Reflectorites
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:23:05 -0000, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>A little reality check might help Richard (and Ivar too BTW). Dembski has
>>Ph.D's in psychology, philosophy, mathematics, physics and theology (not
>>an easy subject BTW).
This was incorrect as Richard points out below. It should have read "degrees"
not "Ph.D's". Dembski's major qualifications are:
"William A. Dembski holds a Ph.D. in mathematics from the
University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
University of Illinois at Chicago. He also has earned degrees in
theology [M.Div., Princeton] and psychology. He is the recipient of
two fellowships from the National Science Foundation .... He has
done postdoctoral work at the University of Chicago,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University and
Northwestern University. Dembski has written numerous scholarly
articles .... (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," 1999, rear inside
cover)
>SJ>Before Richard assumes that such a person has
>>made an obvious and glaring error (which was missed by his Ph.D
>>supervisors and peer-reviewers too) Richard might just consider that
>>maybe he (Richard) has got it wrong?
RW>As I've said before, it's inconsistent of Stephen to make appeals to the
>authority of a handful of academics,
And as I have said before, this is not an appeal to authority. It is just plain
common sense. Richard has a BSc in Statistics. Dembski has a *Ph.D* in
Mathematics (Probability Theory). I am a `mathematically challenged' layman
so I am unable to evaluate complex mathematical arguments. If I am faced
with a claim by Richard and Dembski on a matter of statistics that I don't
have the maths skills to resolve, I will assume that Dembski with a Ph.D is
right and Richard with a BSc is wrong. This is what layman juries do all the
time when faced with conflicting claims of expert witnesses.
RW>while rejecting the authority of the overwhelming majority of academics.
I presume Richard here means "academics" in the discipline of *evolution*
("academics" in other fields have no "authority" in evolution)? If so, this is
different from maths or statistics. While I cannot understand the latter I
*can* understand the claims of evolutionists. Evolution's main claims are
supposed to be so simple that even school kids in Kansas can understand it
and if one doesn't believe it one is supposed to be "ignorant, stupid or
insane ... or wicked" (Dawkins R., New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7,
p34).
And apart from having debated evolution in this and other Lists almost
continuously since 1995 and having read much of the popular, and some of
the technical, evolutionary literature in that period, I have a university
Biology degree, and passed with distinction the first unit called Origins and
the Evolution of Life, which is the major evolution unit in the entire degree.
So I don't need to accept evolutionary arguments on "the authority of the
overwhelming majority of academics" but I can evaluate them for myself.
Besides "the authority of the overwhelming majority of academics" are
*not* agreed on evolution. In fact they hardly agree on *anything*, except
that "it happened":
"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement
seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus ..."
(Conway Morris S., "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,"
Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11).
They all seem to disagree with each other on *how* "it happened". For
example the UK's leading evolutionist Maynard Smith publicly wrote of the
USA's leading evolutionist Gould:
"Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side
of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come
to be seen by nonbiologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist.
In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed
his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as
to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be
publicly criticised because he is at least on our side against the
creationists." (Maynard Smith J., Review of Darwin's Dangerous
Idea, by Daniel Dennett, New York Review of Books, 30
November 1995, in Brown A., "The Darwin Wars," 1999, p.60)
And Gould's colleague Lewontin had already written of Maynard Smith's
colleague Dawkins:
"Dawkins's vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in
evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively
superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental
and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has
moved in the direction of emphasizing non-selective forces in
evolution" (Lewontin R., review of The Demon-haunted World:
Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan, New York Review
of Books, 9 January 1997, in Brown A., 1999, p.61).
BTW in my case I would agree (and so would Johnson IMHO) with "the
overwhelming majority of academics" that something that *could* be
called "evolution" (i.e. life started of simple and has become more complex
over time), has "happened."
In fact Behe has publicly said that his position would be included in the
category "evolution occurred, but was guided by God" (as mine would
have to be too given the pollster's choice between YEC, God-guided
evolution or atheistic evolution)":
"Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even
though I clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which
Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt
common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with
the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution
occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of
Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is
simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it
is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with
statements like David DeRosier's in the journal "Cell": "More so
than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a
human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that
such observations may be on to something objectively correct?"
(Behe M.J., "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism," Science,
dEbate, 7 July 2000.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/288/5467/813?ck=nck#EL74)
Thus Behe (and my, and IMHO Johnson's) disagreement is the same as
"the overwhelming majority of academics" who disagree with each other.
That is, we disagree with them about *how* "it happened".
I should clarify that Behe's (and my position) could probably once have
been called Theistic Evolution, but today TE effectively means Theistic
*Naturalistic* Evolution or Deistic Evolution. Therefore I personally call my
position by the more accurate name Mediate Creation.
RW>Following your line of argument, would you agree that a reality check is in
>order for Phillip Johnson, a lawyer, who accuses Darwinian evolution of
>being pseudoscience, although it has the support of people with far more
>scientific credentials than he has?
One must admire Richard's "attack is the best defence" strategy! On his
own criteria, he, with a BSc in Statistics, can argue for "Darwinian
evolution" but Johnson being a Doctor of Jurisprudence (and a senior
Professor of Law) cannot. And that with Johnson reading almost all the
modern "Darwinian evolution" literature over the last 15 years and Richard
hardly having read any of it!
And even then Richard still doesn't seem to realise that there are some
scientists with very impressive "scientific credentials", like Pierre Grasse,
former Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne University, ex-president of the
French Academie des Sciences, and editor of a 28-volume encyclopaedia of
zoology, who also "accuses Darwinian evolution of being pseudoscience":
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses
incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires
fallacious interpretations. ... Through use and abuse of hidden
postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, A
PSEUDOSCIENCE HAS BEEN CREATED. It is taking root in
the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and
biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental
concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case." (Grasse P.-
P., "Evolution of Living Organisms," 1977, p.6. Emphasis mine).
RW>I think that you (or maybe it was Johnson) pointed out once before that even
>a non-scientist like Johnson can detect logical errors made by scientists.
>And I'm better qualified in statistics than Johnson is in science.
No doubt. But Johnson does not base any arguments on statistics.
However on Richard's own grounds Johnson is "better qualified" than
"scientists" (and Richard) in Johnson's specialty, which is "analyzing the
logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those
arguments":
"Before undertaking this task I should say something about my
qualifications and purpose. I am not a scientist but an academic
lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of
arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those
arguments. This background is more appropriate than one might
think, because what people believe about evolution and Darwinism
depends very heavily on the kind of logic they employ and the kind
of assumptions they make." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial,"
1993, p.13).
RW>Not that
>one needs any knowledge of statistics to see that Dembski has not provided
>the data to support his claims. By the way, most of my rebuttal of the
>Design Inference (at
>http://website.lineone.net/~rwein/skeptic/whatswrong.htm) is written in
>terms that a layperson can understand. Perhaps you should read it and do
>your own reality check.
When I get time I might. But I have already read Richard's arguments on
this and provided him with some explanations regarding his claim that
Dembski had not provided calculations. To date Richard has AFAIK not
acknowledged these points so I cannot see what cost/benefit there would
be in reading the same misleading arguments again.
RW>Note also that Dembski has two PhDs (in mathematics and philosophy), not
>five as you imply. His degrees in psychology, statistics and theology are at
>the bachelor or masters level. As far as I can determine, he has no degree
>in physics.
Yes. Sorry. See above.
RW>The Design Inference was the subject of Dembski's dissertation for his Ph.D
>in *philosophy*,
Agreed. I already had posted that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:08:01 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>The Design Inference was based on Dembski's Ph.D in Philosophy at the
>University of Illinois:
>
> "The monograph itself is a revised version of my philosophy
> dissertation from the University of Illinois at Chicago (1996)."
> (Dembski W.A., "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance
> Through Small Probabilities," Cambridge University Press:
> Cambridge UK, 1998, p.xv)
>
>[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RW>the doctorate was awarded by a philosophy department, and
>his two dissertation supervisors (mentioned in TDI) are philosophers, not
>mathematicians or statisticians.
It does not follow that because Dembski's "two dissertation supervisors"
Chastain and Glover "are philosophers" that they are "not mathematicians
or statisticians" (or at least that they are not qualified in mathematics or
statistics as it applies to modern philosophy). TDI has a lot of symbolic
logic in it so presumably Chastain and Glover were competent in that area.
If Richard wishes to assert they weren't, the burden of proof is on him
to show it.
Here are some comments by two other philosophers who Dembski says in
TDI helped advise him on it, which indicates that philosophers these days
must deal with "moderncharacterizations of probability and complexity, and
... notions of randomness".
Note that Wimsatt says that "Dembski's analysis of randomness is the most
sophisticated to be found in the literature" and Jarrett says that of "The
Design Inference... I expect this to be one of those rare books that genuinely
transforms its subject":
"Dembski has written a sparklingly original book. Not since David
Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion has someone taken
such a close look at the design argument, but it is done now in a
much broader post-Darwinian context. Now we proceed with
modern characterizations of probability and complexity, and the
results bear fundamentally on notions of randomness and on
strategies for dealing with the explanation of radically improbable
events. We almost forget that design arguments are implicit in
criminal arguments 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' plagiarism,
phylogenetic inference, cryptography, and a host of other modern
contexts. Dembski's analysis of randomness is the most
sophisticated to be found in the literature, and his discussions are an
important contribution to the theory of explanation and a timely
discussion of a neglected and unanticipatedly important topic."
William C. Wimsatt University of Chicago
and
"In my view, Dembski has given us a brilliant study of the precise
connections linking chance, probability, and design. A lucidly
written work of striking insight and originality, The Design
Inference provides significant progress concerning notoriously
difficult questions. I expect this to be one of those rare books that
genuinely transforms its subject." Jon P. Jarrett University of
Illinois at Chicago"
(Dembski W.A., "The Design Inference,"1998, back cover)
RW>I've yet to see a statement by anyone with any authority to make one that
>TDI underwent a peer review. There have been rumours to the contrary.
That *Richard* hasn't seen something or has heard "rumours" is hardly
evidence! The fact is that TDI *was* substantially Dembski's Ph.D thesis in
philosophy and it *was* published by CUP. It was also part of a series of
studies called the Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision
Theory, under a General Editor and twelve Advisory Editors, whose names
are listed on page (ii).
In fact Dembski's dissertation actually won "the 1996 Outstanding
Dissertation Award in fine arts and humanities from University of Illinois at
Chicago" (http://leaderu.com/offices/dembski/menus/cv.html).
Apart from the normal peer-review of a Ph.D thesis, TDI would have been
peer-reviewed also by CUP's own internal review process. For details see
http://uk.cambridge.org/aboutus/infoforauthors/bookproposal.htm. Here is
an excerpt:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge University Press
Science, Technical and Medical - preparing your book proposal
Cambridge University Press is keen to evaluate proposals for books on science,
technology and medicine. These notes are to help you to prepare a proposal
that can be fully, carefully and rapidly assessed.
About Cambridge University Press
Cambridge University Press is an integral part of the University of
Cambridge and is constitutionally devoted to printing and publishing for
'the acquisition, advancement, conservation and dissemination of
knowledge in all subjects'. The Press is governed by a University Syndicate,
an official committee comprising 18 senior University academics from a
wide variety of disciplines, which was first established in the sixteenth
century. The Press Syndicate meets twice weekly during term time (and
monthly during the vacation). At these meetings the Press editors
recommend proposals to the Syndicate for publication. When a
recommendation is accepted by the Syndicate, a contract is then offered to
the author(s).
Preparing your proposal
The function of the proposal is to convince the Press editor, referees and
Press Syndicate that the book you propose will be a valuable addition to
the literature. In general the more you can tell us about the book the better.
We need to know a working title, your reasons for writing, what the book
will cover, the expected readership and information about you and other
authors or contributors.
[...]
Procedure
Your proposal and any supporting material will be read by the appropriate
Cambridge editor, who will discuss it with colleagues; it will then normally
be read by independent, external reviewers, who observe strict rules of
confidentiality. We strongly advise you to show your outline to your
immediate collaborators and other professional colleagues, and to consider
their opinions, before we see it. This will speed up our reviewing process
and will almost certainly help you to write a well-balanced proposal. The
comments of our own staff and of outside anonymous reviewers will be
communicated to you, and you will be invited to comment on and reply to them.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe Richard could pass this on to those who have been peddling "rumours"
that TDI was not peer-reviewed?
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And some false hypotheses make accurate predictions. Consider this
hypothesis: "Night and day are caused by the sun orbiting around Earth in
an east-west direction." This hypothesis predicts that the sun will rise each
morning in the east, move across the sky, and set in the west, which is
exactly what we observe. However, the "geocentric universe" hypothesis
makes many other predictions that enable us to falsify the hypothesis. Of
the many hypotheses proposed to answer a particular question, the correct
explanation may not even be included. Even the most thoroughly tested
hypotheses are accepted only conditionally, pending further investigation."
(Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology," [1987],
Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, Fifth Edition, 1999, p.15)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 21:06:52 EST