Hi Rich,
You wrote:
>But Dennett does not equate those who "cannot peacefully
>coexist with the rest of us" with those who teach their children
>falsehoods.
It looks to me as if this is a reasonable interpretation. So all
we have is a difference in opinion about how to interpret what
Dennett means. The solution is obvious: Dennett needs to more
clearly spell out exactly what he means. Who exactly is he
talking about? Who are the "we" that will "educate" the children,
as early as possible, who learn "falsehoods" from their parents
and what exactly are these "falsehoods?" After all, Dennett includes
in this list of "falsehoods" a denial of his faith that humans are
the products of natural selection. Being the True Believer that
he is, he apparently misses the rich irony that he has adopted the
position of the Inquisitor.
Rich:
>You may guess it to be part of the quarantine "plan".
>Dennett doesn't say that it is.
No, he doesn't. But he does precede his re-education
intentions with talk about quarantines. He does write,
"and those whose visions dictate that they cannot peacefully
coexist with the rest of us we will have to quarantine as best
we can."
Notice the assumption that he is among those powerful enough
to institute such a quarantine. Now, Dennett is an establishment
guy, a smart guy, and a good writer, as you say. Surely he
thus knows that the word "quarantine" is radioactive. Yet he
chose to use it anyway. So we need to cross-examine him
to see exactly what he means by quarantine, how will this
work, who will implement it, and who exactly is to be
quarantined. What does he mean by "peaceful" coexistence?
He can't be simply thinking in terms of physical violence, as
we have no need for quarantines there; we have prisons.
Rich:
>No, it's a matter of what Dennett actually says, as opposed
>to what Dembski thinks he says.
But what *is* he actually saying? What is the quarantine?
What does he mean by peaceful coexistence? What
purported falsehoods does he have in mind?
Rich:
>Dembski should exercise more caution when paraphrasing.
>Misrepresentation is death to reasoned debate.
So too is the dripping arrogance of someone like Dennett.
So too is the use of the explosive term "quarantine." So too
is the declared intention to "educate" another person's child in your
faith.
If Dembski misrepresents Dennett, then Dennett can come
out and more fully explain what he was trying to say. He
can set the record straight and while he is at it, provide his
evidence that it was indeed natural selection that evolved
humans.
So I don't see much use in arguing over different interpretations
of the same text. I'd rather Dennett himself more fully explain
what he meant. And perhaps it will take something like
Dembski's interpretation to bring this about.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 22:20:19 EST