Hi Rich,
In my opinion, this thread has frayed into one of those metadiscussions
that can be likened to a tempest in a teapot. Not only would I rather
invest my energies on other topics, but I am starting to feel guilty
about cluttering people's e-mail boxes with this type of discussion.
Thus, this (and the other two postings) will be my last contributions
to this exchange.
So let's focus on what you consider the bottom-line:
>To make sure my overall argument doesn't get lost in the to-and-fro, let me
>sum it up here.
Your argument is as follows:
>- 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?
Definitely. I don't think this interpretation is "just one possible
interpretation." I think it is the interpretation that best fits the
overall meaning of what Dennett advocates in his book. That is,
although Dennett does not literally claim we should quarantine
parents who teach their children to doubt Darwinism, this is (IMO)
what he advocates.
The catch is how we define 'quarantine.' Does Dennett mean
'quarantine' in a literal sense (something analogous to a leper
colony)? I don't think so, but if he did, his intolerance is far
more dangerous that even I suspected and needs to be explored
out in the open. I think Dennett means 'quarantine' in a metaphorical
sense. So, let's take it from there.
As Numbers quotes:
>"The message is clear," he wrote: "those who will not accomodate,
>who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest
>and wildest strain of their heritage alive, we will be obliged,
>reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to
>disable the memes [traditions] they fight for."
Dennett is intent on caging or quarantining religious beliefs
he doesn't agree with. He threatens that "we" will do our best
to disable these religious "memes" and it is a straight line to
the re-education of children, as soon as possible, so that
their parent's memes are disabled. Thus, as I have argued,
this plan of "deprogramming" is indeed "quarantine-in-action."
As a "good writer," we have good reason to expect Dennett's
various claims and proposals to be coherently linked.
Furthermore, Demsbki's interpretation nicely fits the overall
character of Dennett's brand of anti-religiosity. Dennett does NOT
come across as someone who can tolerate opposition to his
precious memes. His faith in his metaphysics makes him feel
obligated to cage, quarantine, disarm, disable, etc. His "fighting
words" expose his fundamentalism and make Dembski's interpretation
one that is most rational and likely. I don't view it as "just one
possible" interpretation as I don't see a better interpretation that
takes into account the overall context of Dennett's writings and
goals.
>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.
Fine, I'll make that change in a moment.
>Premise (iii) could be seen as a matter of definition.
Yes, and how does Websters define 'misrepresent?' To "give a
false or misleading representation." Thus, only if Dembski's
interpretation is indeed false or misleading is it a misrepresentation.
Yet there is nothing I can see that would lead me to think
this. If Dennett was someone who expressed great respect
for religions or encouraged criticism of his darwinian faith,
I'd have reason to think so. The only way your conclusion
follows is if you can demonstrate that it is indeed false that
Dennett recommends we quarantine parents who teach their
kids to doubt Darwinism. That he may not literally say this
does not mean he does not recommend this.
>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.
But Dembski's interpretation is more than just one possible
interpretation. It is the one that makes the most sense out
of Dennetts writings and goals.
>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.
But your misrepresentation is a complete non sequitur that does
not fit with all that I have written. Dembski's interpretation seems
to fit Dennett like a glove.
So let me end by making the argument that has guided my thinking:
(ia) Dembski's interpretation of Dennett's text is likely to be valid;
(iia) In an opinion piece, Dembski presents his likely interpretation
as something which Dennett recommends;
(iiia) it's misrepresentation when you "give a false or misleading
representation"
[Websters definition]
-Conclusion
A. Dembski may have misrepresented Dennett, but this seems unlikely.
I should point out if I really think Dennett was misrepresented, I would
have no problem agreeing with this. It would be very easy to concede
and move on. But I just can't swallow this notion that Dembski did
indeed misrepresent Dennett. I tried and it came back up. For me to
swallow this, I need a much clear picture of what Dennett means with
all his attack language. And that takes us full circle to many of my
unanswered questions.
So let's agree to disagree, okay? (or do you need to be right?)
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 14:14:52 EST