SilasBarta comments on Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Alicorn 09 July 2010 06:54AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (770)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: SilasBarta 27 July 2010 04:03:05AM 3 points [-]

Slashdot having an epic case of tribalism blinding their judgment? This poster tries to argue that, despite Intelligent Design proponents being horribly wrong, it is still appropriate for them to use the term "evolutionist" to refer to those they disagree with.

The reaction seems to be basically, "but they're wrong, why should they get to use that term?"

Huh?

Comment author: ata 27 July 2010 04:21:51AM *  3 points [-]

Slashdot having an epic case of tribalism blinding their judgment?

I haven't regularly read Slashdot in several years, but I seem to recall that it was like that pretty much all the time.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 27 July 2010 04:05:34AM 2 points [-]

There's a legitimate reason to not want ID proponents and creationists to use the term "evolutionist" although it isn't getting stated well in that thread. In particular, the term is used to portray evolution as an ideology with ideological adherents. Thus, the use of the term "evolutionism" as well. It seems like the commentators in question have heard some garbled bit about that concern and aren't quite reproducing it accurately.

Comment author: SilasBarta 27 July 2010 04:13:45AM 1 point [-]

Thanks for the reply.

Wouldn't your argument apply just the same to any inflection of a term to have "ism"?

If you and I are arguing about whether wumpuses are red, and you think they are, is it a poor portrayal to refer to you as a "reddist"? Does that imply it's an ideology, etc?

What would you suggest would be a better term for ID proponents to use?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 27 July 2010 04:16:31AM 1 point [-]

I presume someone who took this argument seriously would say that either a) that's its ok to use the term if they stop making ridiculous claims about ideology or b) suggest "mainstream biologists" or "evolution proponents" both of which are wordy but accurate (I don't think that even ID proponents would generally disagree with the point that they aren't the mainstream opinion among biologists.)

Comment author: SilasBarta 27 July 2010 04:21:18AM 1 point [-]

Do you expect that, in general, people should never use the form "X-ist", but rather, use "X proponent"? Should evolution proponents use "Intelligent Design advocate" and "creation advocate"?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 27 July 2010 04:34:34AM *  2 points [-]

If a belief doesn't fit an ideological or religious framework, I think that X-ist and ism are often bad. I actually use the phrases "ID proponent" fairly often partially for this reason. I'm not sure however that this case is completely symmetric given that ID proponents self-identify as part of the "intelligent design movement" (a term used for example repeatedly by William Dembski and occasionally by Michael Behe.)