User talk:JosephCCampana

From ResearchID.org, a nexus for researching Intelligent Design

Contents

Hello, welcome to my talk page. My name is Joseph C. Campana, and I am the webmaster of ResearchID.org. Make yourself at home and enjoy this website. -- JosephCCampana 21:59, 13 February 2006 (CST)

Please use this section for any message to me...

Good news, I finally uploaded something on Teleology....Check out the syllogism at the end....HUGEproblems for the Darwinists (how so?) At another time I will attempt to prove p2. idadvisors...

Good stuff! Let me know when you want me to start an internal critique of your work. -- Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 14:36, 4 July 2006 (CDT)

Kudos Joey!! As a concerned philosopher(with a Bachelors')I recently decided to research ID with an Aristotelian bent. Initially I found that Thaxton's 1986 essay "DNA, Design and the Origin of Life" is highly instrumental is explaining CSI. Second, Dembski's essay "Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information" is the best source for understanding "intelligent causation" the cause of CSI. Like Erasmo, I too would like to contribite an article relating to the metaphysics of functioning organelles such as e.coli flagella subcomponents(rotor, bushing etc.)Aristotle's metaphysics is about being(that it exists) and causes(why it exists). One runs into trouble when they look at e.colis flagella subcomponents in a metaphysicians perspective:

Darwinian=subcomponents are caused by purposeless, unintelligent causes.

Aristotelean=though cause is purposeless, the components working in concert, produce propulsion. The system achieves a goal or function and does so effectively. In order to acheive propulsion DNA makes the subcomponents=it satisfies the preconditions which produce propulsion. Somehow the agent is thinking ahead since it achieves a goal by satisfying requisite preconditions, it makes the subcomponents and the minimum requirement. The are other important issues related to this type of metaphysical analysis. What are your suggestions? Eric Peterson-- idadvisors@yahoo.com, or "idadvisors" member of your excellent reasearchID.org

This research sounds great! I'll send an email. -- JosephCCampana 17:41, 22 June 2006 (CDT)

Hello, I just joined your wiki project, I would like to start an article under philosophy- history of ideas about Design concepts within Presocratic philosophy, but I am not sure how to proceed. your help will be welcome --Erasmocbc 17:01, 24 February 2006 (CST)

Hello Erasmo,
Thank you for undertaking this philosophical article! It sounds awesome, I look forward to reading it! I would love to help, too. Be sure to check out the "Origins of the concept" section at the Wikipedia.org Intelligent Design article. It seems that I pretty much generated all of the "Greek" content for the section, other people have added links, but other than that it has been surprisingly static. There's some stuff in there, including links, about the Pre-Socratics.
You have a several options for writing on the Pre-Socratics here at ResearchID.org. I am currently working on an information flow section that will be like a tutorial on how to contribute to our knowledgebase. :-) Please be patient, I'll finish the tutorial tonight and let you know by email when it is up.
-- JosephCCampana 20:37, 24 February 2006 (CST)

Hello, I just found out about ResearchID.org recently, but I like it a lot. I'm wondering why is the website only going to be announced to the public in June? How will the site be different then from now? Is it okay to publicize this wiki before then? --SierraEcho 20:40, 24 February 2006 (CST)

Hello SierraEcho,
Welcome! Thank you for the compliment on the site! I'm glad you like it, I'm favorable towards it too. :) June 22, 1993 was the first day of the initial group meeting of big ID theorists at Pajaro Dunes, CA, a veritable "Birthday" of ID. By this summer, I hope we are able to generate more content and build our membership, and really make the site something to visit! Please feel free to publicize anytime! June 22 is just the day that we will "officially" open, with press releases, ID honchos doing Public Relations for us, etc, etc. It should be fun. Again, welcome and enjoy...
-- JosephCCampana 20:54, 24 February 2006 (CST)




Hi Joseph,
A few questions on biography-- what are you looking at as an "ideal" article? Do you want something in the line of a cv, just with d.o.b., education, research done and books written, or would you rather more personal accounts where possible? It is to be NPOV, as much as possible? Also, is it best to work through our list of wanted biograpies and put a bit up for each one, or is it better to make a few longer ones? I suppose you've seen the ones that I've been doing... is that alright, or should I be doing it differently? Sorry for mobbing you with questions-- I don't like making mistakes :-) --Arctura 20:21, 3 March 2006 (CST)

And another question, now that I am writing all mine out-- what is the format for a book in a bibliography where the person of interest is an editor, not author? -- Arctura 20:24, 3 March 2006 (CST)
Hey Arctura! I don’t mind questions at all! They help everyone learn how we are proceeding with our research. You are doing a great job on the bios, and trying to avoid mistakes is a First Principle here at ResearchID.org.
As I was developing ResearchID.org, I realized that I didn't need to have everything set in stone because the group of individuals contributing would probably come up with something better than I could do alone. So I left the biography and glossary formats flexible, as well as other parts of the site, open to the consensus of the contributors.
Therefore, my premise on the Biography articles is that our ResearchID community could best decide, together, what might be ideal for our site.
With that being said, we will always keep in mind that our #1 goal is to be a “springboard” to researching Intelligent Design, and not to have extremely detailed analysis in our first layer of site content. (We will definitely encourage in-depth research later, just not on the first few pages, and not now. Now we need to prepare for our Opening). For more talk about the Biographies, let’s go to the Category_Talk:Biography page. -- JosephCCampana 00:06, 4 March 2006 (CST)


Hello Joseph,

Thank you for the comment on my addition to the bib (international). I am the owner of Ciencia-Alternativa. The site was born out of the great support and encouragement from my friend, Casey Luskin (IDEA Center). I do intend to add material to Research ID, but right now I am swamped with my own project. "Ciencia" is still in the works, so it may be a while.

BTW, your site is awesome! -- Mario A. Lopez 19:13, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Hello, I have some experience with wiki editing, I might be interested in helping out with the admin of this site - what sort of help are you looking for? What do you have in mind? -- EJ Klone 14:30, 26 June 2006 (CDT)


Hi Joseph,

This is Daniel. I'd e-mailed you earlier on the ResearchID project. I'd proposed to other members of IDURC to see if they can begin assisting in building up this resource; hopefully we'll get enough committed individuals to turn this into a rather formidable resource. I've not had much experience with Wiki syntax as yet, but it seems like something I could learn relatively quickly. At this point I'm still working on building the rest of the Shared Intellect site; I hope to complete just the structural work and initial content by the end of the year (ideally, much sooner than that)--at which point, I'd love to devote more time to working with you here. Keep fighting the good fight. =)

Archangel 7 21:32, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
P.S. -- Links to ReasearchID's index page added in the Science and Biosciences section of the Topical Library.



Hey Joseph,

I'm extremely new to wiki's, and I meant to get involved in this site for some time, but nonetheless the least I can say is that I'm totally impressed with this site, and in web debates I've used it frequently to refute the claim that ID has no research behind it. I plan on updating my user page for more info on how I got into all this, but the least I can say right now is that this is all my primary obsession. I'm truly convinced that several decades from now this could very well become the mainstream view in science.

My first question is whether or not there are any pages pertaining to philosophy of science, or at least the "rules" used to define what is and isn't scientific. This has recently become a big interest for me as I approach the second anniversary of the day I became a Design Theorist. Part of this is because I've begun reading Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" for the first time in a couple years, and I've noticed several areas in the origins field where the problem of demarcation is especially significant. Mostly with respect to falsifiability though.

I know this isn't the place to "defend" ID scientifically, but nonetheless I do have a few ideas for articles that pertain mostly to origins of life and to the nature of falsifiability that only involve research aspects.

--IDinsurgent 18:12, 6 December 2009 (PST)

I'm glad to see you're back! I'm guessing archive.org helped you restore the site? I meant to email you to ask if you had checked that site for a better archive of the site, seems liked it's helped a lot! I'll be back soon to contribute soon; I have a 3-day weekend coming up which will give me plenty of time to do so.

--IDinsurgent 18:10, 24 January 2010 (PST)

Joey,

Are you familiar with this site? Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) http://www.faseb.org/What-We-Do/Publication-Services.aspx

I wonder if they may be able to help promote your site here by bringing in more Biochemical professionals?


Sincerely, Eugene

Skepticism about evolution dominating science education landscape

A practical demonostration that ID and skepticism regarding evolution has won the hearts of many students in the USA.

The teachers also cast votes in an electronic instant poll to voice their own top concerns from a list of 10. Their four top concerns were:

"No one has explained how teachers can best answer parents, students or others who ask, 'Why not teach the controversy?'"

"It is difficult to frame evolution instruction in a way that leaves students' minds open — yet also does not sound to them like equivocation."

"Students or their parents object to evolution-related instruction, and the controversy consumes valuable class time."

"Feeling confident about teaching evolution can be difficult because professional development opportunities — or even simple answers to basic questions about evolution and the nature of science — are not readily available to help teachers freshen their content knowledge."

Our official position on ID in school curriculum

or A Hands-on Approach to the Hot Potato.

ResearchID.org has no official position on whether to include Intelligent Design into school curriculum. Yet, it seems nowadays all research and science groups publish their opinions. Since we are a research group, a few informed opinions and observations are in order. Feel free to dialogue about these observations in the discussion area of this page.

Curriculum observations

Potential Problems

  • Curricular challenges. Lack of an up-to-date textbook, lack of standards for teacher profeciency, and lack of assessments for students.
  • Mandating ID. At this time, it is not prudent to mandate instruction on Intelligent Design hypotheses (especially in public schools). Compared with other scientific ideas that have supporting evidence, ID currently has a good amount of theoretical strength, but small amounts of empirical verification (which ResearchID.org hopes to help remedy).
  • Prohibiting ID. The prohibition of ID seems to be a violation of academic freedom. A certain amount of liberty is necessary to the educational process, and disallowing discussion of ID could be a violation of the fundamental nature of learning.
  • Short statements on ID. The exact purpose of short statements at the beginning of instructional units is unclear. The statement mandated by the Dover, PA school board is one example. Neither is it apparent how these are beneficial to ID, or anyone. Clarity and understanding are not attained through the use of these brief announcements. They have been too brief to be useful for any informational purposes. The statements incite strong reaction from certain members of the community, invite court involvement, and could be considered educational flame bait. They can definitely initiate strong student participation in class discussions, but there are other ways to do this that do not end up involving the ACLU.
  • ID at postsecondary institutions. The idea that Intelligent Design would be dismissed out of hand by colleges, without serious review of source documents, seems very narrow-minded and perhaps dogmatic.
  • ID as an antiscientific or pseudoscientific proposal. Regarding ID as anti-scientific is a sign of misunderstanding about what ID is. Seeing ID as pseudo-scientific is, at best, an uninformed assertion.
I'm not sure that the "violation of academic freedom" argument above is valid. Academic freedom is normally taken to mean that academics have the freedom to propose and discuss controversial ideas in their research (and in their own time) without getting kicked out by the university. That doesn't necessarily apply to teaching. And the reason it doesn't apply to teaching is that, when in front of a class, academics aren't just representing themselves. They're representing the entire academic community, and so their words carry the implicit endorsement of the academic community. To teach kids something that the academic community in the relevant field simply would not endorse is thus IMO extremely unethical.
I don't know how to solve this situation. I guess the question is: to what extent do we want kids exposed to ideas that (having failed to be accepted by the scientific community) stand a decent chance of being badly wrong? To what extent should the academic community be prepared to allow its representatives to endorse those positions on its behalf? How would you want it handled if it was something like denial of a connection between HIV and AIDS, or affirmation of a connection between Thimerosal and autism? -- Corkscrew 14:53, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
Are you implying that teachers should not be able to critically and synthetically look at ID with their students at any level/grade/age? If you are, you are not talking about responsible education, you're talking about censorship. If I were a teacher, I would like the academic freedom to address the most relevant issues of the day with my students in class. Otherwise, education runs the risk of being irrelevant. -- JosephCCampana 06:39, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
I think what I'm implying is that, at an educational level where students can be expected to assume that anything their teacher discusses is backed up by the scientific community, it would be inappropriate to discuss something that doesn't have that backing. In the UK, students are first expected to take everything they're told with a pinch of salt when they're postgrads - I don't know what the situation is in the US.
If you think that it's inappropriate for students to just accept what they're told at lower levels, that's fair enough. However, in that case, it would be necessary to introduce speculative research across the board, not just in the area of evolutionary biology. Teaching the controversy is fine, but you'd have to teach every controversy to avoid unfairly and inappropriately biasing kids against evolutionary biology. -- Corkscrew 07:16, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
I think I see the fulcrums of discussion here: two different points. Teaching something as mainstream science and whether gullibility is appropriate.
I'm not saying that we should teach ID as if it were backed up by mainstream science. Anyone that wants to present ID as accepted by mainstream science is not being honest. I'm saying that teachers should be able to critically and synthetically look at ID with their students, as I said before.
When is it appropriate for "students to just accept what they're told at lower levels" depends on the teacher's motives, what the teacher is saying, and how the teacher is presenting the information. IMO, trust is earned, including intellectual trust. If a teacher is telling lies, I would not want children to accept that as knowledge. -- JosephCCampana 07:53, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
OK, I think I get what you're saying and I'd broadly agree, modulo my comment about having to teach a broad range of controversies. I need to give this some more thought - I'll try to come up with a brief list of what I'd consider to be minimum conditions for teaching about ID in science class in an honest fashion. Then maybe we can discuss them for validity and see if there's any way to actually fulfil them. -- Corkscrew 08:35, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Possible Solutions

  • ID as proto-science. Referring to ID as proto-scientific is probably the safest position to hold. In the short term, ID has run into a great amount of resistance from scientists, like so many other scientific ideas in their infancy. Even ID researchers don’t know what to expect in the long-term. ResearchID.org is focused on being a part of the effort to bring ID beyond proto-science.
  • ID as philosophy. Many critics of ID have no problem with it as a philosophical proposition. The problem comes in when ID is proposed as part of biology or astronomy. Like all scientific concepts, ID has philosophical foundations. The inner logic of ID has a particular epistemological nature that presents a challenge to certain anti-teleological naturalistic views.
  • Teacher preference. Like so many other hot-potato issues in education, a good position for a school board would be academic freedom. Exposure to new ideas, and critical analysis of them, is very important to sound instruction.
  • Elective courses. Classes covering ID offered as electives would be one option preferable to mandated instruction.

Scientists equivocate the Modern Synthesis and Darwinism

Notes for later...

  • Holism
  • Organicism
  • a fortiriori
  • Supramolecular structures and activities

Question

I wrote to the webmaster of this site the same questions as below and seems that his email is not valid. So, I was thinking to direct the same question to you or anybody here. Here is the letter I wrote.

I am wondering are ID-ers mostly Christians or at least sympathizers of Christianity? And then, also other religions are speaking about the designer. Is it acceptable for this website to give an account e.g. from the Vedic scriptures about the activity of the designer or references that supports the idea of the existence of designer? How much are you allowing quotations from Bible and other scriptures?

Thanks in advance for your reply. Nitai

PS: I made a website:

The Hare Krishna Views On Science http://www.freewebtown.com/bhaktivedanta108 You think you would be interested to add somewhere this link on you site?

Nitai, concerning holy books, please refer to my message to you on the Talk:Syntropy page.
A Google search of your site for the word "design" comes up with zero hits. Based on this, I don't think a link would be appropriate here. If you have content about ID in the future, please do let me know. -- JosephCCampana 13:31, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Actually the website is quite new so the goggle didn't scan it. But with the site search I got few hits on the word design. You can check that with the below link. But anyway, soon I will put your site on my special links. http://www.freewebtown.com/bhaktivedanta108/searchfunc.html?sw=design&ss=0&sm=0&sin=0 Nitai

Book sources

Recommend adding BookFinder.com --DLH 16:57, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Hello DLH! Thanks for the suggestion. Where should we add BookFinder.com? -- Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 20:54, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.researchid.org/wiki/User_talk:JosephCCampana"