Hello again Mike.
>>If Dembski is giving us an opinion about how to interpret what Dennett
>>means, he should have said something like: "I interpret Dennett as
>>meaning...". Instead, he baldly states "Daniel Dennett even recommends..."
>>and lifts the word "quarantine" out of context.
>
>Dembski is not giving an opinion about how he interprets Dennett, he is
simply
>interpreting him. For example, here in the USA, millions claim that the
>Constitution mandates separation of church and state when this is only
>an interpretation of the First Amendment. They don't claim, "I interpret
the
>Constitution as meaning..." Instead, they baldy state, "The Constitution
>mandates.."
>The difference is we can't ask the Founders what they meant in the First
>Amendment, but we can ask Dennett.
I think we need to clarify what we mean by "interpretation" of a source. I
can think of three possibilites:
(a) saying the same thing as the source, but in other words;
(b) drawing a conclusion, based solely on premises contained in the source;
(c) drawing a conclusion, based only partly on premises contained in the
source.
I would call (a) a paraphrase, and say that it's acceptable to paraphrase a
source without saying that you've done so. The absence of quotes is
sufficient indication that it's a paraphrase and not a direct quote.
However, when paraphrasing, one has a responsibility to exercise caution and
not to make any significant changes in the meaning.
I wouldn't call (b) a paraphrase, but I might do it without clarifying that
it's a conclusion and not a paraphrase. This would be rather sloppy, but
probably acceptable.
In the case of (c), I consider it absolutely essential to state that I'm
drawing a conclusion and not paraphrasing.
Dembski's comment is an example of (c). One cannot draw the conclusion that
Dembski does solely from the source cited, without additional premises.
Now, if one is going to supply additional premises, then where does one draw
the line? I could justify almost any misrepresentation on the grounds of
additional premises, e.g. 'I know him well, and what he *really*
meant was X, so I was justified in writing "he said X", even though
he didn't actually say X'.
In the case of the Constitution, it's hard for me to comment, as I don't
have the text. However, if "the Constitution mandates separation of church
and state" is an example of (c), then I certainly would call it a
misrepresentation. (I have the impression that this is such a widespread
misrepresentation that many people who make it believe it's what the
Constitution actually says.)
>As for the word quarantine, I don't see how its context makes it any less
>offensive. Besides, you seem to be missing the context of Dembski's use
>of Dennett's views. He is not interested in making Dennett the object of
his
>analysis. He is focusing on the way many people have perverted the
tentative
>nature of science into dogmatism and Dennett does indeed seem to be guilty
>here.
This is irrelevant to whether Dembski is misrepresenting Dennett.
>As for misrepresenting my views, I would call call you on it immediately.
You might call me on it and say "That's not my view". But, by your
criteria, I would be justified in responding: "Well, that's what you wrote",
on the grounds that it's a reasonable interpretation of what you wrote.
>Now,
>in your original posting, you noted, "This passage is frequently misquoted
by
>anti-evolutionists." I can tell you one thing: If I wrote a book and some
>serious
>misrepresentation was being passed around by those critical of my thesis,
you
>can count on it that I would respond in print or with a web page article.
>Has Dennett responded to these frequent "misquotes?"
I don't know, and it's irrelevant to whether Dembski is misrepresenting
Dennett.
If your point is that maybe Dennet really does hold the beliefs Dembski says
he does, it's still irrelevant. Dembski doesn't say "I suspect that Dennett
recommends..." or "I know from some other source that Dennett recommends..."
Dembski makes a specific claim about what Dembski recommends in a particular
book. And that claim is untrue.
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 20 2000 - 11:38:24 EST