Hello Mike,
>>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.
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.
Would you consider it acceptable if I gave an interpretation of your views,
but represented it as something you actually said? Hypothetical example:
"Mike says it's OK to misrepresent other people's views." (see below)
>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.
It's quite possible to have a reasoned debate with someone who is arrogant,
though it may not be pleasant.
>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.
My interpretation of this paragraph: it's OK to misrepresent someone,
because that person has the opportunity to set the record straight.
>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.
I've skipped discussion of whether Dembski's interpretation is a reasonable
one, because that's another issue. The issue I'm concerned with is Dembski
passing off his interpretation as if it was what Dennett actually said.
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 - 07:55:07 EST