Real Skepticism vs. Sham Skepticism
|July 4, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design|
I appreciate emails like this by ID skeptics who are genuine in their skepticism and see through the sham skepticism of persons who may appropriately be described as secular fundamentalists:
Hi Dr. Dembski,
I emailed you a week or so ago re: Fisher and a possible orgin of alpha = .05.
I thought you might find this thread over at skepticforum.com funny.
I’m pretty skeptical of ID as a whole, but I enjoy discussions about such
things, and I tend to focus on the math involved as I’m not qualified to talk
about anything else (and even some of the math like measures etc. is well over
my head). Anyway, it seems everytime I try to start a civil post about the math
ideas contained in your papers or with ID in general, the personal insults
shortly follow and no discussion of the math follows. They simply refuse to
point to a specific line of math and discuss it rationally.
I was then basically accused of being a defender, a believer, a supporter,
engaging in wishful thinking, and a member of “xian circles”, whatever that
means. I’m not sure what an agnostic/deist/philosophical daoist would be doing
in a “xian circle” anyway, but those circles would probably be more welcoming
than the circle I started the thread in.
Recently I ‘bowed out’ of the discussion with
I’m not interested in emotional appeals and declarations that something is crap,
tripe, propaganda, etc.
I’m merely pointing out mathematical ideas contained in Dembski’s papers for
discussion, and I’m pretty confident that having a civil discussion about such
things contained in Dembski’s papers will not make life and society crumble.
Thought you might find the Internet drama amusing,