tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post2871089166441789395..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Irving Kristol and EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-9289130661636938072009-10-27T12:44:06.314-04:002009-10-27T12:44:06.314-04:00Any credibility SLC ever had was shot when he stup...Any credibility SLC ever had was shot when he stupidly wrote: "I have a suspicion that much of the neocon skepticism about evolution is nothing more then a policy of sucking up to religious conservatives because of their support for Israel."Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-27256978790486338692009-09-28T10:40:43.433-04:002009-09-28T10:40:43.433-04:00In the make-believe world of ID, David Berlinski i...In the make-believe world of ID, David Berlinski is a mathematician, Casey Luskin is a <a href="http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/754" rel="nofollow">published geological researcher</a>, and Bill Dembski is <a href="http://www.designinference.com/inteldes.htm" rel="nofollow">the Isaac Newton of information theory</a>. <br /><br />In real life, Berlinski is a crackpot railing against mainstream cosmology and statistical physics, Luskin writes press releases at the Discovery Institute, and Dembski is celebrating his first article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. <br /><br />What an impressive bunch!oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-11377207166892699322009-09-26T14:19:20.221-04:002009-09-26T14:19:20.221-04:00"Theological evidence does not provide us wit..."Theological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect."<br /><br />What, exactly, constitutes "theological evidence" for the "spectrum of intermediate species"? In fact, what constitutes "theological evidence" for <i>anything</i>?<br /><br />-- davinciD. L. Yonge-Mallohttp://stargrads.net/blogs/davinci/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-33462345297610043662009-09-25T01:44:05.293-04:002009-09-25T01:44:05.293-04:00Jeffrey wrote
But the hard-core cultural warriors...Jeffrey wrote<br /><br /><i>But the hard-core cultural warriors, of which the DI forms a part, love to elevate qualifications of the mediocre. It is one of the ways they pretend to be doing valid intellectual work.</i><br /><br />Crowther's comment is a lovely instance of <a href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/09/science-non-sci.html" rel="nofollow">inflationary credentialism</a>, one of the criteria for diagnosing pseudoscience.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-88777019788158253452009-09-24T23:38:29.738-04:002009-09-24T23:38:29.738-04:00I suppose that makes ME a mathematician as well. ...I suppose that makes ME a mathematician as well. Tomorrow, the world!Erasmus, FCDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-84494696023987321762009-09-24T03:06:30.420-04:002009-09-24T03:06:30.420-04:00I love that any description of Berlinski always in...I love that any description of Berlinski always includes the detail that he "lives in Paris." Apparently the fact that he lives in a fabled city known for its artists and intellectuals is supposed to confer some of that romantic aura onto him somehow. Would Berlinski's argument be any less appealing if he "lived in Cleveland?"H.H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-56341081032461317852009-09-23T15:42:17.362-04:002009-09-23T15:42:17.362-04:00Re Jeffrey Shalit & Robert Crowther
Dr. Berli...Re Jeffrey Shalit & Robert Crowther<br /><br />Dr. Berlinski does not, repeat does not, have a PhD in mathematics. His PhD is in philosophy from Princeton, Un. In the past, the good doctor has misrepresented his credentials and only owned up to not being a mathematician when I called him on it several years ago over at Jason Rosenhouses' blog (Prof. Rosenhouse is a real mathematician with a PhD from Dartmouth, a number of peer reviewed publications, and is an associate professor of mathematics at James Madison Un.)<br /><br />As Prof. Shalit points out, Berlinski has no publications on mathematics in any peer reviewed mathematics journal, although to be fair, he has apparently taught beginning calculus at several reputable universities as a non-tenure track lecturer.<br /><br />As Richard Dawkins once said, after listening to a lecture by Berlinski, "anyone who denies the theory of evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (but I don't want to consider that). Berlinski is neither ignorant, stupid, or insane."<br /><br />Dr. Berlinski is all to representative of the folks who hang out at the Dishonesty Institute.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-34552945463989779742009-09-23T15:06:09.043-04:002009-09-23T15:06:09.043-04:00No discussion of Berlinski is complete without an ...No discussion of Berlinski is complete without an appearance of the word <b>supercilious</b>, so I'll get that out of the way.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Francis Crick did indeed write a book about panspermia (bizarrely morphed into "spermatozoa from outer space" by Kristol), <i>Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature</i>, which was published in 1981. In that book he cited as motivation the failure of science to find catalytic RNA. That failure was remedied early in the 1980s - even before Kristol's 1986 piece in the NYTimes, and resulted in a Nobel prize to Sidney Altman and Thomas Cech in 1989.Bayesian Bouffant, FCDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-25838972875415614292009-09-23T14:46:23.381-04:002009-09-23T14:46:23.381-04:00Robert Crowther:
Good of you to stop by.
Berlins...Robert Crowther:<br /><br />Good of you to stop by.<br /><br />Berlinski is, frankly, not much of a mathematician. I discussed his <i>oeuvre</i> <a href="http://recursed.blogspot.com/2008/04/david-berlinski-king-of-poseurs.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Briefly: as far as I can tell, he does not have an advanced degree in mathematics; he does not seem to have a single real peer-reviewed paper in mathematics, although he does have some papers that I would describe more as philosophy than mathematics. His paper "Gödel's question" is utterly laughable. Berlinski's mathematical record would not earn him tenure in a mathematics department at any reasonable university.<br /><br />But the hard-core cultural warriors, of which the DI forms a part, love to elevate qualifications of the mediocre. It is one of the ways they pretend to be doing valid intellectual work. <br /><br />I'm not fooled.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-39778233781163325902009-09-23T14:33:15.785-04:002009-09-23T14:33:15.785-04:00Love him or hate him, David Berlinski is a mathema...Love him or hate him, David Berlinski <i>is</i> a mathematician. And he's a skeptic above all else, both a challenger of Darwin and a challenger of intelligent design. As well as challenging lots of other things. His book <a href="http://www.devilsdelusion.com" rel="nofollow">The Devil's Delusion</a> has just been rereleased this week, along with a website with more information.Robert Crowtherhttp://www.davidberlinski.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-5063155082666057692009-09-23T14:12:53.631-04:002009-09-23T14:12:53.631-04:00Jonathan -
It's not my typing - it's what...Jonathan -<br /><br />It's not my typing - it's what was in the original NYT article, believe it or not!Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-20213497287804573382009-09-23T13:29:14.335-04:002009-09-23T13:29:14.335-04:00Kristol himself was the first editor of Commentary...Kristol himself was the first editor of <i>Commentary</i>.<br />Then "professor of Social Thought" in a business department, making him eminently qualified to ramble on uncomprehendingly about, say, cladism circa.1986.<br />His "Nobel prize-winning geneticist" allegedly advocating space-spermatozoa must be Crick, whose ideas Kristol misrepresents, employing the usual shoddy scholarship known and loved by connoisseurs of anti-evolution.JohnKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42042571610423996532009-09-23T12:25:12.730-04:002009-09-23T12:25:12.730-04:00I liked your typing “Theological evidence” for “Ge...I liked your typing “Theological evidence” for “Geological evidence”!Jonathan Lubinhttp://www.math.brown.edu/~lubinjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-10983685398262286492009-09-23T10:41:59.424-04:002009-09-23T10:41:59.424-04:00It should be noted that the late and unlamented Mr...It should be noted that the late and unlamented Mr. Kristols' neocon soulmate, Norman Podhoretz, has published several idiotic articles on evolution by fake mathematician, David Berlinski, in his magazine, Commentary. I have a suspicion that much of the neocon skepticism about evolution is nothing more then a policy of sucking up to religious conservatives because of their support for Israel. I seriously doubt that either Kristol or Podhoretz have the slightest understanding of evolution, or in fact, of any other scientific theory (Podhoretz also published an article in his magazine by Berlinski criticizing the big bang theory).SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-35610677655918136602009-09-23T09:16:41.289-04:002009-09-23T09:16:41.289-04:00Ron Bailey's piece, which I well recall when i...Ron Bailey's piece, which I well recall when it came out, is particularly damning. It's one thing to not accept evolution. Lots of people don't ever understand it well anyway. It's quite another thing to promote a fake skepticism about it for fear of the affect it will allegedly have on those poor and ignorant people whose belief in God you do not even share.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.com