That requisite line . . .
The funniest abstract I’ve read in a long time, from an article available here, and which is to appear in Mod.Phys.Lett.A:
We argue that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) provides a stupendous opportunity for the Creator of universe our (assuming one exists) to have sent a message to its occupants, using known physics. Our work does not support the Intelligent Design movement in any way whatsoever, but asks, and attempts to answer, the entirely scientific question of what the medium and message might be IF there was actually a message. The medium for the message is unique. We elaborate on this observation, noting that it requires only careful adjustment of the fundamental Lagrangian, but no direct intervention in the subsequent evolution of the universe.
Question: Which sentence was introduced by the peer-reviewers?
Answer: You don’t know.
Dembski’s indulging himself in pure speculation over at UD.
At least that’s better than the outright lies that frequently fill his posts.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 7, 2006 @ 12:17 am
That would be a better answer if you couldn’t see the original versions on the http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510102 site.
Do a compare and contrast.
Comment by Freawaru — June 7, 2006 @ 1:29 am
I noticed the trackbacks are quite humorous, particularly these two…
and Galaxy Girl:Quantum Diaries:
Regardless, also note how the article’s conclusions don’t really conclude anything at all. LOL
Comment by Dan — June 7, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Gee, I must be blind, because as hard as I stare at the two versions of the abstract, I can’t see where it states “the sentence was added by the peer-reviewers”.
Help me, please.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 7, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
I can see a sentence introduced but I see no evidence that this was performed by the peer-reviewers.
Perhaps some people see ‘design’ everywhere, even when the supporting evidence may be lacking?
Critical thinking my friends…
Comment by PvM — June 8, 2006 @ 5:41 am
For whatever reason (probably too many links in the post, and the TDP team hasn’t gotten to moderating it yet) my comment from yesterday hasn’t appeared yet….
My point was that if we’re looking at the humor in this article, we should probably also look at what people are saying about (other than the intellectually dishonest Dembski and his UD team).
Check out the trackbacks in the article - particularly those by Peter Steinberg and Galaxy Girl. Quite humorous.
And while your at it, check out the conclusions in the full article itself - I found that they don’t actually conclude anything.
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
The article itself, even in its earlier version already did poke some fun at ID
Comment by PvM — June 8, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
It’s inconceivable!
Comment by ivy privy — June 8, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
Don– Point conceded; we really have no way of knowing who might have suggested changes between version 1 and version 3 in a peer reviewed process. Perhaps it was fairies. Still, though one may never know the facts of the matter, one can make a– what shall we call it– a very likely guess.
But discussing the assumptions that might go into that ‘educated guess’ strikes me as a bit trivial and not worth spending time on; if you honestly come to different conclusions, you are welcome to them.
Dan– Sorry about that; it is unstuck now. Definitely there are plenty of other aspects of the article that might be looked at; I didn’t get much further than the abstract.
But I wouldn’t say that “not reaching any conclusions” necessarily sets it off from other articles; it seems a majority carefully avoid reaching any decisive conclusion for fear they might be wrong.
PvM– I’m having trouble seeing both a) how the excerpt you gave relates to ID and b) how it is poking fun at anything. Care to elaborate?
Comment by Freawaru — June 8, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
But discussing the assumptions that might go into that ‘educated guess’ strikes me as a bit trivial and not worth spending time on.
Then why did you waste everyone’s time by posting it? The entire point of your post is summarized here:
Question: Which sentence was introduced by the peer-reviewers?
Of course there’s a subtext here, in that you’re implying that the folks who wrote the paper really are supportive of ID (Dembski was much less subtle in making that point) and had to pretend not to in order to get it published.
There’s even less basis for that deduction than there is for the originally unsupportable assumption you made in the first place.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 8, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
Oh, it wasn’t for you– to whom I have generously allowed your own opinion– but for the others who, like me, would find it funny; perhaps just because it is such a humorous example of what we face on a regular basis.
The point stands, but I don’t classify it under “worth trying to convince the half-dozen people who count it a point of honor to disagree”. There are more interesting things to argue with you all about. :-)
Comment by Freawaru — June 8, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
As a sidenote– do be careful about your conspiracy theories; sometimes the subtext you read may be one only you wrote. I wasn’t considering the authors to be ID proponents, and I don’t think their research is necessarily particularly related to ID. Both points are irrelevant here.
Comment by Freawaru — June 8, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
Well, Dembski argued that the prime numbers in the movie contact could help explain how a design inference would work. If you read the paper, you will find some other gems…
Seems however that Dembski considers the paper relevant to ID. I guess these must be desperate times :-)
To recap: While it may be tempting to jump to the conclusion given by Dembski and repeated on this blog that the change was one made by the peer reviewers, the actual evidence seems to lack support one way or another.
Furthermore, I fail to see why a disclaimer like this is relevant, other than that it precluded IDers from claiming that this work ’supports intelligent design’.
Comment by PvM — June 9, 2006 @ 3:11 am
As a sidenote– do be careful about your conspiracy theories; sometimes the subtext you read may be one only you wrote.
Oh, I’m sure it is simply coincidence that you posted this, your snarky comment, and your hat tip to dembski’s blog because you don’t share his conclusion.
Yeah, I’m sure.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 9, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
Oh, come! Don’t be ridiculous. The article itself may or may not be relevant to ID– from reading the abstract, I assumed it wasn’t. If I had thought it was I would have definitely made it a priority to read the whole thing; as it is, I have yet to do so. Do you really want to keep arguing this? It’s far more interesting to talk about real issues then the hypothetical beliefs of other people– especially if they are purely fictional.
As far as the hat tip– that is simply blogging etiquitte, when you write on something you first read elsewhere, and it implies no endorsement. Dembski is entitled to his own views; really I don’t feel responsible for them anymore than I feel responsible for yours.
Comment by Freawaru — June 9, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
Freawaru,
Why are you playing both sides? If the article “may or may not be relevant to ID” and it was only an interesting curiousity, then why are you distorting Don’s/PvM’s comments as “conspiracy theories”?
Face it - you put the post up because you thought it was funny, for reasons that are purely speculative.
And I’m sure Don is very appreciative for “generously” allowing us to have our own opinion. I know I am. LOL
Comment by Dan — June 9, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Perhaps conspiracy theory is too strong a term. I meant simply “recklessly imagining subtexts into everything you read; and considering your own imaginings (unrooted in reality) of other people’s beliefs to be fact.”
Really though I don’t know why I’m arguing this at all; unless because it is annoying when people challenge you on beliefs you don’t hold. Or maybe because I can’t get out of lab for long enough to take part in a real discussion :-).
Comment by Freawaru — June 9, 2006 @ 9:43 pm