Re: Dembski

Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:33:11 -0500

This is my third attempt to send this. My reply keeps getting snipped. A
local blind copy came through okay. This is the blind copy. Hope it
works. Sorry...

At 10:13 AM 2/20/97, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>I wrote: "I am off-put by Dembski's habit of "semi-referencing" papers he
>has yet to publish. "Always NEXT week the good movie will come." Maybe this
>is common practice; I don't know."

[snip]

>Does anyone know if this is a common/uncommon practice? Bill does it in his
>chapter in THE CREATION HYPOTHESIS; he also does it in his NTSE paper. I
>don't see anything "wrong" with the practice; it is frustrating though.

Two citations that frustrate me are 1) "to be published" and 2) "private
communication". I understand why people use them: 1) is a heads-up that
the author has more to say on the subject, so those interested ought to
contact him and/or watch the literature. 2) Is an effort to document that
the issue in question has been discussed with another person (either in
person, in email or snail mail correspondence) and the author wants to give
the other individual credit for his inputs. My personal view is that when
an author cites a private communication, he should be willing to furnish
copies of whatever documentation of the exchange exists to any individual
who asks.

>------------------------------------------
>Bill also wrote: "At this point his only definition of specified complexity
>is an analogy. And the thrust of the analogy seems to me to be that
>complexity that serves some intended function is specified complexity. I
>will read his monograph when it comes out, in the hope that I'm wrong."
>
>You can see the NTSE paper on the NTSE web site now; I have a copy.

That's where I got it. I was referring to the monograph he mentions, which
he intends to publish in 1997.
>
>In a broader sense, I have always been troubled by the "argument by
>analogy" practice. It seems to me that while analogies are often the best
>way to EXPLAIN something, they offer little or no support for an argument
>for that something.
>
Agreed.

Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)

Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)