Shallit’s Deposition Now Available Online
| November 12, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design |
35 Responses to Shallit’s Deposition Now Available Online
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Copyright (C) Uncommon Descent, Inc.
pg 198 Outlaw states that disputes in mathematics are quite rare compared to those in science because mathematics are more amenable to absolute proofs. So I guess it’s an exceedingly rare situation where two mathematicians like Dembski and Outlaw are in dispute. Spare me.
Mark Perakh of “the communists ate my homework” fame chimes in
http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc.....ment-56776
with his two cents. I’d demand a refund of my two cents if I actually had to pay for his senile tripe.
“It still doesn’t make sense. It was more than just a request for the document and you kind of lose the history behind the whole story. It would have been better to keep the previous blogs to put it all in context.”
I don’t really recall it being too much more than a request, but I don’t remember exactly what it said. If there’s a better reason than: it would be an interesting story to entertain us all, then I might agree. For now, it seems everyone just loves to harp whenever he removes one of his posts like he is lying or something.
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/ma.....ab%20O.pdf
The missing pages are at the link above. They’re rather damning to Outlaw’s testimony that independent patterns are too fuzzy and subjective to be useful in mathematical design detection. The missing pages mention design detection methodology used in SETI, forensic science, cryptography, random number generation, and archeology. These all use independently derived patterns.
Interesting reading. I have a greater appreciation for lawyer jokes.