tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post6644454253120817790..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Tolerance towards people who doubt Darwin: So easy, even an educator can do itMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-46946520476741311822009-07-16T22:30:42.747-04:002009-07-16T22:30:42.747-04:00Art, sure sounded to me too like Martin made an ad...Art, sure sounded to me too like Martin made an ad hominem. :-) Tricky, tricky...<br /><br />Art, the DI wasn't behind the lawsuit (in fact, it opposed it) and didn't put on a full court press. Also, one of the plaintiffs' witnesses (Robert Pennock) was disingenuous and received scorn from the philosophical community for his deception. Martin has already noted the judge's TomHhttp://soccerdadforlife.xanga.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-40419752436228563112009-07-16T20:50:50.395-04:002009-07-16T20:50:50.395-04:00Durned. So you weren't being sarcastic. Mayb...Durned. So you weren't being sarcastic. Maybe I can tell Josh Rosenau that NCSE has a new benefactor.Arthttp://aghunt.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-63126488935469664162009-07-16T11:08:05.881-04:002009-07-16T11:08:05.881-04:00Art,
Where did I say NCSE doctored the transcript...Art,<br /><br />Where did I say NCSE doctored the transcripts?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-4614531027565261492009-07-15T22:47:31.510-04:002009-07-15T22:47:31.510-04:00Martin, you imply that NCSE have doctored the Dove...Martin, you imply that NCSE have doctored the Dover transcripts. Care to share your evidence with your readers?Arthttp://aghunt.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-69254523238474018952009-07-15T16:08:58.950-04:002009-07-15T16:08:58.950-04:00Now there's an objective source.Now there's an objective source.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-57050854261357840572009-07-15T16:03:23.842-04:002009-07-15T16:03:23.842-04:00Here is a great site about the Dover case, includi...Here is a great site about the Dover case, including transcripts:<br />http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-doverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-59764468636685244022009-07-15T12:53:54.825-04:002009-07-15T12:53:54.825-04:00> that their star would be no match for some we...> that their star would be no match for some well-informed and very clever grad students. <br /><br />What, specifically, did they do to stymie Dr. Behe?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-73092604154028265562009-07-15T12:35:04.659-04:002009-07-15T12:35:04.659-04:00Hi Martin,
When I referred to the defense team, I...Hi Martin,<br /><br />When I referred to the defense team, I was thinking about the whole package, including the experts that the defense assembled. You know, Behe, Minnich, et al.<br /><br />I think that the ID defenders at Dover included the very best that the Discovery Institute could assemble. Heck, I am willing to bet that the DI thought that Behe would dazzle the "audience" intoArthttp://aghunt.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-30374288228970800462009-07-15T10:19:49.978-04:002009-07-15T10:19:49.978-04:00The irony of Art's last remark is that, if the...The irony of Art's last remark is that, if the defense team in Dover was so incompetent (and I don't necessarily dispute that), it makes the ruling that much more questionable.<br /><br />The incompetence of a defense is one of the most common arguments used that a case was wrongly decided.<br /><br />In other words, Art seems to be admitting that the <i>Dover</i> decision was not based Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-51627251238968601832009-07-15T08:48:09.189-04:002009-07-15T08:48:09.189-04:00"The defense attorneys were incompetent on th...<i>"The defense attorneys were incompetent on this point since they didn't challenge Pennock to clarify these points."</i><br /><br />LOL<br /><br />The defense team in the Dover trial was incompetent in almost every way imaginable. It's absolutely no surprise that they seem to have missed a few nuances.Arthttp://aghunt.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-28681961998106487262009-07-14T22:48:55.460-04:002009-07-14T22:48:55.460-04:00I'm not sure I understand you here.
You said ...<i>I'm not sure I understand you here.<br /><br />You said that demarcation was not used to distinguish science from non-science. To demarcate means to distinguish. The demarcation debate in the philosophy of science is about distinguishing science from non-science.<br /><br />But maybe I'm just not seeing your point.</i><br /><br />The overwhelming majority view in philosophy of science TomHhttp://soccerdadforlife.xanga.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-47607232424482085732009-07-14T11:25:29.602-04:002009-07-14T11:25:29.602-04:00I suppose we should also show tolerance towards a,...I suppose we should also show tolerance towards a, say, state historian who believes the conspiracy theory that all history prior to the Middle Ages was lost, and that monks made it all up.<br /><br />So what if it rejects the basic ways of doing history, we should be tolerant, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-92130085429966257512009-07-14T09:48:16.077-04:002009-07-14T09:48:16.077-04:00TomH:
I'm not sure I understand you here.
Yo...TomH:<br /><br />I'm not sure I understand you here.<br /><br />You said that demarcation was not used to distinguish science from non-science. To demarcate <i>means</i> to distinguish. The demarcation debate in the philosophy of science is about distinguishing science from non-science.<br /><br />But maybe I'm just not seeing your point.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-58816140395200550082009-07-14T08:03:43.439-04:002009-07-14T08:03:43.439-04:00The Dover decision included a disingenuous answer ...The Dover decision included a disingenuous answer by Pennock about the status of demarcation in philosophy of science, where Pennock implied that philosophy of science used demarcation to distinguish between science and non-science. Pennock also implied that Laudan would have used demarcation to decide that ID wasn't science. Both of these things are false.<br /><br />The defense attorneys TomHhttp://soccerdadforlife.xanga.comnoreply@blogger.com