by Mike Gene
On April 1, 2017 Mike Gene posted the following. I have copied it verbatim. Why? Partly to preserve it because one never knows how long a website will stay up. Also because it is well stated. BTW, Mike Gene is a nom de guerre just like my own pen name is a non de guerre. Think about Mark Twain or John Denver, for example. I mention this because people say if you write under a pen name you are dishonest.
Mike is complaining about social media, ie, the internet, but what he is saying is true for the MSM (Main Street Media) as well. I may add my own comments here or there inline with a different background color.
Here Goes:
When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.
1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.
2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.
3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.
My Comment: When arguing in court lawyers often disclose their prejudices before presenting argument.
4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.
My Comment: Scientists try to find the weaknesses in their findings and disclose these in their publications because if they don’t find them their peers will certainly do so. This is the whole point of peer review. it is part of the process of science. Non-scientists, by contrast, hide their weaknesses or obstinately ignore them.
5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivia
6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.
7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.
8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.
9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.
10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.
While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.
My Comment:
Sometimes people are trying to find their way through a set of conflicting ideas, so they vacillate a bit. They argue both sides of an issue because they see shades of gray. I do that a lot. That tends to go with #2 above but violates #6. It demonstrates #9, but #8 becomes a hazard because you do not fully understand the topic. And topics like origins of humans, for example, are enormously complex.
At some point in time I changed my mind about Intelligent Design. I no longer think it explains the data. I think biologos is a better explanation. Part of this is because I came to understand more about ANE and Concordism and the history of concordism, evangelicalism, and fundamentalism.
My Comment:
The Design Matrix, by Mike Gene, is a book written about origins science published around 2008. Here is a review of his book that explains why he uses a pseudonym. My personal guess is he is a biologos fan and sees nothing wrong with the concept of evolutionary theory from a scientific viewpoint, but doesn’t want to be labeled a heretic by young earth creationists and religious fanatics. I know about this subject because I myself was labeled a heretic at least 6 times in 2023. Along with CS Lewis and Billy Graham so I suppose I am in good company. A decade earlier I was labeled a heretic by a baptist pastor at a nearby church for entertaining Intelligent Design. The man said Intelligent Design is of satan.
Anyway, here is the review of Mike Gene’s book:
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues is one of the best books I have read on the problems with Neo-Darwinism and the evidence for Intelligent Design. The author, a friend has informed me, is a professor at an Ivy league university and uses a pseudonym to avoid repercussions for questioning orthodox Neo-Darwinism. He stresses that his arguments should be accepted on their own merits, a point I agree with. He points out, correctly, that the internet can be an extremely hostile environment but, nonetheless, he learned a great deal about the now hot topic of Intelligent Design (ID) from internet discussions on his web site. There are people out there who are willing to debate this topic on a scientific level, and this book is a result of the debates Mike Gene has encountered. Dr. Gene stresses that there are people like him that are tired of the “name calling, innuendo, and political fights” and would rather debate the scientific issues. Dr. Gene stresses that he is an evolutionist and does not favor teaching ID in the schools, but does find the topic “tremendously intriguing.” And knowing what has happened to others who took this position, he wisely prefers to say in the closet. Having said this, both supporters and detractors of ID will find his book excellent. Most of the text focuses on molecular biology, cell biology, evolution, and general biology. As such, it was an excellent read and I find many of the author’s arguments very persuasive, often compelling. One example of many is the discussion of the optimized code on page 74-75 and the dozen or so complex proofreading systems covered on page 77-80. Highly recommended. I did noticed very few mistakes in the book, but I plan to reread it more carefully and may pick up some then.
