From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan@eudoramail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 22 2000 - 20:58:02 EST
>>
>>Glenn wrote:
>[snip]
>> His methodology didn't detect
>>the design,
>>I TOLD HIM IT WAS DESIGNED!!! What kind of methodology is it that needs me
>>to tell him it is designedn in order for his methodology to work?????
>>
<my reply complaining about the use of multiple question marks and
capital lettes snipped for brevity>
>
>Sorry, Iain, I don't accept this criticism. I didn't call Dembski any name,
>I wasn't immorderate. The emphasis was directed at emphaisizing the fact
>that in the case I cite, I was the one who told Dembski that the sequence
>was designed. That is a factual and quite proper criticism of his
>methodology. If you can't handle watching proper criticism, then that is
>your problem not mine.
Let me just say that on the several e-mail discussion lists in which
I have participated, there are generally guidelines published to
those who join the list on what is considered good "netiquette" (I.e.
good manners when participating in an email discussion). It is often
stated in such guidelines that the use of capital letters for
emphasis in an email post is considered bad manners, and the
equivalent of shouting. If you wish to emphasise individual words,
then the recommended procedure is to put an underscore before and
after the word, like _this_ . Perhaps you were not aware of this,
but you must surely realise that putting multiple exclamation marks
and question marks adds no substance to the point you are making, and
therefore can only serve as irritation to the person being addressed
if they don't happen to agree with your point of view.
I do not accept that your criticism is a proper one. Dembski is not
claiming to be able to detect design in all cases. I should not have
to repeat something from an earlier post, but perhaps as it was at
the end of a long Dembski quotation, it got lost. The last sentence
of the quote I gave from NFL states:
"The huge specificational resources associated with the one time pad,
mean we can _never_ draw a design inference for its encrypted
messages" (Emphasis mine).
So, Dembski is not claiming to be able to detect design in this case.
Nor is he declaring that it is undesigned; simply that we cannot
conclude that it is designed.
Therefore I don't believe you can say Dembski's method has failed in
this case. He is not claiming to be able to distinguish between
"Designed" and "Undesigned". The output of the test will either be
"designed", or "don't know".
>Iain, [sigh], this has nothing to do with my criticism of Dembski and shows
>that you still don't understand.
I think we have essentially reached an impasse here. You claim I
don't understand, but I think I understand perfectly well, and that
it is you who does not understand. I don't see how I can put my
argument in any clearer way without repeating myself and becoming
tedious. Let the rest of the list members judge who has the better
understanding. I shall make no further comment.
Iain.
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail
account at http://www.eudoramail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 13:34:01 EST