Part 7: How did Dembski Get through Peer Review if ID Theory was an Argument from Incredulity?; What say Harran?

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:13:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:09 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:52:45 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:



snip, already covered.





>>> Effectively that is a supernatural being which means that it is a god.
>>> It may not be the Christian god which the main proponents of
>>> Intelligent Design support, it may not even be a god to whom you pray,
>>> and you may not go to church to worship it but if it is a supernatural
>>> being then it is *de facto* a god; that is why intelligent design,
>>> invoking an intelligent designer, is *de facto* religious.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>***************WHY THIS REASONING IS FLAWED EXAMPLE 1************
>>ID theory examines the bacterial flagellum, for example. An application
>>of the theory produces a conclusion that due in part to the object's
>>specified complexity (the attributes of an electric motor) that law,
>>chance or a combination (which includes neoDarwinian causative power)
>>lack the resources to explain its existence in the time available. This
>>leaves "intelligent agency" as the cause.
>>
>>It is only at this point in the reasoning----after an application of ID
>>Theory is completed----that the subclass of intelligent agent comes into
>>view.
>
> And only comes into play for those who don't possess the intelligence to
> recognise that just because science can't explain every last detail of
> something right now, that does not imply that something superanural must
> be involved in that detail; that is precisely the sort of stupid claim
> that makes religious belief risible in the eyes of non-believers - a
> variation on the foolisness that St Augustine warned about.




1. If ID Theory was nothing more than an argument from incredulity then
how did William Dembski get his book ("The Design Inference") through
peer review before being published by the Cambridge University Press?
Instead Dembski's theory attempts to show that one can "sometimes"
eliminate regularities of nature and chance as a causative agent through
an application of probability theory.

2. And your corollary to incredulity is that God is filling the gaps in
understanding-----this is a double edged sword. You have essentially
admitted that Evolutionists have no testable explanation for how the
bacterial flagellum (for example) arose and survived natural selection to
maturity before it was functional. Nonetheless by assuming that it did
arise in neoDarwinian fashion without a clear, detailed explanation you
are effectively inserting "Nature did it" in place of "God" until (or if)
a neoDarwinian explanation ever materializes.




snip, to follow later.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Are you so unconcerned by conventional decency that you think your every
compulsive whim should spawn a separate thread? You can’t keep this subject
renaming shitstorm contained inside the originating thread(s)? What the
fuck is seriously wrong with you to flout all decency and accepted
convention? Are you that self-important and deranged? This is seven
orphaned discussions in 1.5 hours. That’s abuse.

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>

> 1. If ID Theory was nothing more than an argument from incredulity then
> how did William Dembski get his book ("The Design Inference") through
> peer review before being published by the Cambridge University Press?

University press publishers do not really do "peer review" anymore.

They do a market study.


This goes back to the 1970s with all the Carlos Castaneda hippy stoner books published by the University of California Press.

[Mark Isaak]

It may also interest Pagano to know that several takedowns of Dembski
were also published by university presses. If a university press has
the cachet Pagano attributes to it, then he must conclude that Dembski
is toast.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Martin Harran]

At the end of the first one, he added "more to follow as time
permits". Can't see how he can pretend he was short of time when he
was able to make seven different posts in just over an hour.

>That’s abuse.

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:02:36 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Are you so unconcerned by conventional decency that you think your every
> compulsive whim should spawn a separate thread?

> What the fuck is seriously wrong with you to flout all decency and
> accepted convention?

Unwritten/written conventions about posting in a usenet newsgroup are not
a moral issue. Not even close. On the other hand your foul language is a
moral issue.

> You can’t keep this
> subject renaming shitstorm contained inside the originating thread(s)?

1. Renaming the subject line to match the content is both logical and
common sense. It provides all forum members who may have initially
avoided a thread with a means of determining whether to take time to read
material. I suspect many good discussion are missed by late comers
because the subject line is rubbish. Since the content of the posts
within threads (usually) changes relatively rapidly so should the subject
lines.

2. I sometimes consider a discussion started in one thread to be
important enough to break-it-out into one or more threads. This gives it
wider exposure to others who may have ignored a thread based upon a
subject line that bears no connection to anything in the thread.

3. My opinion was (beginning in 1998) and is (still today) that those
who object to my practice do so----not because of delicate sensibilities
about posting etiquette, but-----because they prefer to be hidden within
threads with subject lines that bear no likeness to what is going on
within them. If their arguments are collapsed under a subject line
labeled "Bob's your Uncle" who would know or care. However, if they make
nonsensical claims about ID Theory and those feckless arguments are
exposed others are less likely to use them again----arguments will
improve.

> Are you that self-important and deranged? This is
> seven orphaned discussions in 1.5 hours. That’s abuse.

Orphaned to you perhaps but they are new threads with important arguments
to be exposed publicly. In the old days the level of new threads was
almost impossible to keep up with. Today its a trickle.



Since I have no intent of changing my practices, you have three choices:

1. ignore my posts
2. killfile my posts
3. complain to the moderator to have me removed

I couldn't care less which one.

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:00:03 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> It may also interest Pagano to know that several takedowns of Dembski
> were also published by university presses. If a university press has
> the cachet Pagano attributes to it, then he must conclude that Dembski
> is toast.
>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
> have." - James Baldwin

Good point.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:32:09 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

>On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:02:36 -0600, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>> Are you so unconcerned by conventional decency that you think your every
>> compulsive whim should spawn a separate thread?
>
>> What the fuck is seriously wrong with you to flout all decency and
>> accepted convention?
>
>
>Unwritten/written conventions about posting in a usenet newsgroup are not
>a moral issue.

No, they are an issue of personal ethics; specifically of
respect for group norms.

And we all know, by observation of your arguments and
posting habits, that you're bereft of such ethics, just as
you're bereft of the ethics requiring you to address
refutations of your assertions by other than regurgiposting
those assertions.

HAND.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:45:57 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Dr. Gary Hurd"
<gary...@cox.net>:

>On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:00:03 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:

>> It may also interest Pagano to know that several takedowns of Dembski
>> were also published by university presses. If a university press has
>> the cachet Pagano attributes to it, then he must conclude that Dembski
>> is toast.

>Good point.

Except that, to Tony and others like him, it's irrelevant,
cherry-picked data being the order of the day. Contradictory
information simply doesn't exist.

[T Pagano]

Demski went through a lengthy peer review process prior to the 1998
publishing of his "The Design Inference." And the Cambridge University
Press ain't the University of California Press.

[Burkhard]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:54:21 -0800, Dr. Gary Hurd wrote:
>
>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:19:20 -0600, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>>>
>>> 1. If ID Theory was nothing more than an argument from incredulity
>>> then how did William Dembski get his book ("The Design Inference")
>>> through peer review before being published by the Cambridge University
>>> Press?
>>
>> University press publishers do not really do "peer review" anymore.
>>
>> They do a market study.
>>
>>
>> This goes back to the 1970s with all the Carlos Castaneda hippy stoner
>> books published by the University of California Press.
>
>
>
> Demski went through a lengthy peer review process prior to the 1998
> publishing of his "The Design Inference."

That would surprise me. I've refereed for CUP, and as Gary said, they
(and that is par for the course) mainly want to know about possible
markets, competitor books, if the reviewer would use it for undergradute
or postgraduate teaching, if all the relevant topics are covered etc.

Review is not based on the full manuscript, but typically a one page
"motivation and summary", the table of contents and sometimes (but by no
means always) a sample chapter.

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 8:00:04 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

>
> That would surprise me. I've refereed for CUP, and as Gary said, they
> (and that is par for the course) mainly want to know about possible

> markets, competitor books, if the reviewer would use it for undergraduate

> or postgraduate teaching, if all the relevant topics are covered etc.
>
> Review is not based on the full manuscript, but typically a one page
> "motivation and summary", the table of contents and sometimes (but by no
> means always) a sample chapter.
>
>

I sometimes find it amusing when a nitwit lectures us about what we have professionally done.

Sometimes it is irritating.