Hi Rich,
You wrote:
>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.
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.
As for misrepresenting my views, I would call call you on it immediately.
The point is that it is unclear if Dembski does misrepresent Dennett. 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?"
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 20 2000 - 09:15:30 EST