Can We Agree To Disagree? No!

It's only been recently that I've heard people actually use the expression "We can agree to disagree!".  Before that people disagreeing didn't require any sort of statement because what was usually happening was two people arguing about something inconsequential and couldn't find a way to end the argument, so without stating it, they would simply drop it.  The key for me was that it was always something inconsequential, like two fans of different sports teams or an opinion of a movie or restaurant.  Both parties recognized not only were they never going to agree, but whatever they were arguing about was really nothing important.

According to Wikipedia the phrase actually has a long history, much longer than I had realized, dating back the to 1770:

"There are many doctrines of a less essential nature ... In these we may think and let think; we may 'agree to disagree.' But, meantime, let us hold fast the essentials"

Note the phrase 'less essential nature', in other words 'inconsequential.  The problem is that when I hear the phrase being used, it's not an inconsequential argument.  As I said previously the argument would end without having to declare agreeing to disagree.  But nowadays when I hear it, it's taken on a very different connotation for me.

There is an example in this blog, you might remember a commenter named 'Rory'. He responded to one of my posts: "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!", in it he claimed  . . . well, here is his comment:

"Actually, an increasingly large percentage of today's scientists believe in an intelligent designer of the universe and life, and this is now an established one way trend. To understand this turn of events, including perspectives of many leading scientists, see Intelligent Design vs. Evolution — The Miracle of Intelligent Design."

The link is to a webpage of his own which didn't do a very good job of making his case that 'an increasingly large percentage of today's scientists believe . . .'.  I didn't respond in a comment, but drafted a separate post: "In response to a comment".  In my response I went searching for independent confirmation of Rory's claim:

• I visited the Discovery 'Institute' (D'I') to see if they showed a significant increase in signatories to their anti-evolution petition -- which they did not.
• I also checked out the Biologics 'Institute' (D'I' private pseudo-lab) to see if they were publishing anything supporting Intelligent Design -- which they had not!
• I searched on Pub Med to see if there was an increase in the number of Intelligent Design-friendly papers being posted and used for further research -- and found none.
• I also hit several secular and non-secular universities to see if ID appeared in their curriculum -- which it has not.
• Finally I reviewed Rory's link and found it to be mostly quote-mines and showed a severe lack of scholarship and hardly any research at all.

Bottom line, Rory had absolutely nothing to support his claim and I said so in my response post. Of course he had to respond and before repeating some of the same stuff over and over again, he started his long-winded response with:

"Thanks for your comments and rebuttal. We can agree to disagree."

So, can we really 'agree to disagree'?  At the time I said 'Yes, we can', but the more I hear the phrase, the more I realize that we cannot.  I see two reasons, the first is that 'agreeing to disagree' is a tacit agreement that the arguments being made are equivalent.  My second issue is that such arguments are not about inconsequential things.

Arguments such as the one with foolish Rory was about Science and scientific methodology.  Rory was in it to praise his version of a deity.  Since that is something not addressed by science or any rational scientific methodology, Rory was doing nothing but preaching and using lies and distorting other people's words (quote-mines) to do so.  How can anyone agree to disagree when faced with such disreputable tactics?

Arguments concerning Evolution, Vaccinations, and Climate-change are not inconsequential!  These are important areas that should not be trivialized because of one's religious beliefs.  Belief in a deity is not going to save children from getting preventable diseases, it's not going to develop cures and new medical techniques, and it's certainly not going to change how humans have impacted our environment!  That's why most Christians have no issue with those areas at all!

So I have come to the conclusion that when someone says "We can agree to disagree" really means they have lost the argument and are looking for way out without having to actually concede.  In recent conversations, the people who uttered that ridiculous phrase seem to be trying to equate their complete lack of factual support with the opposition's facts and evidence.  But, it doesn't work that way.

My example of Rory should how little factual support he had for his arguments, so he tried the 'agree to disagree' BS.  No, I do not agree to disagree, particular when your arguments are based on lies and distortions.  Bring the evidence that supports your arguments and then we can discuss.  If you have no evidence, don't expect me to let you off the hook by agreeing to disagree.

Look at the parent who says something like "I know what's best for my child!"  In many cases that's true, but when it comes to vaccinations and medical treatment, is the opinion of a parent the same as a trained medical professional?  It's not even close!  Yet groups, like the Discovery 'Institute' (New Discovery Institute Key Word: "Intuition") keep trying to sell folks that their intuition is as good as scientific methodology!  Show me one scientific breakthrough that is based on intuition or even opinion?  Intuition and opinions do not keep buildings standing, that's called engineering and it's based on sound scientific principles.

So if you ever say to me 'We can agree to disagree' and we are talking about something more important than the NY Giants chances for the Superbowl, you can forget it -- because we cannot agree to disagree and we never shall!

So Who Has their Head in the Sand?

Interesting article, but one that seems to be nothing more than a wonderful example of quote-mining. By now, you are probably more than familiar with the concept of quote-mining, that is taking a quote out-of-context in such a way to change its meaning.  There have been many instances of quote-mining, one of my personal favorites is here with Ben Stein quote-mining Charles Darwin, and doing a pretty poor job.  In any event, my opinion of quote-mining is that it is a reprehensible tactic and one usually used by the loosing side of an argument when they seem to feel they have nothing left to loose.

Here in the new post 'Irony Alert: Michael Shermer on "When Facts Fail" ' from the Discovery Institute's blog, Evolution 'news' and Views.  I had to read through it twice to get the point the author, Cornelius Hunter, was trying to make.  What it looks like to me is he is insinuating that folks like Michael Shermer are engaging in the exact behavior that he [Shermer] was writing about, that is the refusal to change ones mind when confronted with facts that contradict 'beliefs'.

So, instead of listing all the 'facts' about Intelligent Design that Michael Shermer might be refusing to consider . . . oh wait, there are no facts about ID.  So I guess Hunter had to take a different path, in fact [pun intended], the only path open to him.  So what he does is list a whole bunch of stuff, claiming these were all examples of facts failing evolution.  But are they?

One example Hunter uses is, the emphasis is Hunter's:

"Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) do not seem to exist."

Since this is from Wikipedia, let's look at it a bit more in context:

"Evidence suggests that significant diversification had already occurred before trilobites were preserved in the fossil record, easily allowing for the "sudden" appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex derived characteristics (e.g. eyes)." (Wikipedia: Trilobite)

To get the entire explanation, you really should click on the link and read it all for yourself.  Hunter took only one line to try and make his case.  Of course it doesn't present the complete picture -- after all the more complete context doesn't support his contention -- hence quote-mining.

The bottom line, which Hunter failed to mention, is really two-fold.  The first is that the evidence supports that the majority of the evolution of trilobites precedes the time periods when bony structures formed and started leaving detailed fossils.  So, on the one hand Creationists like to claim there are no transitional fossils and on the other when there are not clear transitional forms, they claim that disproves evolution.  Really?  How . . . two-faced.

The other thing you get when you read it is that science is honest about the things we do not know.  Instead of making definitive statements you see terms like 'do not seem' and 'evidence suggests'.  That's how science works.  The things we don't know or aren't sure about are openly identified.  It identifies areas where we need more work.  Look at what we know today compared to what we knew 10, 20, 50, or 100 years ago.  Can Hunter really claim this is some sort of fact failure?  The only failure is in his imagination.

A quick Google of some of his other 'failed facts' show similar issues, Hunter simply is representing them as fact failures, however they really aren't at all.  Some of them are reasonably understood, from an evolutionary standpoint, others less so.  But at no time can you call these failures.  Only a Creationists would call something we don't understand to the nth degree a failure.  I guess having a deity you can rely on to give you all the answers means you have no failures . . . also you have no successes.  After all, how many scientific advances can identify the point where Creationism/Intelligent Design entered and added something to the whole?  Yea, I get the same answer.  There aren't any!  Planes fly not because a deity wills it, but because of our understanding of many scientific theories. 

All Hunter has proven is science doesn't know everything.  Of course the scientific community has never said that it knows all.  That's a lie put forth by anti-science organizations, like the DI.  One of the common anti-science tactics is to build a strawman argument, demolish it and claim a victory.  In this case, the strawman is that science knows all, and then you point out a few things where the science isn't complete and claim science is all screwed up.  So which side is actually being honest in this discussion?

Actually this is a common tactic.  Remember the Dover Trial and Michael Behe?  Unlike Hunter here, who is only a Fellow at the DI, Behe is a 'Senior' Fellow, I'm not sure if that means smarter or simply older. Here's a quote from the decision:

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (Wikipedia: Dover Decision)

So, I would also like to address this idea of Hunter's from a different angle.  Take any scientific theory, say Light, Gravity, Germs, or even Evolution.  Look back on a timeline and look at the changes to the theory as you go further and further back.  You will see an almost constant evolution [used in the context of 'change over time'] of the theories.  Does this sound like a community of people who reject new ideas and cling to their belief set?  Scientific advances are not made by re-hashing the old!  It would be hard to call them advances if all we are doing is running in place.  Picture the medical community of Darwin's day.  How would you like to be treated by those medical techniques?

So, Hunter . . . who has their head stuck in the sand when faced with fact that refute their belief system?  It sure doesn't sound like the scientific community is guilty here, but can you say the same? 

Facts, We Don't Need No Stinking Facts

I was following some of the news concerning the two big political conventions and noticed something strange about one of them, an overabundance of 'feelings' conversation.  I was mulling it over and what jelled it in my mind was John Oliver's Last Night on Tonight commentary about the Republican National Convention (RNC):

They really did spend a lot of time identifying peoples' feelings about something, much more than relying on anything resembling a fact.  Oliver said, "Believing something to be true is not the same thing as it being true" summed up the RNC pretty well.  I really was waiting for the RNC to use "Feelings" as their new theme song.

The interview with Newt really keyed in on it.  How he, as a politician, would go with feelings over facts any day. Shouldn't that be a warning flag?  I am not talking a little 3x5 inch flag on the end of a piece of straw.  I am talking about a room sized piece of red cloth run up to the top of a 90 foot flagpole signaling a serious disaster!  When someone wants you to go with your feelings, it usually means they don't have any facts to back something up, so they need you to 'go with your gut'.  Why would that be?

I have to wonder if the RNC 'feels' they are in a losing position.  Changing from 'facts' to 'feelings' is only a tactic when the facts don't back you up.  As we can see from the Newt's part of the interview, the facts do not back him up, so he tries to make the claim that his feelings, and the voiced 'feelings' attributed to 'the average American' are actually facts in themselves. Sorry, Newt, an unsupported opinion does not equal actual supported numbers, and it never will.

An analogy in Poker is called a 'chopped pot', which means splitting the pot evenly among the players who have yet to fold the hand.  There are two instances of a chopped pot, one is the hands are truly tied after showing them.  The other is when one player feels they are at a disadvantage and wants to minimize their losses, so they offer to chop the pot rather than take the risk and see the cards.  This is usually done because of a 'feeling' of having a weaker hand than one or more of your opponents.  In chess it's the offer of a draw rather than play out the rest of the game.

As you might have noticed the Discovery Institute (DI) has been spending a lot of time claiming that intuition is just as good as actual science.  That your 'feelings' about a subject are just as valid as someone who studies and works and has the evidence to back up their claims.  Why would they do so?

Because they must 'feel' they are in a losing position.  I wonder if donations are down or some of their big donors are questioning their lack of results?  Why else would they be celebrating 20 years of non-achievement.  That's why they are pushing books like Doug Axes "Undeniable" and re-releasing books like "The Design of Life". And that is why they make statements like:

"We don't need to rely slavishly on what scientists say because, in an important sense, we are all scientists, capable of judging a big scientific idea like evolution, if not necessarily the technical details, for ourselves." (More Scientists Praise Douglas Axe's Undeniable)

I really love this statement because after years of the DI telling us how scientific they are and how many scientists disagree with evolution -- suddenly the message is who cares what scientists say anyway!  This is the equivalent saying "Oh Yea!" after a telling insult for which you have no response.  I mean what do scientists know anyway, nanny-nanny-boo-boo!

Telling people to go with their gut shows how little they have in the way of facts to support their Creationism/Intelligent Design.  To paraphrase a favorite movie "Facts, we don't need no stinking facts!"