Comments on: Shallit’s Deposition Now Available Online

By: hlwarren

hlwarren — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:50:04 +0000

Interesting reading. I have a greater appreciation for lawyer jokes.

By: DaveScot

DaveScot — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:08:06 +0000

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.

By: Ben Z

Ben Z — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:41:00 +0000

“It still doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.

By: DaveScot

DaveScot — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:21:58 +0000

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.

By: DaveScot

DaveScot — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:05:04 +0000

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.

By: DaveScot

DaveScot — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:51:04 +0000

pg 187 where Outlaw is squeezed in the vise to answer whether all design proponents posit the designer is “God” is an excellent example in “dodge, duck, dive, and dodge”. This is getting really entertaining towards the end. Outlaw really does come off as an embarrassment for his camp. Thompson sure did a good job.

By: DaveScot

DaveScot — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:42:19 +0000

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA – pg 175 Outlaw says he gave Forrest’s “Creationism’s Trojan Horse” a sterling review and describes it as a work about political and sociological aspects of ID. Yet earlier in his deposition Outlaw attacks scientists who gave Dembski’s book positive reviews when said scientists weren’t experts in the field of Dembski’s work. Outlaw also admits earlier that he is not an expert in politics or sociology. So bascially Outlaw is a hypocrite according to his own sworn testimony. That’s some funny shi… er, poopy!

By: DaveScot

DaveScot — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:28:40 +0000

pg 170 Outlaw, after complaining that Dembski rarely responds to critics, sends Outlaw and other critics a paper addressing their criticisms with clarifications and asks for comments on the clarification. Outlaw then responds, like a petulant child, he’ll waste no more time finding errors in Dembski’s work. Unilateral declarations of victory like Outlaw’s seldom impress anyone so it probably would be a waste for Outlaw to construct more of them.

By: DaveScot

DaveScot — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:15:26 +0000

Wow. Thompson really set up Outlaw for a spanking beginning around pg 152 where he forces Outlaw to admit that his attacks on Dembski are irrelevant to whether or not Dembski’s hypothesis is wrong or right. Thompson makes Outlaw look like someone out for revenge using baseless personal attacks to get it. Ouch. Nobody in their right mind would have put Outlaw on the witness stand as an expert knowing that was coming.

By: DaveScot

DaveScot — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:08:13 +0000

pg 150 Outlaw says scientists are only supposed to be logical in sociological sense.

WTF?