From: FMAJ1019@aol.com <FMAJ1019@aol.com>
>In a message dated 10/22/2000 3:03:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
[...]
>SJ: And before FJ/Pim presses his "argument from authority" macro, I would
>point out that juries routinely assess the relative qualifications of
expert
>witnesses and send people to gaol and even execute them on the
>strength of same.
>
>Wesley and Richard have presented some very insightful analyses of the
>problems with TDI, CSI.
Thank you!
>As such qualifications do not really matter. We
>should instead focus on the arguments.
It's reasonable to say "I'm not qualified to argue on this matter so I won't
discuss it but will defer to such-and-such an authority." But it seems that
Stephen wants to have his cake and eat it, arguing in support of the design
inference and then attempting to cast doubt on his opponents' arguments with
an appeal to authority. If Stephen wishes to avoid this charge, he should
clarify what area he feels competent to argue over and what area he doesn't.
For example, he might say: "I understand the method of the design inference,
and so am competent to judge whether a given calculation fits the method,
but I'm not competent to judge whether the design inference is a valid
method." If that was his position, then he should steer clear of the latter
area, and not make appeals to authority regarding the former.
Of course, there's not much point in making an appeal to authority unless
the source you're appealing to really has some authority. Those of us who've
seen how IDers, regardless of their qualifications, are blinded to reason by
their dogma will laugh at the idea of Dembski being any sort of authority.
Before Stephen accuses me of an ad hominem argument, let me point that, if
you appeal to an authority, you're making a pro homine argument (I've just
coined that term!), and it's perfectly valid for me to introduce ad hominem
arguments against that authority.
Let me also make a point I've made before. If valid, Dembski's work on
specification would be a groundbreaking advance in statistical theory
(regardless of its relevance to design). Yet I've seen no positive reaction
to it from anyone with an advanced degree in statistics. I'm sure that if
there had been any such reaction, Dembski's supporters would be shouting it
from the rooftops. There hasn't been much negative reaction from
statisticians either, which suggests that Dembski is not even attempting to
convince the statistical community, but is aiming his arguments only at
non-statisticians. I wonder why!
The question of how Dembski's nonsense got published in the series of books
"Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory" is an
interesting one. I would very much like to know whether it went through a
peer review process, and, if so, who the reviewers were. Anyone have any
info on this?
In general, of course, it's rather unwise of IDers to make appeals to
authority, as the vast majority of scientific authorities are against them.
For example, IDers' absurd claims that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is some
sort of a problem for evolution is rejected by almost all physicists that
have bothered to comment on it. I wish Stephen would defer to authority on
that one!
[...]
>http://members.aol.com/echiprt/design.htm
>
>In general Eli has provided us with a insightful analysis of Dembski's
claims.
Chiprout makes some very good points. But I think he also makes some
mistakes. Don't accept his arguments uncritically. (But you wouldn't do
that, would you?) ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 13:56:00 EDT