Reflectorites
I understand that Dembski is writing a new book in which he will,
amongst other things, answer his critics.
Included in this will be an answer to the `do the calculation' criticisms that
Richard and Wesley have made. There will, I understand, be some generic
types of calculations that will set upper bounds on the improbabilities
involved in certain complex structures. It is expected that the application
of these to biology will be fairly straightforward.
Unfortunately I am afraid I can give no further information at this stage.
Richard and Wesley will just have to be patient!
In the meantime, I am re-reading "The Design Inference" in order to
answer Richard's other criticisms.
I would like to actually *thank* Richard and Wesley for their strong
criticisms of ID in general and Dembski's Design Inference in particular.
Such criticisms are only to be expected and are in fact a back-handed
compliment to the perceived threat of ID. In the end such criticisms
will *help* ID become more robust. So to Richard and Wesley and other
critics, keep 'em coming! :-)
Steve
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 18:56:53 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>Since the design inference seems to be the hot topic here at the moment,
>I've posted the draft of my rebuttal at
>http://website.lineone.net/~rwein/skeptic/whatswrong.htm. I would welcome
>comments and suggestions, so that I can iron out any problems before
>releasing it to a wider audience.
>
>As it's still in a draft state, please don't quote it outside the Reflector
>or create a link to it for the time being.
>
>Richard Wein (Tich)
>--------------------------------
>"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
>probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
> -- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
>claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Over twenty years ago Thomas Kuhn wrote a groundbreaking book called
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ... Kuhn made the point that many
scientific discoveries come from people outside the mainstream of the
dominant theory (he called it a paradigm) currently embraced by the
scientific community. This is because, as outsiders, they have not been
trained merely to see the data in a certain way; their perceptual grid or
theoretical orientation is not so unquestioned and accepted as to have
embedded itself in the subconscious level so that the data must be made to
fit that orientation. Kuhn went on to say that advocates of a theory that
challenges the dominant paradigm often experience various kinds of
sociological pressure to conform with that paradigm. They may be called
pseudoscientists, they may have difficulty getting published in standard
professional journals, and in general they may be ostracized by the scientific
community. Nevertheless, Kuhn points out that these small rebel groups
have been extremely valuable to the progress of science, because they
challenge major paradigms and urge that anomalies be taken seriously."
(Moreland J.P., in Moreland J.P., ed., "Introduction," in Moreland J.P., ed.,
"The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer,"
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.36)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 20:02:34 EDT