From: Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>
>At 06:17 PM 10/02/2000, you wrote:
>>From: Paul Nelson <pnelson2@ix.netcom.com>
>>[...]
>> >Back to work. One last comment, for those who
>> >want me to do CSI calculations for them:
>> >
>> >Sorry, life is short. I've already provided citations
>> >(Scherer 1983, 1996; Rust 1992) where such calculations
>> >have been done to my satisfaction.
>
>Richard
>>I really want to see calculations that have been done to *Dembski's*
>>satisfaction, since only Dembski can reliably say whether they are bona
fide
>>applications of his methods.
>
>Chris
>This would only be true if he has not clearly and/or completely specified
>his method. If he *has* clearly and completely specified it, it should be
>applicable by anyone who can do the needed calculations. If this cannot be
>done, then it may indicate a flaw in Dembski's method or its presentation.
True, but Dembski has *not* clearly and completely specified his method.
The problem is that it's difficult to critique his method effectively
because Dembski won't state clearly what the method is. Given Dembski's
penchant for equivocation, I doubt he will ever state his method precisely.
Dembski has a responsibility to (a) clarify his method, and (b) reveal the
data which form the basis of his claim to have detected ID in nature. He
could kill both these birds with one stone, by providing full details of the
application of his method to detecting ID in nature. Why doesn't he do so?
(Rhetorical question.)
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 05:49:41 EDT