tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post3151690062953931685..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Another ID Icon: G. K. ChestertonUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-77792226121311874012013-01-18T15:54:33.961-05:002013-01-18T15:54:33.961-05:00"You make assertions that you did not back up..."You make assertions that you did not back up with evidence"<br /><br />You're 100% backwards. You wrote "I've never heard a great scientist called "impressively (or formidably) learned" and I just asked if you Googled it. I made no assertions up to that point. Go back and check the thread. You just didn't like the "imperious" <i>way</i> I asked. <br /><br /><br />"I asked a simple question critically relevant to the topic you yourself raised. You evaded the question. "<br /><br />Yes, your simple question came right after my simple question. I was waiting for you to answer mine first. You didn't at first. But I assumed you weren't evading, though. I just thought you might be lazy.<br /><br />"This also increases the Bayesian inference that you are a creationist. "<br /><br />And this comment increases the Bayesian inference that you don't know how to distinguish between ID (not necessarily the Discovery type) and creationism. The asshole inference might be true. If it's true, so what?<br /><br />I guess since you did all that research, I feel obligated to answer your question, "Impreza, do you believe Dembski or Meyer or Wells or anyone at the DI has achieved anything?"<br /><br />Well, just like most published scientists, they all wrote stuff that, <i>right or wrong in the end</i>, got people thinking.<br />Imprezanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42610352744249457292013-01-17T17:19:13.347-05:002013-01-17T17:19:13.347-05:00@Impreza,
"I'm not your Google monkey.&q...@Impreza,<br /><br /><i>"I'm not your Google monkey."</i><br /><br />You make assertions that you did not back up with evidence. <br /><br />Instead, you insist it is <b>MY responsibility to find evidence to support your assertions.</b><br /><br />This also increases the Bayesian inference that you are a creationist. <br /><br />However, I admit that is just an increased likelihood, not proof. You may not be a creationist, but the Bayesian inference that you are an asshole is increasingly rapidly.<br /><br />Nevertheless I did google "formidably learned" plus "Dawkins" as you imperiously demand I do for you.<br /><br />I found that most of the hits describe New Anti-Atheists opposed to Dawkins as "formidably learned". <br /><br />Because the New Anti-Atheists cannot support their religious beliefs with actual evidence, the evidence we are provided with is instead that the New Anti-Atheists are "formidably learned", therefore right.<br /><br />For example, here David Hart, apparently a theologian, and New Anti-Atheist, <a href="http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=outside&m=1373239" rel="nofollow">is congratulated</a> for his evidence-free attacks on Dawkins by someone called "Regmac":<br /><br /><i>"What [David] Hart does so well is to demonstrate <b>the appalling ignorance of the New Atheists</b> insofar as their "knowledge" of Christianity is concerned. If you are going to attack something, at least invest the time and effort to thoroughly understand the subject you wish to attack. But that's too much like work for today's atheists. As a result of their aversion to work, <b>they come off looking like a bunch of vapid poseurs</b>; as Hart delights in <b>exposing their schoolboy grasp of Christianity.</b> Let's title this one, <b>"Little boys mad at God, encounter a formidably learned theologian and philosopher."</b> :)" </i><br />[<a href="http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=outside&m=1373239" rel="nofollow">"Regmac" praising David Hart</a>]<br /><br /><br />Another example, Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, debates Dawkins and is called a "formidably learned" opponent <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/john-lloyd/2012/02/28/god-richard-dawkins-and-the-meaning-of-life/" rel="nofollow">at this site</a>.<br /><br />Karen Armstrong, an ex-nun who writes on religion, and who has attacked Dawkins, is called "formidably learned" <a href="http://raote.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/mysterious-moves/" rel="nofollow">at this site</a>.<br /><br />Gilbert White, an 18th-century clergyman, lived before Dawkins, but <a href="http://www.nthposition.com/heselbornepioneer.php" rel="nofollow">this article</a> describes him as "formidably learned" and opposed to Dawkins: "But [Gilbert] White was no Dawkins."<br /><br />There are several citations to DI fellow and IDiot George Gilder calling Dembski and Meyer "formidably learned" as we have seen.<br /><br />I see Dawkins himself called "a formidably learned polymath" <a href="http://www.myreviewer.com/Book/126201/The-Greatest-Show-on-Earth/127052/Review-by-David-Shepherd" rel="nofollow">at this book review.</a><br /><br />So you got me, Dawkins was called "formidably learned" once, while his opponents are very frequently called "formidably learned." But even the one example where Dawkins is called "formidably learned", is a review of a book of his full of evidence for evolution. <br /><br />In contrast, Dawkins' opponents, the New Anti-Atheists, present no factually accurate criticisms of evolution; and they are not honest enough to admit that their "logical proofs" of God's existence of strings of multiple logical fallacies.<br /><br />Consequently, the New Anti-Atheists must conceal the absence of evidence for their position by calling each other "formidably learned" over and over, as if this is a substitute for evidence. It is, if you are servilely crouched beneath servile prejudices, and dumb as dogshit.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-75994092217675787342013-01-17T16:48:18.489-05:002013-01-17T16:48:18.489-05:00@Impreza,
I asked a simple question critically re...@Impreza,<br /><br />I asked a simple question critically relevant to the topic you yourself raised. You evaded the question. <br /><br />This increases the Bayesian inference that you are creationist.<br /><br />I ask again:<br /><br /><i>Impreza, do you believe Dembski or Meyer or Wells or anyone at the DI has achieved anything? If so, please be specific as to what they achieved.</i>Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-2267789082914462012013-01-16T03:39:01.244-05:002013-01-16T03:39:01.244-05:00Helpful tip: add the word "Dawkins" to y...Helpful tip: add the word "Dawkins" to your Google search. (I'd paste the quote myself, but it's so much fun saying "I'm not your Google monkey.")Imprezanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-14105258689997444212013-01-16T03:30:20.025-05:002013-01-16T03:30:20.025-05:00I'm so glad you made your correction. Before I...I'm so glad you made your correction. Before I answer your question, have you bothered to Google on "formidably learned"? What did you find?Imprezanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-67587031351307993812013-01-14T18:53:36.731-05:002013-01-14T18:53:36.731-05:00Impreza, do you believe Dembski or Meyer or Wells ...Impreza, do you believe Dembski or Meyer or Wells or anyone at the DI has achieved anything? If so, please be specific as to what they achieved.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-44461289291295370842013-01-14T18:51:24.510-05:002013-01-14T18:51:24.510-05:00I corrected that quote in the credential inflation...I corrected that quote in the credential inflation thread. It was George Gilder of the DI calling Dembski and Meyer "formidably learned." Sorry for the misquote.<br /><br />I have never once heard any scientist called "formidably learned ". If you have, copy the quote here.<br /><br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-43618581477717580002013-01-14T16:12:39.426-05:002013-01-14T16:12:39.426-05:00Diogenes, Google on "impressively learned&quo...Diogenes, Google on "impressively learned" and determine if any of those people in fact haven't "achieved anything".Imprezanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-17688570992020053312013-01-13T21:47:54.993-05:002013-01-13T21:47:54.993-05:00Didn't Sal Cordova say he would throw himself ...Didn't Sal Cordova say he would throw himself on a grenade for Dembski? Or something to that effect. I'll try to find the actual quote.<br /><br />Didn't Casey Luskin compare Dembski and his fellow DI scholars to the Fellowship of the Ring? With "materialists" as the vile orcs, I suppose that follows. So Dembski is who, Gsndalf?<br /><br />Didn't David Berlinski call Dembski and I think Wells "impressively learned"? That's what they call you when you haven't achieved anything. I've never heard a great scientist called "impressively learned."<br /><br />In "Signature in the Cell", didn't Stephen Meyer portray Doug Axe like he was Watson and Crick rolled into one? And Meyer insinuated Jack Szostak was a "crackpot." Year that shit book was published, Szostak won the Nobel Prize.<br /><br />Hey Jeff, doesn't a real university pay you to teach a course in Kolmogorov information theory? What would you know.<br /><br />I'll debate Dembski. Or any ID proponent named in this comment, plus Luskin and Behe and Klingleberry. If you know them, tell them Diogenes calls them chicken.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-70052400539140368282013-01-13T19:20:40.656-05:002013-01-13T19:20:40.656-05:00"then you've already demonstrated that yo..."then you've already demonstrated that you're a gullible fool who swallows things uncritically." <br /><br />Witty, but it doesn't demonstrate that I swallow <i>every</i>thing uncritically. Besides, and I think you're forgetting this, I don't swallow all the things you write on your blog uncritically. Gulpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-31976687415789716172013-01-13T04:59:09.717-05:002013-01-13T04:59:09.717-05:00an ID advocate, such as myself, does not have to s...<i>an ID advocate, such as myself, does not have to swallow exaggerated claims about Dembski uncritically.</i><br /><br />If you're an ID advocate, then you've already demonstrated that you're a gullible fool who swallows things uncritically. And you can't even point to a single ID advocate who has criticized Dembski, despite his disgraceful antics and his demonstrably wrong claims. I'd say I'm right on the mark.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-69354002179453381742013-01-12T20:47:33.060-05:002013-01-12T20:47:33.060-05:00All your tangential remarks are not hiding the fac...All your tangential remarks are not hiding the fact that you were wrong on one thing: an ID advocate, such as myself, does not <i>have to</i> swallow exaggerated claims about Dembski uncritically.Gulpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-41613397940123052912013-01-11T17:18:20.162-05:002013-01-11T17:18:20.162-05:00But it's not worth my time to write a blog abo...<i> But it's not worth my time to write a blog about how the claim is exaggerated.</i><br /><br />Yes, we know already that intellectual honesty is not a big concern of ID advocates. But it's always useful to have yet another example.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-66084657007264340422013-01-11T17:07:27.282-05:002013-01-11T17:07:27.282-05:00You're missing my point. My point is that I do...You're missing my point. My point is that I don't swallow that exaggerated claim uncritically. But it's not worth my time to write a blog about how the claim is exaggerated.Gulpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-91597110693177744782013-01-11T08:10:47.196-05:002013-01-11T08:10:47.196-05:00What if there's a report that a hundred thousa...<i>What if there's a report that a hundred thousand witnessed a miracle?</i><br /><br />Then the evidence comprises that single report.<br /><br />Thanks, Jeff, for this post. The quote is a lovely example (i.e., a useful case of an awful example) bearing on the epistemology of testimony, on which topic I'm doing some work. Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-34626190736995122402013-01-11T07:04:36.863-05:002013-01-11T07:04:36.863-05:00In a sense, the annoying thing about Chesterton an...In a sense, the annoying thing about Chesterton and Lewis is not that they had a poor grasp of logic (they're not alone). The annoying thing is that they were reasonably competent writers: it's heartbreaking to see them waste it on nonexplanations.James Cranchhttp://jdc41.user.srcf.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-39995704846051017392013-01-11T06:06:29.459-05:002013-01-11T06:06:29.459-05:00How many ID advocates have stated that they think ...<i>How many ID advocates have stated that they think Dembski is held in their minds to be in such elevated status?<br /></i><br /><br />Pretty much all of them. I can see you are completely unfamiliar with the ID literature.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-44986431470551870442013-01-11T04:30:58.601-05:002013-01-11T04:30:58.601-05:00And why not debate him and show you are far more a...<i>And why not debate him and show you are far more accurate on evolution than he is?</i><br /><br />You haven't read my paper in <i>Synthese</i>, have you?<br /><br /><i>What gives you the right to call yourself and expert in this field </i><br /><br />Let's see, how about a published paper on the topic, and being asked to be an expert witness in the Dover trial? Would that have something to do with it?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-23237458061880782252013-01-11T04:08:55.481-05:002013-01-11T04:08:55.481-05:00Oh, now you're talking about the top advocates...<i>Oh, now you're talking about the top advocates. Goalshifter.</i><br /><br />Name me a single one, then.<br /><br /><i>you never did answer my question,</i><br /><br />You can't possibly be serious. Read my post on credential inflation of ID advocates to see how this nonsense goes on all the time in the ID movement. Here's yet another example: <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/discovery_insti_2068161.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> you can read that Jonathan Wells and Ann Gauger are "leading scientists and scholars".Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-32718986831559991462013-01-11T00:21:06.963-05:002013-01-11T00:21:06.963-05:00Oh, now you're talking about the top advocates...Oh, now you're talking about the <i>top</i> advocates. Goalshifter.<br />Besides, if Dembski were to disavow the comparison, he'd just be accused of false modesty. And I can imagine his cohorts hearing of this comparison and just saying "whatever" and forgetting about it, instead of focusing undue attention on it like you did.<br />And besides, you never did answer my question, but simply raised others.<br />I can't expect you to admit of hyperbole, can I, Jeffie?Gulpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-81280860073637023182013-01-11T00:16:01.612-05:002013-01-11T00:16:01.612-05:00Dr. Jeff,
How many ID advocates have stated that ...Dr. Jeff,<br /><br />How many ID advocates have stated that they think Dembski is held in their minds to be in such elevated status?<br /><br />And why not debate him and show you are far more accurate on evolution than he is?<br /><br />What gives you the right to call yourself and expert in this field or otherwise issue judgements? Are you an expert in biology?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-29387140946492567662013-01-10T18:47:16.004-05:002013-01-10T18:47:16.004-05:00Umm, because one Texan philosopher professor exagg...<i>Umm, because one Texan philosopher professor exaggerates Dembski's stature, all ID advocates must "swallow" that claim "uncritically"?</i><br /><br />Hey, Gulpie, can you cite a <i>single</i> one of the top ID advocates who has criticized this claim about dembski, or indeed, any of the wild claims about the credentials and achievements of other ID advocates?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-13462079839558817592013-01-10T18:33:55.734-05:002013-01-10T18:33:55.734-05:00"If you're an ID advocate, you have to sw..."If you're an ID advocate, you have to swallow a lot of outlandish claims uncritically. I'm thinking about claims like "William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time". "<br /><br />Umm, because one Texan philosopher professor exaggerates Dembski's stature, all ID advocates must "swallow" that claim "uncritically"? It seems that the one who is uncritically swallowing silliness like that is you.Gulpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-29903191473395096522013-01-10T18:10:20.478-05:002013-01-10T18:10:20.478-05:00The late Martin Gardner in his book, Fads and Fall...The late Martin Gardner in his book, <i>Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science</i> commented the following about Chesterton. He seldom wrote about evolution and on those occasions when he did, he wrote nonsense.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-41611748100922841422013-01-10T14:08:24.326-05:002013-01-10T14:08:24.326-05:00Yes, I mean exactly what you said in your first se...Yes, I mean exactly what you said in your first sentence. The thing is, with 100,000 people, you're sure to have some intelligent skeptics among them.Possibilitynoreply@blogger.com