Hi Rich,
You write:
>You're overlooking the fact that Dembski is *quoting* the word
>"quarantining". So we are entitled to assume that he's using it with the
>same meaning as Dennett.
But that's the problem. We don't know what Dennett means by quarantine.
Is he talking about concentration camps? Leper-colonies? The only way
we can know if Dembski is misrepresenting Dennett is to know what Dennett
intends by 'quarantine,' along with an exhaustive list of who should be
subject
to quarantine.
>Otherwise, Dembski is quoting out of context.
And you have not shown this.
>However, Dennett's only use of the word was in reference to "those whose
>visions dictate that they cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of us".
And what does he mean by peaceful? We already put people in prison
if their violence prevents them from co-existing with us, so one suspects
Dennett is thinking of more than simple violent behavior. As far as we know,
someone who dares to criticize or doubt his views is not in his mind being
peaceful. After all, he does come across as a hard core fundamentalist.
>The idea that these are the same people as the parents who are referred to
>in the next paragraph is just one possible interpretation. Even if it's a
>reasonable interpretation, we're back with the issue of whether it's
>acceptable to pass off one possible interpretation as something that someone
>actually said.
Did Dembski claim Dennett "actually said" this? Now you seem to be
misrepresenting Dembski. Dembski's writing was an
opinion piece posted on something called Meta VIEWS. Since you agree it is
a possible interpretation, I don't see how it becomes a real, concrete
misrepresentation.
>And even if, for the sake of argument, we ignore the fact that Dembski puts
>the word "quarantining" in quotes, so we can allow Dembski to use the word
>in the way you suggest, that's still only one possible interpretation of the
>word, and a highly dubious one at that.
It fits nicely in the context of Dennetts views and writings. Let's face it,
would anyone be truly shocked and surprised if Dennett wants to quarantine
parents
who teach their kids to doubt evolution by natural selection? It's not
exactly
out-of-character with the rest of his rants.
>You're asking us to accept that
>"quarantine parents" can mean "describe [their] teachings as the spreading
>of falsehoods" or "demonstrate this to [their] children at the earliest
>opportunity" (Dennett's words).
I wrote:
>Okay, so I use Websters to look up the word "quarantine."
>One definition is as follows: "to isolate from normal relations
>or communication." Hmmm. Normal relations and
>communication among parents and children are to propagate
>those memes [traditions]. That's an intimate part of the parent-
>child relationship. And Dennett's plans of re-education
>are indeed ways to isolate the parents and their memes from
>their children. Thus, it is indeed quarantine Dennett is talking
>about when he advocates re-education "as early as possible."
I think that's a pretty darn solid interpretation of Dennett's views even
if we remove his earlier choice to use the word "quarantine" in a vague
fashion.
Of course, the huge point that isn't being addressed here is that what
Dennett wants to "educate" everyone else's child with is a notion that
is not supported by evidence. If you have evidence that is was indeed
natural selection that evolved human beings, let's hear it.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 23:41:27 EST