Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

highly qualified scientists

138.130.192.10, would you please name those "highly qualified scientists" defending Dembski? Otherwise that comment should be deleted. --Hob Gadling 13:14, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm on my second revert of this, so I've asked for comment. An anon calling me a vandal is, well. The only "highly qualified scientist" who supports Dembski is Michael Behe. It's a blatant argument from authority. I have tried to write this NPOV, the best place for criticism in the lead section is the last sentence, after explaining what he thinks he's done. I've already put in that his friends at the Discovery Institute think he's the Isaac Newton of information theory in the main section. Dunc|☺ 14:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty A scientific dissent from Darwin And whether Duncharris likes it or not, the AiG scientists have earned Ph.D.s, some in biology.

Hows that?

I removed all mention of unknown scientists, which is always best. What say thee, good gentlemen? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Dembski has support from some individuals with scientific qualifications in fields tangentially or not at all connected with biology, but I don't think many (any?) biologists support him. Behe is a biochemist, as I recall. -- ChrisO 17:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well lets not cite them in the intro, anyhow. In the body of the article comparing the prestige / pedigree of supporters and detractors is fine, so long as turns of phrase like "most scientists think.." and the "scientific community rejects..." are left out, since those sorts of things are completely unverifiable. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's simply not the case. Someone with zero peer reviewed papers whose only supporters are co-religionists is a pretty good candidate for "the scientific community rejects". Stirling Newberry 09:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When have the opinions of the scientific community, even of one nation (much less the earth) been surveyed and summarized? I can't (off hand ;) think of anything less scientific than saying "most scientists think ..." or "the scientific community rejects...". Likely an enourmous amount of scientists have simply been unexposed to the ideas of Mr. Dembski, and out of those who have heard of them, a great many are likely unqualified to say any more about it than you or I. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not worthy of serious reply. Stirling Newberry 17:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Too good for intellectual rigour, are you? Turn your nose up at the concept of citations if you like, but if so, why bother w facts at all? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions)
Well, worthy of something, surely. If absolute proof of the scientific community's views are demanded, then no — we can never say that scientists agree that, or believe that, or reject that, anything (that the Earth is flat, that its moon is a natural satellite, that Einstein was born after Newton, etc.). In fact the demand for that level of proof would rapidly empty Wikipedia of all content.
If someone stands up and offers the theory that the world was created in 4124 B.C., that fossils are just god's nasty little practical joke, and that cats are really demons, do we really need to survey every scientist in order to discover their opinions? Presumably not. So surely we agree that sometimes it's not clear what scientists agree on, and that sometimes it is; it's not acceptable simply to reject appeal to scientific opinion in principle. What needs to be established is how we can distinguish between the two sorts of case. What do you suggest? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't imagine any scientists who would say that. But there are plenty who are skeptical that materialism can explain the origin of life and development of biological complexity. 138.130.194.229 04:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of scientists who are sceptical of quantum mechanics, more, in fact, then who doubt the material genisis of life and the evolution of complexity through genetic codification and natural selection, this does not mean that any assertion against quantum mechanics is, ipso facto, a scientific theory. Stirling Newberry 04:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Prove the numbers there. It's a fact that no one has shown how life could have arisen by naturalistic processes. So any belief that it happened that way is just that, belief, not fact. Quantum mechanics on the other hand is good operational science.
My if that isn't a slippery slope. Lets just cite who says what, and leave the ludicris generalizations about what "most scientists" believe out. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow; what's the slope, and why is it slippery? And what is it about my argument that's unsound? To simplify: many claims about what most scientists believe are perfectly justificable and uncontroversial, while other such claims are not. You insist that this is one of the latter cases (indeed, even worse, you think that it's ludicrous), so what makes you say that? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"If absolute proof of the scientific community's views are demanded, then no — we can never say that scientists agree that, or believe that, or reject that, anything (that the Earth is flat, that its moon is a natural satellite, that Einstein was born after Newton, etc.). In fact the demand for that level of proof would rapidly empty Wikipedia of all content.
If someone stands up and offers the theory that the world was created in 4124 B.C., that fossils are just god's nasty little practical joke, and that cats are really demons, do we really need to survey every scientist in order to discover their opinions? Presumably not."

That is a slippery slope. Again, cite who says what, don't make generalizations about what the scientific community thinks. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I still don't see it; in order to show that it's a slippery slope, you have to show how the view could gradually be extended, until it reached an unacceptable point. But I specifically said that this is one sort of case (in response to your denial that it's ever acceptable to say what most scientists believe), and that in other cases we'd judge differently. I then asked how you suggested we distinguish between the two. That simply can't be a slippery slope. If you think that my argument is unsound, then fine — explain how; gesturing vaguely at supposed fallacies with catchy titles isn't a substitute. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear... Lets try to make this simple. You are wrong. The situations you describe won't happen, because there are citable sources regarding each of them. if there are uncited claims, they should be removed. Doing so certainly would not empty the wikipedia of its content. It may empty it of certain editers who can't abide with citing their sources, however. There is no situation where making uncited claims in a book of reference is acceptable, particularly when they are challenged. Please cite who says what, don't make generalizations about what the scientific community thinks. We can leave the definition of a slippery slope for another day, methinks. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd certainly be interested to see a citation of the sort you demanded, in which “the opinions of the scientific community, even of one nation (much less the earth) [have] been surveyed and summarized”. And see below, where I give just two (but I can supply many, many more) examples of extremely reputable reference works making “uncited” generalisations about what the scientific community thinks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modified revert of summary

I've just reverted to Stirling Newberry's version simply because it made better grammatical sense; for example, no-one claims that intelligent design is flawed pseudoscience; they claim either that it's flawed science or that it's pseudoscience (would flawed pseudoscience be good science? never mind). I changed part of the first paragraph to something that seemed to express the claim more clearly, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't intend to allow this article (or any other) to daydream about what uncited "scientists" think. Thats an old canard, and just the sort of foolishness that makes people like me prefer reference sources to editorial columns. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't you respond to the arguments offered, and questions asked, above before repeating your assertions? And you surely don't really suggest that an editorial column constitutes evidence one way or the other for scientific consensus, or for the acceptablity of a theory — or for anything much at all? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I get the impression that we arn't communicating perfectly. I was trying to say that editorializing is bad, and that books of reference don't do that (or shouldn't, in this case). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This isn't editorializing, it is reporting. And stop making personal attacks. Stirling Newberry 04:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Sam, but the National Academies, the preeminant US scientific body, the national advisors to the federal government and the public on science, have issued policy statements that intelligent design, as with all forms of creationism, is pseudoscience. Since the NAS speak as representatives for the scientific community as a whole, this in turn means the original phrase "His work is controversial and generally regarded as pseudoscientific" is factually accurate and should remain as it was.
From Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Science:
"Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses."[1]
"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."[2]
--FeloniousMonk 23:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A survey by Larson and Witham (Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998) showed that there is a large percentage (almost 3/4 of respondents) of atheists in NAS, so this is not the objective source you claim. Yet they try to downplay it, in a way that Larson and Witham find disingenuous:
NAS President Bruce Alberts said:"There are very many outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our research suggests otherwise.
Also, Michael Crichton pointed out in a lecture:
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.138.130.194.229 13:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Science is a way of explaining reality. In relation to science, the religious or non-religious beliefs of individual scientists is a non sequitur. Science takes no position about religion either way, other than to insist that all evidence be accessible and verifiable, e.g.; rational and natural. The NAS's ability to represent matters of science fairly is not in doubt, except by those with an overriding religious agenda and other creationists. Also, the 2001 Gallup poll on the origin and development of human beings [3] conflits significantly with the conclusions of Larson and Witham. It found that 5% of American scientists (not necessarily working in fields connected with evolution) believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in "theistic evolution", and 55% believed in "naturalistic evolution" [4]. Big difference between 75% and 55%.--FeloniousMonk 19:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, if religious beliefs of scientists is a non sequitur, then this applies to creationist scientists. And there is no conflict, because Larson and Witham specifically wrote about the religious beliefs of the NAS that was cited as an authority, and they were heavily atheistic. And if the religious beliefs of creationists are enough reason to dismiss their scientific claims, then the same must apply the atheistic religious beliefs of the NAS 138.130.192.82 12:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK then! Now we have a citation, thats great. The hubris regarding the National Academy of Sciences is odd, but who cares, I'm assuming that "speak as representatives for the scientific community as a whole" fluff isn't going into the article, so everybody wins. As always, a little research does wonders for article quality. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Three(!) Edit Conflicts got in the way)
Sam Spade, you're right with regard to one point, at least; I completely misread your last comment. Sorry. But I still object to the idea that it's never right (in works of reference, too) to refer to what the scientific community generally holds. A couple of examples:
“Vitalism is not a popular theory among biologists, for many reasons apart from its affinity with various lost causes.“ (from the article on Vitalism in Paul Edwards [ed.-in-chief] The Encyclopedia of Philosophy vol.8 (1967: Macmillan & The Free Press), p.256)
“Most evolutionary biologists agree that selection does not operate at the level of the group, that the mechanism of selection and hereditary transmission operates exclusively at the level of the individual, and that group properties must be fully explained by appeal to the properties and interactions of individuals.” (from Philosophy of Social Science in W.H. Newton-Smith [ed.] A Companion to the Philosophy of Science (2001: Blackwell) p.456)
I could add more, but they make the point, I think. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(My comment was somehow broken up by – unsurprisingly – an Edit Conflict)

Here and in the previous section, I and others have given arguments and cited examples against Sam Spade's insistence that it's unacceptable to mention the broad scientific consensus in this area. He hasn't countered these, except to make vague and unsubstantiated suggestions about slippery slopes; he simply continues to repeat the same claims here, and to revert the attempts by other editors to set the record straight in the article. I've reinserted the comments that he rejects on principle, while leaving in the section of quotations (though to be honest it looks rather odd in an article of this sort).
Sam, in the light of the quotations above (and I can add more if you think that two don't settle the issue), will you now agree that it's widely regarded as acceptable to make this sort of claim in a reputable reference work? If you believe that, in this case, the claim is false, could you provide some evidence — a number of reputable and independent scientific sources that support Dembski's work or treat it as scientifically reputable? You argued earlier (rather hyperbolically) that “the opinions of the scientific community, even of one nation (much less the earth) [have never been] surveyed and summarized” Well, true; it's not unlike the problem of induction — no matter how many quotations and citations you're offered, you can always claim that there might be even more scientists who hold the opposite view, or no view at all. But all it takes to disprove the claim is a reasonable number (say three?) genuine counter-examples. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

will you now agree that it's widely regarded as acceptable to make this sort of claim in a reputable reference work?

Absolutely not. When challenged, such claims need citations, and are bad form generally. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So yet again you're simply ignoring the arguments and the evidence that's been offered (at length), and denying the conclusion. In those circumstances, I don't see that those who disagree with you have any option but to watch the article and revert your changes until you do them the courtesy of listening to what they have to say and responding to them.
If you don't accept the arguments and evidence, why not give your reasons? That's not beneath you is it? If you don't understand the arguments, say so, and we can express them differently; that's not beneath us. But this apparently mindless repetition of your claim in the face of reason doesn't sit well with the position you claim to hold. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is so obvious there isn't alot of wiggle room. Anyone can come up w examples of just about anything, but the point is, being a book of reference, disputed statements need Wikipedia:Citations. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that's why you haven't bothered to respond to arguments and examples: it's because it's obvious... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)\

I'm sorry, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By all means escalate it. Stirling Newberry 17:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

quote just obfuscates

We already have an extensive article on intelligent design, so how is that quote relevant? It is clear that ID is considered pseudoscience and people can go there to see that. How is it relevant specifically to Dembski?

"IDist says x, but scientists say that's nonsense" is a fairly good way of summarising the position. He is trying to say "IDist says x, but scientists say that's nonsense, but creationists views are supported by many scientists", when the third part is patently false and is clearly POV. Dunc|☺ 13:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because Dembski is one of the intellectual, to use the term loosely, leaders of Intelligent Design, and his work is frequently cited as a defense of Intelligent Design. Stirling Newberry 13:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I also note that Sam Spade's assertion that the other POV is "ludicrous" is a break down of good faith, and further indicate of the POV intent of his edits and the inability of the intelligent design supporters to act in good faith. Stirling Newberry 13:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please reread what I wrote. Statements like "most scientists believe" and "the scientific community rejects" are ludicrous, and utterly unscientific. Think rigour. No insult was made or intended. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Quotes by Dembski shouldn't be a problem (we have wikiquote), I'm just concerned that that's getting off-subject. Also, I'm wary of quoting because it gives creationists leave to misquote elsewhere, which they're very good at.
Also, the main problem with his work is not the philosophical naturalism that he doesn't believe in, it's because it's completely illogical. Actually that needs to be emphasized, because Dembski will complain that scientists are being unreasonable and not accepting his work because it implies that supernatural in defence of ID, which is supposed to make scientists look unreasonable. He's very clever, and intellectual. Dunc|☺ 14:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citations

Please cite sources for disputed statements. Such statements include, but are not limited to:

  • "His work is ... generally regarded as pseudoscientific within the scientific community."
  • "Scientists at Baylor were dismayed that the claims of ID, which mainstream science regards as a pseudoscience, would damage Baylor's and their reputation for scientific integrity."
  • "Dembski's work however was strongly criticized in the scientific community, who pointed out a number of major logical inconsistencies and evidential gaps in Dembski's hypothesis."

Thank you, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Of course, no matter how many references I cite, you can always claim that they're in the minority — which is why I suggested that you post just three references to reputable, independent scientists who defend him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, all right, some more:

I'm still waiting for just three (actually, for just one) reference on the other side. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I certainly am not making any claims about who is in the majority; I think that’s kind of the point. How would I know? I've never heard of this guy outside of this article, and I doubt many have, outside of his fellow professors and experts in the field. Now that you've provided specific, citable sources regarding William A. Dembski and his theories, we simply need to weave them into the article. Any refutations or oppositions (I would assume if no one else, Mr. Dembski is on record opposing his critics ;) can be represented when are cited as well. Obviously names like the National Academies of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education will probably hold more weight with the reader than Mr. Dembski himself, or his rival professors, but lets let the reader hear the views of the experts, and make up their own minds. That’s what I am looking to do when I read an article, not be swayed by an editorial. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, first, inserting many references into the text is likely to make it turgid and unreadable. Secondly, they might belong, however, in the article on intelligent design. As the template that you added said, citations can be added to the talk page; in so far as they were needed, that's surely where they belong. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure, as far as the external links go, but if you want to make a statement like "X says Y", we'll want to have a name for who X is, and where they said Y. I agree there are concerns about the larger ID debate being discussed to the exclusion of Mr. Dembski, but we can deal w that once the above "most scientists", "scientific community" and "scientists" claims are replaced with specific names and comments. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we have to accept science isn't a popularity contest, and that the appeal to authority is fallacious. Specifically naming Dembski's opponents is fairly pointless, because most university professors have better things to do than fight creationism. However, his work hasn't been picked up and expanded by anyone else, and it isn't in the peer-reviewed literature (remember the Evil Atheist Conspiracy ;) ). Hence it is rejected by the scientific community and this needs to be mentioned.
It is howerver difficult to justify a simple statement "Dembski's arguments do not make sense" as being NPOV without a qualifier of who said what, when and why. In the abstract that involves slight weasling, and using terms like "critics". Mentioning what they say is important, but remember this article is about Dembski, not his work, which is mostly covered at specified complexity. Dunc|☺ 18:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that Sam Spade claims to be complaining about lack of citations, but in fact of course he rejects the possibility of ever saying that the scientific community holds a view, or even that it generally holds a view (“When have the opinions of the scientific community, even of one nation (much less the earth) been surveyed and summarized? I can't (off hand ;) think of anything less scientific than saying 'most scientists think ...' or 'the scientific community rejects...'.“). He insists on this point with obsessive frequency, ignoring clear examples of such claims in respectable academic reference works, and the argument that his demand for absolute proof is absurd, is not shared by any other publication, and would rule out all scientific progress. I find it difficult to know what to do with someone who simply refuses to pay any attention to argument, but calmly (or heatedly) repeats the same claim over and over again (it's a bit like Lewis Carroll's “What the tortoise said to Achilles” Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, then you're lucky you missed the last 12 months at the Atheism article; this is mild in comparison. I agree with both your and Dunc's points, with the exception of Dunc's characterizing citing group statements as being an appeal to authority, if that is indeed what Dunc meant. An appeal to authority would be "Y says X, therefore X is so" whereas "Y says X" is merely a statement of fact, and is acceptable in an article. Perhaps I misunderstood Dunc?
I found this interesting cite [5]:
"...during the controversy over the Ohio science education standards, researchers at the University of Cincinnati's Internet Public Opinion Laboratory conducted a poll of science professors at four-year public and private colleges in Ohio. Of the 460 respondents, 90 percent said that there was no scientific evidence at all for intelligent design; 93 percent said that they were unaware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an [alternative] scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution"; and a nearly unanimous 97 percent said that they did not use intelligent design in their own research. Included among those surveyed were faculty at such fundamentalist schools as Cedarville University, which accepts a statement of faith according to which "by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." If the pollsters had excluded professors with such a dogmatic commitment to biblical inerrancy, the results would have been even closer to unanimity."--FeloniousMonk 20:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some numbers

In a 2001 Gallup poll on the origin and development of human beings [6] found that 5% of American scientists (not necessarily working in fields connected with evolution) believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in "theistic evolution", and 55% believed in "naturalistic evolution" [7]. --FeloniousMonk 19:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Immaterial. The entry requirement for science is not holding a travelling road show, nor publishing an unpeer reviewed book, nor getting someone to write a big check to sit you in a university. It is presenting hypothesis for scrutiny, and having it survive that scrutiny. That many scientists might like to believe in theistic evolution is in the same category as many scientists would like to believe that quantum chromo dynamics is not physically true - until there is a physically plausible model that can survive scrutiny, it is, at best "belief", "opinion" or, if given some level of falsifiability, "conjecture". Stirling Newberry 21:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree. We're arguing from the same side here. I'm just putting out some credible numbers as a baseline to check anyone who, like 138.130.194.229, make unsubstantiated generalizations about science and scientists.--FeloniousMonk 03:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possible CR violation?

While researching the "...claims of ID, which mainstream science regards as a pseudoscience..." issue, I came across this article [8] on the topic at the American Association of University Professors site [9] where I noticed it appears much of this article's passage in question seems to be cut and pasted from. I suggest everyone take a look. I'm uncertain if this is a copyright violation or not, I'll you decide for yourselves.--FeloniousMonk 20:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? They're both long enough that I don't want to go back and forth through them trying to find the supposed copyright violation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Factual error as to who was dismayed

The phrase "Scientists at Baylor were dismayed that the claims of ID, which mainstream science regards as a pseudoscience, would damage Baylor's and their reputation for scientific integrity." is factually incorrect. It was actually the the Baylor faculty senate, consisting of faculty of all disciplines, that raised the row, and the Baylor administration agreed to convene an outside committee to review the center. The committee recommended that a faculty advisory panel oversee the science and religion components of the program and that the center drop the name of Michael Polanyi. [10] I'll correct this error in the article.--FeloniousMonk 20:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW-- this edit removed the pseudoscience phrase and avoided much of the possible CR violation. Unless someone wants to reinsert the "...which mainstream science regards as a pseudoscience..." point somewhere else (it does seem relevent to me), then there's no need for the relevant quotations section Sam added, or the RFC for that matter.--FeloniousMonk 21:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the recent revert of the corrected content

This section originally started out as a justification for the corrected content which, based on Stirling's edit summary notes, I assumed had been reverted in its entirety. I see that I was incorrect in that assumption, so I've re-added Stirling's phrase to the current version, removed in my revert of his previous edit. --A cautionary tale to always see the diff before making up your mind or taking action. That still leaves us with the issue that the original passage might have been a cut and pasted from AAUP site [11]. I feel it is a non sequitur at this point since the passage has been reworded and we can drop it.--FeloniousMonk 04:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Latest revert of Sam Spade's unexplained deletions

In the absence of explanation (beyond cryptic Edit sumaries like 'fmt'), Sam Spade's insistence on deleting large chunks of text, presumably because they offend against his PoV, is beginning to look like simple vandalism. If there's good reason for his latest cuts, could he explain it here before just acting? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cryptic, like "please cite/attribute contested info"? I get the impression that your trolling. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I may have missed one of the edit summaries — but that's beside the point. Your frankly bizarre approach to the nature of citation and attribution (look above for a vast amount, incidentally) and insistence on your own point of view against everyone else's (yes, I know, you're the only one in step) just leads to stalemate. There's something unpleasantly authoritarian in the way that you've assumed ownership of the page, and are insisting that editors conform to your views — an impression strengthened by your continuing refusal to respond to counter-arguments and evidence, and your constant repetition of the same, unargued slogans. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I believe this is a fair summation of the issue here with Sam.--FeloniousMonk 18:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you are unable to accept the need to cite and attribute contested statements, and consistantly focus on the individual rather than the argument violates numerous wikipedia policies. These include Wikipedia:Cite your sources, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and NPOV. Pay especially close attention to NPOV#The_vital_component:_good_research. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've offered a series of arguments and references; you've ignored all of them. Is that in line with Wikipedia policies (much less good manners)? I've also asked, repeatedly, for your reasons for rejecting the references I gave, and offered to give more; you've repeatedly ignored those requests too. Mouthing dogma at me, and giving references to Wikipedia guidelines, is no substitute for engaging with the actual issues.
With regard to personalising the debate, you were the first to use words like 'ludicrous', 'foolishness', 'daydream', etc. I tried to offer calm, clearly reasoned arguments, and continually received responses that ignored what I'd said, but simply repeated your claims with more and more intemperate language. The pattern is all there, above this section. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mel's version of the facts around Sam's actions. Sam should leave the rhetoric off the page and not randomly revert facts he's uncomfortable with.--FeloniousMonk 18:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you review it with an open mind and thereby learn from your errors, or move to doing something productive elsewhere. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh good grief, what a smug, self-satisfied comment. Ignore the arguments, insist that you're right, then try to push those who disagree with you out of Wikipedia. Even if your claims were right and mine were wrong, your inability to reason would make you right by pure luck, and would make your approach to editing unacceptable.
If you're so confident, why not take this further, through due process? See how your peers judge the issue. If I lose an RfC, I'll do what you want, and abandon the Wikipedia project. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Best to get used to it-- this was Sam's MO at Talk:Atheism as well. Best to build consensus and put those who flaunt it on ignore.--FeloniousMonk 18:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting you leave the wikipedia, and an RfC has already been filed. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I can broadly go along with Sam Spade. The wording of the description of the mainstream reception in the article is extremely vague and this indicates poor research.
I don't see any vaguesness; it's very specific — but it's general. That's correct, because it refers to a fact about a general view. I and others have supplied numerous references to back it up; Sam Spade has provided none to dispute it, only the relentless repetition of his general and unargued position. He has openly admitted that he ignored my arguments and examples because they're irrelevant — he knows that he's right. In the face of that, there's not much that anyone can do except keep reverting his PoV edits. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What we do have, however, is quite a few reviews of works such as The Design Inference and No Free Lunch by competent scientists with good reputations in the relevant disciplines (computational intelligence and biology). In addition to this there is the failure of Dembski's critiques of darwinism, to date, to make inroads on the science of biology. The explanatory filter is not being used in published papers, to my knowledge; the No Free Lunch algorithms are not being used to produce much (if any) science. The wheels of the Dembski engine seem to be spinning in the sand. The books are popular with critics of darwinism, but those people tend not to be biologists or computational scientists.
I suggest that we just write a section "Dembski and mainstream scientists", containing an overview from half a dozen online reviews of Dembski's books written by scientists highly qualified in the appropriate fields This would give an accurate picture of scientific critiques of Dembski's views, which seem to be generally unfavorable critiques of his reasoning. If suitably qualified scientist champions have written rebuttals to any of these reviews, they also belong in that section. Summaries of Dembski's own rebuttals belong there too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not trying to make any claim that this guy is widely known about, much less accepted, but he doesn't deserve to be malighned with vague and unattributed criticisms. A section such as Tony suggests, and a clarification of which critics and proponants (and mr. dembski himself, assumably) say what would be excellent, and would resolve all objections I have with the article, assuming the contested statements listed above are either removed or attributed. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a brief but intellectually honest appraisal of who says what about Dembski and how he responds, would be much more informative than the vague, and contested, wording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, a "Dembski and mainstream scientists" section would imply that it is just individual scientists that have issue with Dembski's assertions, not the field as a whole. Also, contrasting lists/sections are considered harmful because they fragment the presentation of facts, oversimplify controversies, invite spurious correspondences between "sides", and are never complete, and thus invite biased contributions. Embedding the facts that Sam considers controversial within their relevant sections avoid these issues and it is therefore preferred. The existing format is the preferred format, you can add outside links when siting support.--FeloniousMonk 18:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't see that you could argue that it's only individual scientists who have problems with Dembski. Certainly if we only listed individual critiques that might appear to be the case. But the fact of the matter is that Dembski hasn't made any good science here. This wouldn't be a "pro and con" list. In the circumstances, it would be a demolition job. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Design versus designer

Is it correct to say: "Dembski believes that the scientific study of nature reveals evidence of design by God," and "Dembski's main idea is that of specified complexity, a type of information that he feels is the hallmark of God."

There's a Dembski paper here [12] that says:

The crucial question for science is whether design helps us understand the world, and especially the biological world, better than we do now when we systematically eschew teleological notions from our scientific theorizing. ... If design cannot be made into a fertile new point of view that inspires exciting new areas of scientific investigation, then it deserves to wither and die. Yet before that happens, it deserves a fair chance to succeed.

We are now in a position to see how intelligent design parts company with natural theology. Ian Barbour claims that my colleagues and I are in the business of using scientific evidence to establish the existence of a designer. And presumably once we've established the existence of a designer, then we'll want to expatiate on the attributes of that designer. If Barbour's characterization of our enterprise were correct, then the charge that intelligent design is a form of natural theology would stand. But that's not what we're about. Barbour has the logic of intelligent design backwards. That logic does not move from features of the world to proof of the existence of a designer to cataloguing attributes of the designer. Rather, intelligent design begins with features of the world that are inherently inexplicable in terms of natural causes -- not merely features of the world that for now lack a natural-cause explanation but rather for which natural causes are in principle incapable of providing an explanation (for instance, in my writings I argue that the specified complexity of certain biological systems constitutes such a feature). Next, intelligent design notes that in our ordinary experience, when objects whose causal story we know exhibit such features, then a designer was crucially involved in the object's causal history.

It's at this point that intelligent design could be co-opted into doing natural theology, proclaiming that natural objects exhibiting such features establish the existence of a designer. But intelligent design resists that temptation. Instead of arguing for the existence of a designer (and thus formulating a revamped design argument), intelligent design asks how positing an intelligent cause to explain such objects offers fresh scientific insights. The designer of intelligent design is not the God of any particular religious faith and not the God of any particular philosophical reflection but merely a generic intelligent cause capable of originating certain features of the natural world. Positing such a designer to account for certain types of biological complexity is like positing quarks to account for certain properties of subatomic particles. The point is to see what a designer helps explain; the point is not to establish the existence of the designer.

SlimVirgin 18:10, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think that what you are suggesting is that it appears Dembski is not making an argument for creation by god, but by a unnamed 'designer', right? If that is the case, then we should consider Dembski's past statements as the motive for his scholarly assertions. At the 1996 "Mere Creation" conference at Biola, in his introduction to the conference proceedings, published in 1998 as Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design, Dembski describes the purpose of the conference as formulating "a theory of creation that puts Christians in the strongest possible position to defeat the common enemy of creation." [13]
I think it's safe to say based on Dembski's own words that Dembski has a christian creationist agenda.--FeloniousMonk 20:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Not suggesting this for the article, but here's a great Douglas Adams quote:

...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!'

SlimVirgin 18:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I like that one.--FeloniousMonk 19:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to disappear — dinner time. Yes, I use Adams' puddle all the time in tutorials.
I don't think, as indeed FeloniousMonk has demonstrated, that there's much doubt about Dembski's object. As for whether simply finding a synonym for 'psedoscience' would help — I doubt it, but it's worth a try. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still have a problem with what he appears to be saying in the paper I quoted from. He says there that he is positing the idea of a designer to see what explanatory power the idea has, and compares his designer to a nuclear physicist's quarks. That's not quite the same as the simplistic creationism this article appears to be attributing to him. Now, the paper I'm citing isn't dated, so maybe it's an old one and he wouldn't stand by this interpretation of his ideas anymore.

Also, I'd say that just because he says (during a political speech) that his ideas may put Christians in a strong position to "defeat the common enemy", that doesn't mean he himself is searching for the Christian god. It may mean that, but it doesn't have to. By the way, I can see these comments in the history, but not on the page, so I'm having to write from memory. If I'm not referring to relevant responses or if I'm misquoting s'thing, that's the reason. Best, SlimVirgin 01:09, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

The situation with Dembski's work and his motives and that of the movement he belongs to are far too complicated to just rely on the putative good faith of Dembski's statements in his work. It's crucial to understand it in the historical background and context of the stated agenda of the ID movement. ID's agenda is to promote christian creationism under the guise of science. This agenda was set forth by the 'father' of the ID movement, the creator of the term "intelligent design" and drawer of the strategic road map followed by most ID proponents (including Dembski by his own admission), Phillip E. Johnson. Understanding that agenda and strategy as set forth by Johnson, styled as "The Wedge", is critical to correctly understanding what is going on here, and with Dembski. The stated "governing goals" of the wedge strategy are "1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and "2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Lifting a page directly out of Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth", Dembski adopts a pretense of science but his assertions still require a supernatural creator, now just innocuously termed "designer." Also, a thorough reading of Dembski's other public statements, taken in light of his degree in divinity, puts him squarely in the christian creationist camp. I suggest reading the article "Wedging Creationism into the Academy" at the American Association of University Professors website. [14] It covers the duplicitious agenda of ID and those who are part of "The Wedge", including Dembski. I can post other Dembski quotes citing his christian creationist agenda if it is needed.--FeloniousMonk 02:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks FM, I'll read your link later and will try to read more about this elsewhere. I have no Christian or creationist POV, by the way, just to make that clear. I think in part I'm reacting to the idea that we state or imply that Dembski has an agenda that has to be taken into account when interpreting ID, while implying that mainstream scientists don't. Pseudoscience is an inherently POV term, meaning nothing more than "boo", while "scientific" often just means "hurrah" — and it's a "hurrah" I don't share. I'll try to find time to read more about Dembski's ideas. I take your point that the ideas and agenda shouldn't be separated, but they are separable, and the article should perhaps make that clearer. Also, I was wondering what's meant by "the apologist C.S. Lewis" and the "science master's degree". SlimVirgin 05:39, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

While I'd agree that 'pseudoscience' can be used as a mere insult, just as 'communist' or 'Cartesian' or 'Nazi' can, like them it has a perfectly objective, NPoV sense. Simply, it refers to non-science that calims to be science. There are different accounts of science, of course, which lead to slight differences in the extension of 'psedoscience — but most disagreements in this area concern how to define pseudoscience rather than what falls into that category.
I suppose for most non-philosophers (and many philosophers) it's associated primarily or even wholly with Popper's falsification theory. I don't think anyone nowadays would go along with falifiability as being the criterion of what is or isn't scientific, but it does point to an important aspect of science: that it should be genuinely subject to evidence. It mustn't respond to evidence by invoking ad hoc hypotheses which have no independent evidential justification. (If, when, Newton's theories were apparently falsified by the observed position of Uranus, scientists had simply said : 'Oh, there must be another planet out there disturbing things', that would have been pseudoscience — but they looked for it and found it, thus providing independent evidential grounds for its existence, so they stuck to genuine science.)
There are other factors, but the problem with 'creation science', intelligent design, and other intrusions of religious faith into science, is that they depend upon hypotheses that are by definition not independently verifiable. They're therefore not science. If they claimed (as some of the more honest creationists do) that science was simply wrong and inappropriate, and that religious belief should override it, they'd not be doing pseudoscience (I have other arguments against such a position, but that's another matter).
So, as I climb down from my soapbox, I conclude that calling Dembski's work pseudoscience could have been a mere insult, but in fact it's based upon an understanding of the nature of science and of his work. (We don't have to worry about Sam Spade joining in this discussion; he's already told me on his Talk page that he ignores my arguments and evidence because he knows that he's right...) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Find a source for the statements you keep reinstating, cite and attribute the sources making the statements in question, and stop slandering Mr. Dembski and making ad hominem attacks and other fallacious arguments in order to silence your opposition. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Q.E.D. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't see Mel Etitis making any "ad hominem attacks" or "fallacious arguments" or even slandering Dembski here, Sam. I think you are slandering Mel Etitis though by making such a patently false claim. Knock off the oblique personal attacks on Mel Etitis and stick to the topic here, please.--FeloniousMonk 18:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slim-- you were wondering what was meant by phrases "the apologist C.S. Lewis" and the "science master's degree". As you know an apologist is a person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. C.S. Lewis was an apologist for christianity, and his book "Mere Christianity", was one of the more popular christian apologist tomes of the 20th century. "Science master's degree" refers to an MS, a graduate degree in science known as a Master of Science.

Pseudoscience is a legitimate term and not necessarily a loaded or charged term. As the flip-side to the science coin, it is well defined. It is not necessarily always intended or used as a pejorative, though it is often perceived as such by those who find themselves labeled thusly.--FeloniousMonk 19:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Thanks, FM. I'm not sure I agree that pseudoscience is not necessarily a loaded term. The first site returned by Google for it is here [15] and calls it "an established body of knowledge which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms . . . ". I'd say this is the way most people understand the term, and it's clearly POV. Regarding a "science masters degree," is this an MSc? If so, do we know in what? Or perhaps there is a such a thing as a "science masters degree" in no particular subject. If there is, sorry, but I haven't heard of it. Speaking of degrees, the article says he has:

  • 1981: B.A. psychology
  • 1883: M.A. statistics
  • 1985: Science master's degree (M.Sc?); subject not specified
  • 1988: Ph.D mathematics
  • 1993: M.A. philosophy
  • 1996: Ph.D philosophy
  • 1996: Master of Divinity

First problem is the B.A. seems to have taken two years, not three. Also, it would be unusual to be allowed to move from psychology to statistics to a PhD in maths without some kind of conversion course: perhaps that was the role of the "science masters degree." Again, to go straight to an MA in philosophy would be unusual; and to be awarded a PhD and MA in the same year, also unusual, unless the Divinity thing was honorary. Are we sure these details are right?

Answering my own question here. Dembski's website says he has:
  • 1981 B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago
  • 1983 M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago
  • 1985 S.M. mathematics University of Chicago
  • 1988 Ph.D mathematics University of Chicago
  • 1993 M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago
  • 1996 M.Div. theology Princeton Theological Seminary
  • 1996 Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago SlimVirgin 23:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding C.S. Lewis, that's what the word "apologist" should mean but it's not how many (most?) people understand it. I'd say many people use the word to imply some kind of dishonesty, or manipulation of the facts, so I wonder if it would be better simply to say "Christian writer"; but if apologist is used, we should say "Christian apologist", otherwise we're assuming readers know who he is. SlimVirgin 18:13, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention this point &mdash: the article says somewhere (W is too slow to check the exact wording) that Dembski has published many popular books but his publications have not been peer-reviewed. Is this fair or accurate? For example, his 1998 The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities can hardly be described as "popular"; it was, I believe, his PhD thesis and, apart from that process, would have been put through a peer-review process by CUP. SlimVirgin 18:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

The article says: Dembski has published several popular books, but has published no papers on intelligent design within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The book was based on his PhD in philosophy (his PhD in mathematics was Chaos, Uniform Probability, and Weak Convergence [16]). So I would say that the statement is valid at least in this respect (I cannot speak for the totality of his work).
As for the other part, psychology can be a very statistical field - it wouldn't surprise me if someone went from a BA in psychology to a MA in statistics to a PhD in "mathematics" (it's in stats, if you look at the title). Guettarda 19:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Where did we get his bio from, do you know? SlimVirgin 22:15, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've searched the following academic and research article citation databases for citations of Dembski's work, with 0 results: Expanded Academic ASAP, PubMed, and GLADIS (Berkeley). From everything I've read, this was to be expected: from Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates, A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch, by Richard Wein (2002)[17]:
Dembski claims to have provided a rational foundation for the Fisherian approach to statistics and to have discovered a new Law of Conservation of Information. If these claims were true, they would be of profound importance to statisticians and information theorists. Yet his work on these subjects has not appeared in any journal of statistics or information theory, and, as far as can be determined, not one professional statistician or information theorist has approved of this work. Had any done so, I am sure we would have heard about it from Dembski himself, since he makes a habit of using informal references as a substitute for peer review:
"Mathematicians and statisticians have been far more receptive [than philosophers] to my codification of design inferences. Take, for instance, the positive notice of The Design Inference in the May 1999 issue of American Mathematical Monthly as well as mathematician Keith Devlin's appreciative remarks about my work in his July/August 2000 article for The Sciences titled "Snake Eyes in the Garden of Eden": "Dembski's theory has made an important contribution to the understanding of randomness--if only by highlighting how hard it can be to differentiate the fingerprints of design from the whorls of chance."
Keith Devlin is a respected and widely published mathematician, but he is not a statistician. His article was of a general nature in a popular magazine, not a scholarly journal, and did not address the details of Dembski's work. The content of the article overall was rather more negative towards Dembski's work than the concluding remark suggests. The "positive notice" in the American Mathematical Monthly reads as follows, in its entirety:
"Probability, S, P, L. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. William A. Dembski. Stud. in Prob., Induction, & Decision Theory. Cambridge Univ Pr, 1998, xvii + 243 pp, [ISBN 0-521-62387-1] Not a text but a philosophical tract about when one can infer design behind events of very small probability. Thought provoking, fun to read, full of interesting examples."
The fact that Dembski has to resort to such barely favourable references for support indicates the complete lack of acceptance of his work by the experts in the relevant technical fields.
We are told (by Dembski and the publisher) that The Design Inference did undergo a review process, though no details of that process are available. It is interesting to note, however, that The Design Inference originally constituted Dembski's thesis for his doctorate in philosophy, and that his doctoral supervisors were philosophers, not statisticians. The publisher (Cambridge University Press) catalogues the book under "Philosophy of Science". One suspects that the reviewers who considered the book on behalf of the publisher were philosophers who may not have had the necessary statistical background to see through Dembski's obfuscatory mathematics. In any case, much of the material in No Free Lunch, including the application of Dembski's methods to biology, did not appear in The Design Inference, and so has received no review at all.[18]--FeloniousMonk 21:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have friends who've been through the peer-review process to have their material published by CUP and it's gruelling, or can be. It's extremely unlikely that this would have been read by people with no background in statistics or mathematics (not to mention that the author has such a background). I'm guessing of course, but it's also guesswork to assume that a thesis for which a PhD has been rewarded and which has subsequently been published by CUP has not been thoroughly peer reviewed. SlimVirgin 22:15, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Why would a publication in philosophy be peer-reviewed by mathematicians? I doubt many philosophers would have had the necessary background to be able to spot the problems with Dembski's claims about probability. Guettarda 22:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's why they'd be likely to show it to people who did. Also, regarding the Richard Wein article linked to above, apparently he has a Bachelor's in statistics but nothing more. I wonder how accurate his criticisms are. SlimVirgin 23:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that arguments from authority are fallacious, as are arguments from a lack of authority. Valid arguments are valid arguments, despite who makes them. Wein's level of education is an irrelevant factoid that does not detract from Wein’s well substantiated criticism, validated by no less than David Wolpert, the originator of the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems.[19] A valid deconstruction by an undergraduate of the putatively superior work of a PhD would cast more doubt on the quality of the work of the PhD than it would on the undergraduate. Call me old-fashioned, but I still judge each and every argument on it's merits, not the credentials of it's creator.--FeloniousMonk 23:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I've run searches on the Expanded Academic ASAP, PubMed, and GLADIS article databases for citations of or to Dembski's work, and got no results. That means his work is not indexed or cited by any of the credible peer-reviewed journals. This validates the article's criticism of Dembski on that count. Also, Dembski's own comments on why he does not subject his work to peer review leaves little doubt whether or not he currently submits his work for review: "I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more"[20]
Which discipline performs the peer review is determined by the discipline of the work to be vetted. Since CUP catalogs "The Design Inference" as "Philosophy of Science" and not "Science" or "Mathematics", it's safe to assume that it was reviewed by fellow philosophers, not scientists or mathematicians. A glance at Dembski's bibliography in the article will show that there's been plenty of work he could have submitted to journals, but has not; either he has not been able to get it across the threshold or has been unwilling to try. His own statements would indicate the latter, though that may just be a figleaf for the former.--FeloniousMonk 23:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FM, you say that arguments from authority are fallacious, but then go on to rely on one yourself ("validated by no less than David Wolpert"). There is, of course, nothing wrong with an argument from authority so long as the authority really is one, and there is nothing at all wrong with an argument from lack of authority, as you put it. My problem is that I have no qualifications in statistics or mathematics and so I have to rely on the authority of the published references, and someone with a bachelor's in statistics isn't terribly convincing next to someone with PhDs coming out of his ears. That doesn't make the former wrong, as you point out, but you see the problem. I think you're making too much of the peer-reviewed journal business. I know good academics who don't regularly appear in peer-reviewed journals, and I know terrible ones who do. He's running up against the dominant ideology, and so is likely to be torn to shreds during peer review for that reason alone; it's therefore not surprising that he avoids it. What makes you think that the discipline that performs the peer review for the publisher is determined by the discipline of the work being vetted? You may be right, but my understanding of CUP is that the editor decides who to send the work to, and s/he may send it to people inside or outside the discipline. In any event, you're assuming that no one in the philosophy dept, or history and philosophy of science dept, at Cambridge understands probability theory, and the book manuscript needn't, of course, only have been read by Cambridge dons. SlimVirgin 00:01, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

An actual appeal to authority would be "Y says X, therefore X is so" whereas "Y says X" is merely a statement of fact. I said that Wein’s criticism is validated by David Wolpert, co-creator of NFL; it's a statement of fact. David Wolpert disputes Dembski's use of NFL for the same reasons as does Wein, hence we would be justified in accepting Wein's argument on its face. And being lettered in mathematics or statistics is not required to see that there's very little support in either field for Dembsky's claims.
Let's not get into what an appeal to authority is. Suffice to say, it's not always (informally) fallacious, and is sometimes a perfectly acceptable way to proceed — it depends on how it's used. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
As for the weight of Dembski's credentials, we cannot let that overly impress us. Quantity does not equal quality . . .
Agreed. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

. . . and reason dictates that quality be questioned when an entire parade of ideas are roundly and repeatedly rejected over the course of an academic career.

What is right and what is wrong, what is well argued or badly argued, cannot be decided by a majority vote. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Even if Dembski accumulated more letters after his name than all of us put together should that mean his claims get a walk? They would if Dembski accumulated endorsements of his claims from within his field instead. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler were all highly educated scientists too. There's no shortage of qualified scientists sporting fine imprimaturs from scholarly institutions who've gone on to suggest plainly absurd ideas, thus joining the roster of cranks. The fact someone has "PhDs coming out of his ears" could be considered suspect to begin with, since a well documented chapter of "The Wedge" canon is the collecting of official credentials to invoke before impressionable audiences.

That's something I wondered about: why he took that second PhD. Academically, there was no need for it unless he wanted to teach philosophy, which I'm assuming he doesn't do. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Actually he teaches philosophy and has a position in philosophy. His CV only has two mathematical pubs (of any sort) and they date to 1990 Guettarda 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If he's actually teaching philosophy at the moment and has a current position doing that, that should probably be in the intro. I tried to find out what he's teaching now, but it isn't clear, and I'm too tired to go on looking right now. Regarding straight philosophy teaching, his bio says he taught philosophy of science 1992–1993, philosophy of religion 1996–1997, and introduction to philosophy, 1997–1999. That's not a huge amount, and neither philosophy of science nor philosophy of religion are core areas. SlimVirgin 05:29, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's the scholarly audience whose vote counts in measuring the value of a new hypothesis, and they don't seem to be too impressed with Dembski's; his claims have gotten almost no traction within his profession and others, which is not helped by his choosing to withdraw from publishing in the journals.

I don't hold with this peer-review argument. You may be right in this case, of course. But in general, you're making out an argument for majority rule; and in favor of whatever the dominant ideology of the day happens to be. You're not taking into account that paradigm shifts occur, and that they may not be well received to begin with. Again, I stress that I'm not trying to hold Dembski up as a misunderstood genius. I'm arguing in general terms, but also saying that, while some of your criticisms of him are interesting and valid, others are less so, in my opinion. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
As you say, there good academics who don't regularly appear in peer-reviewed journals and terrible ones who do. But there are precious few academics who get anywhere in challenging the dominant ideology without publishing.
But he does publish: just not always in the "right" places (though CUP is one of the right places). Also bear in mind that academics give lectures to their peers and that this is a form of peer review; though in this case, I accept he may choose to lecture only to the converted. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
No one is saying he is a bad philosopher - but he backs his philosophy with mathematics (which were termed to have a foundation of "jello" [21]) and wanders into biology, an area in which he has no background at all. Guettarda 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let's also not forget that this all must be viewed in the context of the "The Wedge Strategy". Much of that strategy is directed toward the broader public, as opposed to the professional scientific community. By touting degrees and faculty positions while not actually participating in genuine science allows Wedge proponents to co-opt the prestige of scientific institutions without having to address the more troublesome aspects of actual research, like publishing your findings.--FeloniousMonk 01:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point. Thank you for taking so much time to address my concerns. I feel bad about you having to do that, especially with Wikipedia being so slow, though it has speeded up a little today. I've downloaded some material about Dembski which I'll try to find the time to read carefully. I have the sense that his design argument is more sophisticated that we're allowing, though I'm hampered by my inability to understand his probability argument; still, I'll try to make some sense of it. SlimVirgin 04:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you in return for hearing me out and considering my points; it's actually been fun. Here's a couple of articles that critque Dembski's argument that I found helpful and fair:[22], [23]. Cheers.--FeloniousMonk 21:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi FM, I just read your recent edit, below. Re: my comment about D's ideas being more sophisticated than we're allowing — perhaps not, after all.

He does write in an odd way for someone so clever. I was reading more about his ideas on probability last night. I can't pretend to understand it all but some of it is strikingly simplistic. Thanks for the additional links. SlimVirgin 21:25, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed." He continued, "And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done - and he’s not getting it."

Sources cited

OK, I've added citations for the statements in the article that Sam has been insisting on.--FeloniousMonk 17:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

Good recent edits. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I felt it needed some more referencing (doesn't everything on Wikipedia?) and it needed to say a bit more about the man's own views. -- ChrisO 14:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I very much agree. There are still some statements which I contest, but progress is being made, and really, who can ask for more than progress? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stop press: Biologist accepts evolution!

OK, now that the notion of it's being ironic is gone, it's not so bad (though hardly worth mentioning). The other edits are almost all personal stylistic preference, making little difference to the clarity, but so long as we're happy with the result, fine. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

knowledge of statistics

I don't like this sentence:

"Dembski's knowledge of statistics, coupled with his general scepticism concerning evolutionary theory, prompted him to regard it as statistically improbable that natural selection could produce the extraordinary diversity of life."

I think that closer to the truth would be

"Dembski's knowledge of statistics, coupled with his general scepticism concerning and lack of understanding of evolutionary theory, prompted him to regard it as statistically improbable that natural selection could produce the extraordinary diversity of life."

But of course that would be POV. Anyway, the sentence as it is makes readers think that knowledge of statistics is all you need to judge the question, when in reality you need knowledge of statistics and evolutionary biology. There are loads of biologists (and other scientists) who understand both and who accept evolution. After all, the modern synthesis contains a lot of math, mainly coming from population genetics. But how to formulate that? --Hob Gadling 11:26, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

You're assuming that Dembski is ignorant of evolutionary theory. There is of course also the possibility that he is very well aware of it but chooses to misrepresent it for ideological reasons.
As for the sentence you dislike, how about this as a simpler alternative?
"Dembski came to believe that it was statistically improbable that natural selection could produce the extraordinary diversity of life."
-- ChrisO 11:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

revert of most of anon's edits

I've just taken the page back to ChrisO's last edit (though retaining a few of anon's uncontroversial changes). The changes were mostly very PoV, clearly attempting to push the article more pro-Dembski. (For example, labelling peer-reviewed science journals 'evolution-accepting'; aside from the matter of style, this is a peculiar way to acknowledge that the scientific community accepts evolution. In fact, of course, it's a crude attempt to make that fact look like a matter of prejudice. Supporters of I.D. might want to claim that, but it's not for a Wikipideia article to do so.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another PoV addition (by same anon.) removed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK, sorta. At least you didn't remove the uncontrovertable ones as well. However, calling NCSE a leading science organisation is POV (NAS is reasonable to decribe that way). And I found the article with a claim about YECs denouncing Dembski, so it seemed reasonable to put a ref for that, as well as some balancing ones where they support it. And it seemed to me like a bad case of potly melanism to accuse Dembski of seeking utter destruction of opponents when the accuser had tried to close his center down. Last time I checked, Cambridge study groups were peer reviewed. 138.130.192.82 16:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What is POV about calling NCSE a "leading science organisation"? And, um, what is "potly melanism"? I'm confused. Guettarda 17:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Pot calling the kettle black, perhaps? -- ChrisO 17:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Chris is right. And NCSE exists to promote evolution and attack creationism; it does no research into physics, chemistry etc. Really, it has as much to do with science as Dawkins has to do with "public education of science", and I thought Mel would relate to that, judging by his comments on Dawkins.138.130.192.82 23:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mel, why do you think it's "factual" to describe the Discovery Institute as "right wing"? I hope the change to "conservative" is enough of a compromise. 138.130.192.82 12:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The idea that leading science organisations should promote 'leading science' (as per anon's edit summary) is, of course, absurd (unless they're described as 'leading-science organisations' I suppose), as is the initial claim that of course it would support evolution because that's the sort of thing it supports. Note also that closing a centre isn't the same as utterly destroying one's opponents; supporting free speech doesn't commit one to paying for people to speak freely (and the 'arguably' gave the game away). I'm gad, though, that anon. is posting comments to the Talk page instead of simply editing the article.Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then define leading science organization. How can a small organisation devoted to promoting evolutionary education and headed by an obscure physical anthropologist like Eugenie Scott be described as a leading science organization. At the very least, it is POV. No one would object to describing the NAS as a leading science organization.

For goodness' sake, Dembski never talked about destroying anyone literally, only preventing his censorship. It's also crazy that an ostensibly Christian university is so petrified of promoting the idea that there might be scientific evidence for divine creation. It's as incongruous as an atheistic organization rejecting evolution.

I assume that the above unsigned comments are by the same person. I'll reply as if they were, anyway.
  1. Does a leading carpet manufacturer have to manufacture leading carpets? No, the leading refers to its standing as a manufacturer that makes carpets. In the same way, a leading science organisation is a leading organisation concerned with science.
  2. Eugenie Scott is no more obscure than Dembski
  3. It's only 'crazy' that the university behave as they did if you're assuming that Dembski's work is legitimate — but in that case, any suggestion of surprise is PoV.
  4. There's nothing peculiar about an atheist rejecting evolution (though note that that's a very vague notion: it's mad for any rational person to reject the claim that species have developed from othjer species, but perfectly rational to question the phylogenetic claims of a particular evolutionary theory, or the mechanism suggested by a particular theory). Only creationists (and religiously fanatical atheists of the Dawkins type)think that acceptance or rejection of scientific theories should be dictated by one's position with regard to religion.
  5. Under which User name or IP address did you engage in a discussion in which I commented on Dawkins? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't notice any proof that Eugenie Scott's group is a leading scientific organization. The onus is on you and other supporters to prove that it is one, since this is a very POV term. It is hardly relevant whether Dembski or Scott are more obscure — are either of them leading in science? What discoveries have they made? What are some of their science research projects? For that matter, what is the size of the NCSE? How many full-time staff?
Also, it seems to be a foundational tenet of Christianity that God created, and also that people have no excuse for denying this (Romans 1:20). So one must wonder about a Christian university that is so anti any type of creation, except one that is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from atheistic evolution. 220.244.224.8 04:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. The NCSE article describes them as an AAAS-affiliate, although I couldn't find this on their own website. If true, AAAS is the gold standard in US science.
  2. Even a cursory glance shows that Eugenie Scott has peer reviewed pubs in the field, which beats Dembski...so "obscure" is an interesting call
  3. The President of NCSE, Kevin Padian lists 12 2004 pubs in peer-reviewd journals...looks pretty high-powered to me
  4. it's as incongruous as an atheistic organization rejecting evolution. - Stalin rejected neo-Darwinism, and John Paul II accepts it. Francisco Ayala, NCSE "supporter" has a doctorate in theology. Meaningless point.
I don't know enough about them to judge, but I would be interesting in knowing what "anon" considers a "leading" organisation. Can you explain your points and back them up with evidence please? Thanks Guettarda 00:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Stalin converted to atheism after reading Darwin at a seminary, according to his biographer Yaroslavsky. Later he became a fan of the neo-Lamarckian evolutionist Lysenko. Doctroate in theology has nothing to do with being a Christian — Ayala is a self-declared apostate.
Please also explain the apparent objection to adding a reference to the claim that YECs have criticized Dembski. If it is not referenced, then the sentence remains unsupported so should be dropped. 220.244.224.8 04:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the anon's edits, you're probably all aware of this, but in case not: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/138.130.194.229. SlimVirgin 01:05, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks SV. I for one was not aware of this RfC.--FeloniousMonk 01:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome, FM. SlimVirgin 01:46, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)