Hi Mike,
There was very little in your last message that addressed the issue of
whether Dembski misrepresented Dennett. I don't want to get distracted into
a discussion about whether Dennett's views are right, wrong, outrageous,
etc. You seem to consider that misrepresention is unimportant. I consider it
to be very important.
(By the way, I note that you quoted another writer misrepresenting Dennett
in a similar way!)
At the risk of heating up the debate, I've made an assertion in the subject
line which ia analogous to Dembksi's assertion about Dennett. Since you've
justified Dembski's assertion on the grounds that it's a "reasonable
interpretation", I've made a reasonable interpretation of something you
wrote. To quote your earlier post (20 March 2000 03:20):
>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.
Reasonable interpretation: it's OK to misrepresent people, because they can
set the record straight afterwards.
Perhaps you will consider my assertion to be an accurate representation. In
that case, this thread will wither on the vine. But if you object that my
assertion is a misrepresentation, you must find some grounds for doing so
that do not apply equally to Dembski's assertion, or else agree with me that
Dembski's assertion is a misrepresentation.
Disclaimer: in making my assertion, I'm committing the same offense of which
I accuse Dembski. I hope it's clear that I'm only doing this to prove a
point, and I don't really mean it.
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 10:31:37 EST