Hello Mike.
>>You're overlooking the fact that Dembski is *quoting* the word
>>"quarantining". So we are entitled to assume that he's using it with the
>>same meaning as Dennett.
>
>But that's the problem. We don't know what Dennett means by quarantine.
>Is he talking about concentration camps? Leper-colonies? The only way
>we can know if Dembski is misrepresenting Dennett is to know what Dennett
>intends by 'quarantine,' along with an exhaustive list of who should be
>subject
>to quarantine.
We're back to the issue of whether it's misrepresentation when someone
presents a possible interpretation as if it was what a person actually said.
If Dembski doesn't know what Dennett means, then he should stick to quoting
him verbatim, or say "this is my interpretation". He's not entitled to
present his guess as if it's what Dennet said.
>>Otherwise, Dembski is quoting out of context.
>
>And you have not shown this.
Note the word "otherwise". If, for the sake of argument, we assume Dembski
is quoting *in* context, then his use of "quarantining" must mean the same
thing as Dennett's use of the word.
>>However, Dennett's only use of the word was in reference to "those whose
>>visions dictate that they cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of us".
>
>And what does he mean by peaceful? We already put people in prison
>if their violence prevents them from co-existing with us, so one suspects
>Dennett is thinking of more than simple violent behavior. As far as we
know,
>someone who dares to criticize or doubt his views is not in his mind being
>peaceful. After all, he does come across as a hard core fundamentalist.
You're using one possible interpretation of the word peaceful. There are
others. Again, we're back to the issue of whether it's misrepresentation
when someone presents a possible interpretation as if it was what a person
actually said.
>>The idea that these are the same people as the parents who are referred to
>>in the next paragraph is just one possible interpretation. Even if it's a
>>reasonable interpretation, we're back with the issue of whether it's
>>acceptable to pass off one possible interpretation as something that
someone
>>actually said.
>
>Did Dembski claim Dennett "actually said" this? Now you seem to be
>misrepresenting Dembski. Dembski's writing was an
>opinion piece posted on something called Meta VIEWS.
According to Dembski, "Dennett recommends" it. To recommend it, he must have
said it. I hope you're not going to argue that writing something doesn't
count as saying it.
>Since you agree it is
>a possible interpretation, I don't see how it becomes a real, concrete
>misrepresentation.
I said it's a possible interpretation passed off (presented) as something
Dennett said.
>>And even if, for the sake of argument, we ignore the fact that Dembski
puts
>>the word "quarantining" in quotes, so we can allow Dembski to use the word
>>in the way you suggest, that's still only one possible interpretation of
the
>>word, and a highly dubious one at that.
>
>It fits nicely in the context of Dennetts views and writings. Let's face
it,
>would anyone be truly shocked and surprised if Dennett wants to quarantine
>parents
>who teach their kids to doubt evolution by natural selection? It's not
>exactly
>out-of-character with the rest of his rants.
I would be shocked. But this is irrelevant to the issue of whether Dembski
misrepresented Dennett.
>>You're asking us to accept that
>>"quarantine parents" can mean "describe [their] teachings as the spreading
>>of falsehoods" or "demonstrate this to [their] children at the earliest
>>opportunity" (Dennett's words).
>
>I wrote:
>
>>Okay, so I use Websters to look up the word "quarantine."
>>One definition is as follows: "to isolate from normal relations
>>or communication." Hmmm. Normal relations and
>>communication among parents and children are to propagate
>>those memes [traditions]. That's an intimate part of the parent-
>>child relationship. And Dennett's plans of re-education
>>are indeed ways to isolate the parents and their memes from
>>their children. Thus, it is indeed quarantine Dennett is talking
>>about when he advocates re-education "as early as possible."
>
>I think that's a pretty darn solid interpretation of Dennett's views even
>if we remove his earlier choice to use the word "quarantine" in a vague
>fashion.
Well, I'm not going to argue over whether it's a reasonable or solid
interpretation. I don't think it is. But that's a matter of opinion, and not
essential to my argument. My point is that it's just one possible
interpretation.
>Of course, the huge point that isn't being addressed here is that what
>Dennett wants to "educate" everyone else's child with is a notion that
>is not supported by evidence. If you have evidence that is was indeed
>natural selection that evolved human beings, let's hear it.
This is irrelevant to the issue of whether Dembski misrepresented Dennett.
You snipped my argument against your assertion that Dembski's interpretation
is not a non sequitur. Do you now accept that Dembski's interpretation is a
non sequitur?
To make sure my overall argument doesn't get lost in the to-and-fro, let me
sum it up here.
- Premises:
(i) Dembski's interpretation is just one possible interpretation of
Dennett's text;
(ii) Dembski presents this interpretation as something which Dennett
actually said;
(iii) it's misrepresentation when someone presents a possible interpretation
as if it was what a person actually said.
- Conclusion:
Therefore Dembski has made a misrepresentation.
I don't think you've ever challenged premise (i). Do you wish to?
You challenged premise (ii) by questioning whether Dembski's assertion
("Dennett recommends...") is equivalent to "Dennett actually said...".
This is a trivial difference. I can just substitute "recommends" for
"actually said" in my premises, and the argument will still hold.
Premise (iii) could be seen as a matter of definition. You seemed to be
saying that it's *not* a misrepresentation when someone presents a possible
interpretation as if it was what a person actually said. So I posted my
assertion that "Mike says it's OK to misrepresent people" as an example of
another assertion which, by the same definition, would not be a
misrepresentation. If you state that my assertion is not a
misrepresentation, then I'll accept that your position is logically sound,
and that our disagreement is just a matter of opinion about what constitutes
a misrepresentation.
(If I have to substitute "recommends" for "actually said" in my premises,
then I'll change my assertion to: "Mike recommends that we consider
misrepresentation to be OK.")
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 22 2000 - 07:54:14 EST