t deserve a response to his paranoid accusations.

Comment by DaveScot — January 14, 2006 @ 9:10 am”

I’m not at all comfortable with PT trolls (like Troll van Muyers), but this one really got me going. Anyway Keiths, thanks for doing the dirty job for me.

Comment #72223

Posted by keiths on January 15, 2006 4:17 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

How many Keiths do you represent?

I represent 297 Keiths. See “Project Keith” at the NCSE website for the complete list.

We lost out to “Project Steve”, but came in well ahead of “Project Ralph” and “Project Billy Bob”.

Comment #72227

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 15, 2006 4:29 PM (e)

does anybody else find it humorous that regular UD posters are actually spending time debating their arguments on PT because UD is doing what it always did?

think Pim will remove or disemvowel Matt’s ridiculous “Pim is a troll” comment?

doubtful.

think Dave or WD40 would have removed a comment from Matt about WD40 being a troll.

you betchya.

Comment #72319

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 16, 2006 1:11 AM (e)

Uncommon Dissent is a fascinating glimpse into mental illness if you ask me. I love how any attempt to apply logic, especially a logical end to any intelligent design theory or specific claim results in an immediate warning if not account termination. The rules are apparent - no scientific or logic based scrutiny

If you take their ideas to their logical ending you end up hitting a wall of absurdity. Any hint of the logical absurdity and you’re out of there. I find it greatly amusing and predictable.

I like reading Dave when he describes evolution as a theory in crisis the best. Every legitimate science organization in North America has come out against creationism and/or intelligent design as science and they assert their support for evolution as a conerstone of biology. Not a single one has publicized any support for intelligent design as science. In the last 140 years every new find in biology has added additional insight and testable evidence to modern evolution.

Yet according to the Disco and their army of true believers, evolution is a theory in crisis. That’s irrational. It defies objective reality. It’s crazy talk. Wishfull thinking is one thing, living in a make believe world is another.

And that whole “were not saying it is god, we’re not saying it is a space alien or a time traveler. we’re only saying X was designed..” That’s crazy talk. Before we can swallow that you have to prove either a God, space alien or time traveler exists. It doesn’t work the other way around.

The moment you inquire about these space aliens and time travelers they get real uncomfortable, if not pissed off. Well, how the hell do they expect us to buy such a wild assertion without first knowing more about attributes of this God, space alien, or time traveler who they are crediting with a specific biological creation/design. And you cannot exists on design alone, you have to takle the design and make it happen. That is called creating or creation

The people who buy into this intelligent design creationism, for political, economic or religious reasons, are an interesting bunch to observe. Interesting is a weird way.

I like lurking at Uncommon Dissent. Amusing.

Comment #72389

Posted by ben on January 16, 2006 8:10 AM (e)

Today’s hot headline over at UD: Thomas Risher - He Gets It

Apparently Thomas Risher has blown the lid off the evolution conspiracy by writing a letter to the editor of the Mongomery Advertiser supporting ID. It looks like the jig is up, if such leading lights in science and politics as Thomas Risher are crossing over to the other side and publishing in such elite journals.

And who, you might ask, is this Thomas Risher, this intellectual firebrand who Uncommon Descent shouts from the rooftops as the one who has dealt evolution this devastating blow? What, who ask yourself, are the qualitfications that make Thomas Risher so crucially important in his “getting it?”

Why, he’s from Prattville.

Comment #72396

Posted by steve s on January 16, 2006 8:29 AM (e)

Speaking of UncommonPissant, Josh Bozoman is commenting there again.

Wasn’t he banned by DaveScot? This is interesting, isn’t it. Did Dembski hit his puppy DaveScot with a rolled up newspaper?

Comment #72399

Posted by steve s on January 16, 2006 8:34 AM (e)

scratch that. Bozoman* just signed up with a new account. Didn’t last long:

#

Josh, you’re out of here again. This is not a soapbox for Christian apologetics. -ds

Comment by DaveScot — January 16, 2006 @ 7:05 am

_____________________________________________

* Clever Beyond Measure

Comment #72410

Posted by Renier on January 16, 2006 9:09 AM (e)

DaveScot is banning people who feel strongly about their religious views. We know ID is about religion, but DaveBrat is claiming to be, what, agnostic? Could this have been a smart move from Dembski Disorder to pass his blog as non-religious? If so, it might just backfire, since 99.9999% of ID supporters are Xtians. In fact, if there was no creationism, there would be no ID.

So what Dembski has done is he has thrown some loyal supporters towards the DaveBrat shark. Wonder how the sponsors of the DI would react if they heard that Dembki’s blog is persecuting Christians….

Comment #72417

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 16, 2006 9:26 AM (e)

Can you imagine the reaction of the Disco or Uncommon Dissent if PT banned people for expressing their Christian beliefs here?

Dembski - the sunday school teaching theologian who allows Christians to be booted from his “science” blog for expressing their Christian viewpoints. Is that a laugh riot or what?

Like I said, Uncommon Dissent is highly amusing.

Comment #72427

Posted by PZ Myers on January 16, 2006 10:42 AM (e)

Hey, everyone, do me a favor. The complaints about Uncommon Descent, although well deserved, are WAAAAAY off-topic in just about every place they are brought up. I’ve created an open thread on Pharyngula where you can raise unholy hell about it…so how about taking it all over there?