Open Source Intelligent Design - An Open Approach to Scientific Inquiry
Steve Fuller makes an interesting side-note observation at another blog, that seems more important than he knows. Intelligent Design is conducting an open inquiry into the development of new scientific concepts that detect the effects of intelligent activity. In speaking of William Dembski, Fuller notes:
"…(unlike Newton) he’s exposing his ideas for public inspection and critique, rather than going underground for 10-20 years to work all the bugs out."
ID researchers are not hiding in closets developing hypotheses; it is an open process.
This approach, as is clear to anyone following ID, has certain drawbacks and advantages. Constant public scrutiny of work no doubt results in unnecessary stress, and in a lack of conceptual "breathing room" for the ideas of the theorist. This is a short-term drag on the research side of the concept.
To ID’s advantage, the pedagogical dimensions of the emerging study are being witnessed by a curious public. This allows a channel of information to new scientists, who can collaborate along side of, and with, other ID inquirers. Another positive result is the partial elimination of "retraining" in order to contribute to the dialogue, since many have followed ID’s development from the beginning.
The long-term payoff for the open approach is obviously worth the drawbacks, and will be necessary for further scientific development of Intelligent Design.
I hope the ID folks alot of luck, although I suspect when their finished they will be right back where they are started, a load of crap in one hand and a Bible in the other.
Comment by Tobin — March 17, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
Though all the shouting may slow things down somewhat, I think the criticism is good and will, in the end, have helped intelligent design be more productive. I know personally I’ve a bit more confidence reading writings from ID folk than those from evolutionsts, simply because there is such a large group of highly-critical reviewers parsing every sentence and raising a storm over anything that might be construed as a mistake. There are, ofcourse, critical reviewers for evolutionists as well, but something of the intensity is missing there. :-)
Like opensourceware anywhere… it doesn’t by any means eliminate stupidity or mistakes, but it makes them far easier to deal with.
Comment by Freawaru — March 17, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
Freawaru wrote:
“I know personally I’ve a bit more confidence reading writings from ID folk than those from evolutionsts, simply because there is such a large group of highly-critical reviewers parsing every sentence and raising a storm over anything that might be construed as a mistake.”
This is without a doubt the most ill-informed statement I have ever read, short of something on “Answers in Genesis.” Clearly, you have never submitted anything for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, nor ever attempted to get a textbook published. Having done both, I can assure you that to accomplish either of these things, you are subjected to a process only slightly less strenuous than a complete colonoscopy. Literally every word is scrutinized, every argument raked over the coals, calculations checked and double-checked, references followed up, etc. Getting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal is infinitely more difficult than getting something published in any creationist/ID journal or website I’ve ever run across. It took me *ten years* to write an introductory biology textbook (now sadly out of print), and the corrections filled four file drawers. My most recent journal article was vetted by a team of reviewers, who tore apart my arguments like a school of frenzied sharks. Where in the world do you get the idea that this doesn’t happen to evolutionary biologists or other scientists? Good grief…
Honestly, can you begin to understand why no one with any background in science and scientific publication can possibly take statements like this seriously? You totally undermine your credibility with everyone except your little band of “true believers” when you make ill-informed, ridiculous statements like these.
Comment by Allen MacNeill — March 21, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
Allen, don’t take it so personally! My comment was about the merits of open-source work, and not intended to demean anyone, least of all yourself.
I’m sure the peer-review process is very useful and productive– next best thing to open source, I would almost say :) — and promise you I take everything published in peer-reviewed journals seriously. I thougt I also made it clear that open source doesn’t mean ID stuff is better quality then anything else. But combined with the intensity of the review-by-opponents, it does mean that with almost any ID article I read I can do a google search and come up with ten rebuttals (sometimes successful, sometimes laughable attempts). It makes critical anlaysis of ID easy :-).
Comment by Freawaru — March 21, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
Freawaru wrote:
“But combined with the intensity of the review-by-opponents, it does mean that with almost any ID article I read I can do a google search and come up with ten rebuttals (sometimes successful, sometimes laughable attempts). It makes critical anlaysis of ID easy”
You don’t seem to wonder why it is that people are so ready to criticize ID arguments, however. Could it be that such arguments, in actuality, are simply so misrepresenting science and the modern theory of Evolution as to be almost begging for harsh criticisms?
…There’s thorough criticism of ideas that are generally right, and then there’s criticism of ideas that are wrong - and the peer review process, though not flawless, there to help discriminate between the two.
I think it’s clear that Intelligent Design falls into the latter category.
Comment by Dan — March 21, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
Freawaru,
You making the assumption that opening up a piece of scientific work for the world to scrutinize (a world where most people are not qualified to critique, much less criticize what they are reading), adds some kind of value to what already occurs during the peer review process. There are rare cases where this might be true, such as in an ethical debate, but otherwise I think it adds very little value.
Nobody in their right mind would let an unqualified person’s opinion factor into the debate about how to best manage a nuclear reactor during a crisis, so why would you do it in the case of evolution.
The only reason alternatives to evolution are even being discussed is because somebody with an agenda is taking advantage of people’s ignorance, and emotions about their place in world.
Comment by Tobin — March 21, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
Dan– that is an entirely different question. Why is the criticism of ID so intense? But I would hesitate to use the ferociousness with which any new idea is treated as a reliable indicator of its veracity.
Tobin– no, I’m not making any such assumption. My conclusion was that the open source manner in which it was done was beneficial for intelligent design; this was based on experience with the plethora of criticism available for every facet of the theory.
Your point– that many of the people criticizing aren’t ‘qualified’ to criticize– is to a certain extent valid; and I do find it annoying to have to wade through a large number of ridiculously stupid arguments to find the interesting ones… but this is a small inconvenience for the benefits of open source. What’s more, it isn’t only the “peers” of peer review that have something to add to a discussion. It’s easy when we’re working in the highly specialized fields necessary for today’s science to get into ruts of thinking, to rely to much on our own assumptions. Criticism from someone looking at the problem from a different angle can be essential, and it’s very important for any theory to be open to audit from the outside.
Comment by Freawaru — March 22, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
“Criticism from someone looking at the problem from a different angle can be essential, and it’s very important for any theory to be open to audit from the outside.”
Still, a serious critic in any field, be it science or something else, must have both the qualifications and the grounds for criticism - and again, I say that non-biologists tend to have little of either.
Comment by Dan — March 22, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
Dan, I would say it’s important that theories in one field be audited by specialists in other fields. Evolutionary biologists shouldn’t say: our theories can only be validated by people who have already committed themselves to its basic tenets.
Instead theories should be open for review and criticism from specialists in the wider fields of biology and biochemistry and even from fields that might seem unrelated such as mathematics.
Comment by Wulfgar — March 22, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
Sure, that’s reasonable, and to some extent that is the case - interdisciplinary exchanges are very prevalent, and not only here at Cornell.
But even then, such interdisciplinary critiques of evolutionary biology must involve rigorous examination of the questions being raised. On the other hand, we have “experts,” like Behe and Dembski, who have yet to test and validate their claims in any way whatsoever. They simply have made superficial claims, which they fail to experimentally follow-up, and go on book tours instead.
Comment by Dan — March 22, 2006 @ 10:55 pm