|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2007 : 18:43:51
|
Ok, this time I'm not going to be repeating anyone else's post! Mind you, I've not done any actual checking to make sure of that, but what can I say? I've been reading too much of the ID stuff lately and their habits are starting to rub off on me!
(ok, I'm just being lazy and hoping I can spin that into some sort of actual statement!)
Anyhoo...Dembski says here
16 June 2007
ICON-RIDS: Non-Religious ID Scientists and Scholars
William Dembski
It will be interesting to see how the National Center for Science Education Selling Evolution deals with the growing number of non-religious ID proponents. Check out the following link: icon-rids.blogspot.com.
|
Now, go to that link. Ok, now go to the left hand side and click on William Brookfield's name, it'll take you to his blog info page, which has a link to his homepage here.
Just keep reading on down...you'll get the joke.
By the way, check out comment #11 by NoeticGuru on Dembski's own page. He links right to that site.
I've saved the relevent pages on my computer.
The moral of this story? Make sure you check not only your references and sources like a scientist is supposed to do but make sure that you're not accidentally endorsing people who are not only whackjobs but pervs who make you look stupid by association.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
Edited by - the_ignored on 06/19/2007 18:46:42
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 19:26:53 [Permalink]
|
Great find, t_i!
Dembski should have instantly been suspicious of anyone who is stupid/crazy enough to agree with ID. Brookfield is apparently the only member of Dembski's "non-religious ID proponents" set.
I love Brookfield's hilarious "philosphy":| 1. ID Pleasurian philosophy is a non-religious amalgam of ID science and Hefnerian Playboy philosophy. It serves as a strategically unified and archetypal counter proposal to orthodox ascetic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Islam. It is also somewhat resonant with Wiccan and “mother nature”- based pagan cults (in the west) and Tantric Buddhism (in the east). Pleasurian-ism is an earthy, sensuous and physically celebratory form of “monistic idealism” or infocognitive monism.” Pleasurian science is naturally driven by the "pleasure of finding things out." |
It all goes to show that Dembski couldn't check out his own ass with both hands. And he looks the fool once again.
{Edit: Corrected typos and spelling of Dembski's name. D'oh!)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/19/2007 22:43:58 |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 19:36:20 [Permalink]
|
There have been suggestions that perhaps Dembski is trying to pull a hoax just to see how much crap people will believe about ID. Well, I developed a method for discerning whether or not this blog post by Dembski is. I've posted this before at Stranger Fruit, but it might be worthwile posting it here as well:
There actually exists a method for discerning whether or not a piece of text is a pro-ID hoax. It's a three-step process called the Imploratory Filter:
1. Does the text advocate a pro-ID stance?
2. Is it possible than someone could have written the text as a joke?
3. Does it look as if the writer is trying to hide the fact the the writing is a hoax?
Only if the answers to the first two questions are yes do we proceed to question three. This is important since we know that people do write pro-ID hoaxes. Pro-ID hoaxes just don't materialize from writings about Goethe or Homer. The third stage of the Imploratory Filter presents us with a binary choice: attribute the thing we are trying to examine to deliberate deception if it appears joke-like; otherwise, attribute it to self-deception. In the first case, the writing we are trying to examine is not only pro-ID, but also appears joke-like. In the other, it is pro-ID, but appears deluded. It is the category of joke-like writings having a pro-ID stance that reliably signals a hoax. "Non-funny" writings advocating ID, on the other hand, are properly attributed to self-deception.
The last thing we need to consider is the case of false positives and false negatives. This method can, unfortunately, yield false negatives. It is possible that some piece of writing might be labelled a non-hoax, when it in fact is a hoax. On the other hand, the method yields no false positives. I.e., when the filter claims that a writing really is a pro-ID hoax, it will will never turn out to be a non-hoax.
The Imploratory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to self-deception or hoaxes. In particular, the Filter describes:
* how Michael Egnor is still allowed to post for the DI.
* how Casey Luskin can keep repeating that ID can make predictions.
* how Dembski can claim that the explanatory filter yields no false positives even though it measures design via specified complexity of which irreducible complexity is a subclass. Irreducible complexity, in turn, allows for false positives. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2007 : 22:50:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
There have been suggestions that perhaps Dembski is trying to pull a hoax just to see how much crap people will believe about ID. Well, I developed a method for discerning whether or not this blog post by Dembski is. I've posted this before at Stranger Fruit, but it might be worthwile posting it here as well:
There actually exists a method for discerning whether or not a piece of text is a pro-ID hoax. It's a three-step process called the Imploratory Filter:
1. Does the text advocate a pro-ID stance?
2. Is it possible than someone could have written the text as a joke?
3. Does it look as if the writer is trying to hide the fact the the writing is a hoax?
Only if the answers to the first two questions are yes do we proceed to question three. This is important since we know that people do write pro-ID hoaxes. Pro-ID hoaxes just don't materialize from writings about Goethe or Homer. The third stage of the Imploratory Filter presents us with a binary choice: attribute the thing we are trying to examine to deliberate deception if it appears joke-like; otherwise, attribute it to self-deception. In the first case, the writing we are trying to examine is not only pro-ID, but also appears joke-like. In the other, it is pro-ID, but appears deluded. It is the category of joke-like writings having a pro-ID stance that reliably signals a hoax. "Non-funny" writings advocating ID, on the other hand, are properly attributed to self-deception.
The last thing we need to consider is the case of false positives and false negatives. This method can, unfortunately, yield false negatives. It is possible that some piece of writing might be labelled a non-hoax, when it in fact is a hoax. On the other hand, the method yields no false positives. I.e., when the filter claims that a writing really is a pro-ID hoax, it will will never turn out to be a non-hoax.
The Imploratory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to self-deception or hoaxes. In particular, the Filter describes:
* how Michael Egnor is still allowed to post for the DI.
* how Casey Luskin can keep repeating that ID can make predictions.
* how Dembski can claim that the explanatory filter yields no false positives even though it measures design via specified complexity of which irreducible complexity is a subclass. Irreducible complexity, in turn, allows for false positives.
|
Now, that's good, Hawks! I couldn't have written it better for Moonscape. You have the logical style of Dembski and Egnor down pat. (And my apologies if that was not the deliberbately humorous take-off I took it for!)
 |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 00:01:34 [Permalink]
|
| You have the logical style of Dembski and Egnor down pat. (And my apologies if that was not the deliberbately humorous take-off I took it for!) |
I did admittedly borrow quite heavily from Dembski's description of his Explanatory Filter. Note to any Dembski-fans: Sue me!!! |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dembski picks wrong ally...
