Talk:William A. Dembski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Spade (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 20 February 2005 (→[[Wikipedia:Citations]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)

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)

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 they can be cited as well. Obviously names like the National Academies of Sciences, American Scientist 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_A._Dembski&oldid=10466250"