Quote Mine: Behe and Dorit
Harlequin
new book BTW.
In American Scientist Yale molecular biologist Robert Dorit averred,
"In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not
yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or the
blood clotting cascade." (Dorit 1997)
Source: "Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature:
Response to Critics" by Michael
Behe<http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm>
Robert Dorit's article is "A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe"
<http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794?fulltext=true>
or <http://tinyurl.com/lp7yr>
Is this quote worth including in the Quote Mine Project?
Obviously Dorit's point is that not being able to explain utterly
everything is not a weakness of weakness of evolutionary
biology. Nor does he concede that science does not have any
explanations for biological complexity. And even if it did
concede it, the reality that science does have explanations
would make the quote moot anyways.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"Solipsism has always been a part of creationist ideas. The
whole 'were you there' and related retorts boils down to
solipsism."
- Ken Shaw
Frank J
Harlequin wrote:
> Here is a quote mine. The Dorit quote is used by Ann Coultler in her
> new book BTW.
>
> In American Scientist Yale molecular biologist Robert Dorit averred,
> "In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not
> yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or the
> blood clotting cascade." (Dorit 1997)
>
> Source: "Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature:
> Response to Critics" by Michael
> Behe<http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm>
>
> Robert Dorit's article is "A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The
> Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe"
> <http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794?fulltext=true>
> or <http://tinyurl.com/lp7yr>
>
> Is this quote worth including in the Quote Mine Project?
It's up to catshark, but if he's taking votes, mine is yes. Unless it's
there already, in which case the decision would be whether Coulter, who
apparently got all her misinformation 2nd hand, should be included
among those who mined it before.
BTW, did anyone hear her on the Medved show today mumbling something
about scientists and trying to distance herself from them by saying
"I'm an idiot"?
Ferrous Patella
> It's up to catshark, but if he's taking votes, mine is yes. Unless it's
> there already, in which case the decision would be whether Coulter, who
> apparently got all her misinformation 2nd hand, should be included
> among those who mined it before.
I wonder if she could get tagged with plagiarism.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
catshark
>
>Harlequin wrote:
>> Here is a quote mine. The Dorit quote is used by Ann Coultler in her
>> new book BTW.
>>
>> In American Scientist Yale molecular biologist Robert Dorit averred,
>> "In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not
>> yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or the
>> blood clotting cascade." (Dorit 1997)
>>
>> Source: "Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature:
>> Response to Critics" by Michael
>> Behe<http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm>
>>
>> Robert Dorit's article is "A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The
>> Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe"
>> <http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794?fulltext=true>
>> or <http://tinyurl.com/lp7yr>
>>
>> Is this quote worth including in the Quote Mine Project?
>
>It's up to catshark, but if he's taking votes, mine is yes.
[...]
You know, my first reaction was "probably no" because the inclusion of that
"In a narrow sense" shows he isn't really agreeing with Behe and,
therefore, it doesn't really misrepresent his thought. But then I went to
the article where the full context is:
Fallacy three: Unless we can identify advantages for each
imaginary gradual step leading to a contemporary bit of
biochemistry, we cannot invoke a Darwinian explanation.
There has always been a version of popular evolution that
consists of identifying some curious feature of the living
world, speculating on why that feature might be "good for
the organism" and imagining how that feature may have come
to pass. Any one of us can come up with multiple, plausible
stories concerning the evolution of a given biological
feature. But plausibility is about the weakest criterion one
can apply to an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionary biology
may finally be coming of age precisely because we are moving
away from particularistic, speculative scenarios—the just-so
stories. The rigorous testing of evolutionary hypotheses
depends on the use of comparative data, on an understanding
of mechanism and, increasingly, on the experimental
manipulation of components of the system. It does not (see
fallacy two) depend on inventing an "advantage" for a
partially evolved flagellar motor. In a narrow sense, Behe
is correct when he argues that we do not yet fully understand
the evolution of the flagellar motor or of the clotting cascade.
Unsolved questions, however, are the hallmark of an exciting
science.
That is more than a concession of a non-point, Dorit is actively calling it
a fallacy to make the argument. I think that is (with some appropriate
caveats) enough grounds to include it in the QMP.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Do you think everyone should have a blog?
Here is the counter-evidence: <http://dododreams.blogspot.com/>
Harlequin
news:tu8h925arrfvu6gkt...@4ax.com:
> On 20 Jun 2006 15:21:57 -0700, "Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Harlequin wrote:
>>> Here is a quote mine. The Dorit quote is used by Ann Coultler in
>>> her new book BTW.
>>>
>>> In American Scientist Yale molecular biologist Robert Dorit
>>> averred, "In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that
>>> we do not yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar
>>> motor or the blood clotting cascade." (Dorit 1997)
>>>
>>> Source: "Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature:
>>> Response to Critics" by Michael
>>> Behe<http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm>
>>>
>>> Robert Dorit's article is "A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The
>>> Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe"
>>> <http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794?
>>> fulltext=true> or <http://tinyurl.com/lp7yr>
>>>
>>> Is this quote worth including in the Quote Mine Project?
>>
>>It's up to catshark, but if he's taking votes, mine is yes.
>
> [...]
>
> You know, my first reaction was "probably no" because the inclusion of
> that "In a narrow sense" shows he isn't really agreeing with Behe and,
> therefore, it doesn't really misrepresent his thought. But then I
> went to the article where the full context is:
>
[snip the context]
>
> That is more than a concession of a non-point, Dorit is actively
> calling it a fallacy to make the argument. I think that is (with some
> appropriate caveats) enough grounds to include it in the QMP.
This could be a case where argument via quotation is a fallacy beyond
any case from misrepresentation. Behe did not lie here, but
he does not tell his reader a key piece of information needed
to understand what Dorit was really saying.
BTW, does anyone here have a copy or easy access to to a copy of
Ms. Coultler's book? I glanced at it in a book store. It
is even worse than what people are saying! I noticed this
quote. When I got back to my car I wrote a note "Dorit Behe"
so I could google it. It might be a good idea to to some
of "her" (or rather Dembski's) quotes since they are all
very likely to get a lot of mindless repeating in the
near future. But we don't want to buy the book unless
completely necessary. I suppose I should try
the library, but I suspect there were will be a long
wait for it.
Kleuskes & Moos
Harlequin schreef:
> Here is a quote mine. The Dorit quote is used by Ann Coultler in her
> new book BTW.
>
> In American Scientist Yale molecular biologist Robert Dorit averred,
> "In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not
> yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or the
> blood clotting cascade." (Dorit 1997)
>
> Source: "Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature:
> Response to Critics" by Michael
> Behe<http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm>
>
> Robert Dorit's article is "A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The
> Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe"
> <http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794?fulltext=true>
> or <http://tinyurl.com/lp7yr>
>
> Is this quote worth including in the Quote Mine Project?
My vote is yes, as far as that means anything.
On a lighter side, i saw my first Ann Coulter interview yesterday on
BBC's "Hard Talk". She looked decidedly nervous when she finished her
usual rants about the "liberal press" in order to avoid any real
questions about the book you mention.
catshark
I'd call it a misrepresentation at a higher level. The words themselves
don't misrepresent the particular thought but leaving out the larger
context underplays the criticism that the author is making.
>
>
>BTW, does anyone here have a copy or easy access to to a copy of
>Ms. Coultler's book? I glanced at it in a book store. It
>is even worse than what people are saying! I noticed this
>quote. When I got back to my car I wrote a note "Dorit Behe"
>so I could google it. It might be a good idea to to some
>of "her" (or rather Dembski's) quotes since they are all
>very likely to get a lot of mindless repeating in the
>near future. But we don't want to buy the book unless
>completely necessary. I suppose I should try
>the library, but I suspect there were will be a long
>wait for it.
Yeah, the copies in my local library system seem to be all tied up, likely
for a while. If we get a copy, we could . . . um . . . set up our own
little lending library. ;-)
Augray
<1150861764.0...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> :
I also looked through it in a book store, and it has Gould's "trade
secret of paleontology" quote as well. There's also a comment about
Archaeopteryx.
>It might be a good idea to to some
>of "her" (or rather Dembski's) quotes since they are all
>very likely to get a lot of mindless repeating in the
>near future. But we don't want to buy the book unless
>completely necessary. I suppose I should try
>the library, but I suspect there were will be a long
>wait for it.
I've put in a request to the Toronto Public Library system.
Dean Chesterman
Harlequin wrote:
> catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:tu8h925arrfvu6gkt...@4ax.com:
>
>
> BTW, does anyone here have a copy or easy access to to a copy of
> Ms. Coultler's book? I glanced at it in a book store. It
> is even worse than what people are saying! I noticed this
> quote. When I got back to my car I wrote a note "Dorit Behe"
> so I could google it. It might be a good idea to to some
> of "her" (or rather Dembski's) quotes since they are all
> very likely to get a lot of mindless repeating in the
> near future. But we don't want to buy the book unless
> completely necessary. I suppose I should try
> the library, but I suspect there were will be a long
> wait for it.
>
> --
> Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
>
> "Solipsism has always been a part of creationist ideas. The
> whole 'were you there' and related retorts boils down to
> solipsism."
> - Ken Shaw
>
Find a well meaning friend and ask to borrow the book, give them Carl
Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" in
return.
Or do what I do with these types of books, go to the local used book
store and ask for them to hold a junky copy for you. You get the book
for a buck or less and at least a local business person gets to profit.
Another alternative is illegal, tell the local news stand guy you want a
copy after he tears the cover off and sends it back to the publisher. He
is garaging them anyway.
Dean Chesterman