Intelligent Design on PBS

[jj]

The Holocaust was an observable event. To equate this with evolution is not very scientific.

Evolution has been observed. Please retract your misinformation forthwith.

 

[jj]

If you don't understand the position I've taken in this discussion thus far, then nothing I say right now can further elucidate it.

Please explain why you've ignored the fact that the scientific method requires theories that can be potentially falsified.

Please explain why you fail to note that ID theories are not, in general, potentially falsifiable, and why you fail to note that this and this alone, without further discussion, eliminates such theories from the realm of science.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Trying to boost up your total number of posts jj?

 

[jj]

Trying to boost up your total number of posts jj?

Do you have something constructive or topical to say, or are you just stalking about for the heck of it?

 

[Starrman]

Brian the Snail

If this accurate (and I haven't seen the show, so I don't know) then it's clear that they didn't consult anybody with dissenting opinions.

This was my specific concern, sorry if that was not clear in my first post. I watched the program waiting and waiting for the other side to present its case. Never happened.

To present a controversial theory, which they are trying to claim is scientific, with absolutely no hint that there might be a contending viewpoint does not do much for their credibiltity.

This is why I asked if someone had seen the first half, I was hoping I had simply missed the other side of the debate. Sadly, I was wrong.

 

[Starrman]

jj wrote:

I think that the viewers are also due a warning that "this is not a science program, it is religion falsely disguised as science, using a presentation that is forthrightly misleading, that ignores data, and misrepresents data that is represented".

Worse than that, this was specifically listed in TV guide and in the cable channel guide's information as a 'science/technology' program. Which is why I watched it and expected to hear both sides of the argument.

 

[csense]

"I can only hope that "signing off" is more permanent this time..."

Just permanent, although I can understand the wishfull thinking in both.

...So it is written, so it shall be done

[signing off]

 

[rwald]

Originally posted by rwald

The thing is, we here on the board generally have a greater understanding of science.

Originally posted by csense

Generally speaking, yes...and also generally speaking, it's a very naive view.

Based on further evidence, I'll agree that not everyone on this board has a good understanding of science. As you've kindly demonstrated.

 

[fishbob]

Originally posted by fishbob
I think you misunderstand the equivalence principle. And by the way, while thought experiments are useful for checking logic and visualizing problems, thought experiments do not provide scientific evidence for anything. Misunderstanding the use of thought experiments is common with the ID proponents I have had discussions with.

edit to add: I still think pod people are replacing the real PBS staffers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by csense
I quite understand what the equivalence principle is, and I also quite understand that thought experiments are not supposed to provide empirical evidence, and if you really understood the level of discussion here, I wouldn't need to explain all this...but also to the point, as is obvious here, you don't understand the philosophical implications, yet somehow you seem to know that the thought experiment is not empirical.

I could take a guess and suggest that you're just being specious here...or I could offer this up as yet evidence to Ziggurat's question.

Condescension - patronizingly superior behavior or attitude (Dictionary.com). Also noted in previous discussions with ID proponents.

Ignorance - the want of knowledge ... in relation to a particular subject (Dictionary.com).

Stupdidty - a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience (Dictionary.com). Willful ignorance would also seem to be a good definition.

Specious - who? me?

 

[patnray]

I wonder if economics played a part in the airing of the program. I wouldn't be surprised if it was made available at little or no cost to public TV stations. With their limited budgets, public stations are constantly looking for quality (in production values) programming at bargain prices. Finding a way to fund quality programs that are scientifically sound, and entertaining, for public TV stations might be the best way to counter this kind of propaganda...

 

[rockoon]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. They aired a program that was unscientific. This isnt the first time. PBS also airs POLITICAL and PHILOSOPHY programs.

Perhaps the real problem is that some peoples expectations of PBS is unrealistic.

The fact that T.V. Guide incorrectly listed the program has nothing to do with PBS. This isnt the first time T.V. Guide has been wrong and it surely wont be the last.

 

[rwald]

The problem isn't that it had a non-science-oriented program. The problem is that it had a non-science-oriented program which claimed to be scientific.

 

[csense]

...Just one more thing

(csense)
If you find fault with their methodology, which is what science is, a method, then you're free to critique them...but first, we have to find out if you're qualified.


(jj)
That's right out of ICR propaganda, and what it translates into is "if you don't accept our nonsense, you're not qualified to critique it".

If you really feel that the attitude portrayed in my post is propaganda, then you might want to go back in the thread and read it in context, since it's propaganda from this board.

 

[rockoon]

The problem isn't that it had a non-science-oriented program. The problem is that it had a non-science-oriented program which claimed to be scientific.

So I guess you saw it?

ok thanks.

 

[JamesM]

Specious - who? me?

I'd like to think it was a taxonomic pun.

 

[Starrman]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. They aired a program that was unscientific. This isnt the first time. PBS also airs POLITICAL and PHILOSOPHY programs.

If you watch the program, there is no doubt that they are claiming to be a scientific. I don't know what specific programs you are referring to, but I would be surprised if there was any of this kind of deception.

 

[pupdog]

This show was broadcast by Maryland PBS in June. I expected to see an explanation of what science is and why ID doesn't qualify. Instead, I saw a propaganda film that presented the usual already-countered arguments.

I wrote a letter of complaint, and received a considerate reply from the Chief Content Officer--the reason for airing this show, basically, was out of "fairness", claiming that this show was "...the only example of the opposing viewpoint." (I think really so as not to alienate potential creationist financial contributors). The replier suggested that perhaps a debate featuring prominant representatives of both sides "...would have made for a more honest presentation." Actually, I think a show explaining the scientific method is what's needed.

By the way, I did mention in my complaint that the show was produced by the anti-evolution group Randolf Productions, a subsidiary of Campus Crusade for Christ. The gist of my complaint was that it was presented as if it were scientific, likely reinforcing the public's woeful misunderstanding of science.

 

[arcticpenguin]

This show was broadcast by Maryland PBS in June. I expected to see an explanation of what science is and why ID doesn't qualify. Instead, I saw a propaganda film that presented the usual already-countered arguments.

I wrote a letter of complaint, and received a considerate reply from the Chief Content Officer--the reason for airing this show, basically, was out of "fairness", claiming that this show was "...the only example of the opposing viewpoint." (I think really so as not to alienate potential creationist financial contributors). The replier suggested that perhaps a debate featuring prominant representatives of both sides "...would have made for a more honest presentation." Actually, I think a show explaining the scientific method is what's needed.

By the way, I did mention in my complaint that the show was produced by the anti-evolution group Randolf Productions, a subsidiary of Campus Crusade for Christ. The gist of my complaint was that it was presented as if it were scientific, likely reinforcing the public's woeful misunderstanding of science.

Hmmm, in the interest of fairness? Are they going to run "flat earth" propoganda to balance out the the proponents of the round earth theory? You might ask them this if you follow up your first letter.

 

[arcticpenguin]

According to this article, storks in Poland are evolving to build their nests atop power poles instead of houses.

 

[Quixote]

Excerpts from "The PBS Mission" at http://www.pbs.org/producers/mission/index.html

It's important to know first that our mission is to inform, to inspire, and to educate. We believe that the content we develop, fund, and schedule can contribute to a more healthy society and that our programs should encourage the active involvement of citizens to trust, connect and act collectively to address social challenges. PBS aims to increase awareness, provide multiple viewpoints, treat complex social issues completely, provide forums for deliberation, and strengthen ties between our viewers and their communities.

Building trust: Projects should be definitive, offer diverse perspectives, and be informed by integrity and journalistic strengths.

We honor the intelligence of the viewing audience. Our programs are smart, relevant, and definitive.

We want innovative programming that represents the diversity of this country, that has a strong educational basis, and embraces new media possibilities in telling a story in a way that has wide appeal and deep impact.

It would appear that the program in question is at odds with PBS's stated mission. Of course, it fits right in with the Deepak Chopra specials they run during pledge drives.