﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Two recent articles in the UK Press</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-recent-articles-in-the-uk-press/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-recent-articles-in-the-uk-press/</link>
	<description>Serving The Intelligent Design Community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:02:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: nullasalus</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-recent-articles-in-the-uk-press/comment-page-1/#comment-350398</link>
		<dc:creator>nullasalus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:18:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=12395#comment-350398</guid>
		<description>Dennett&#039;s quoted commentary on Fodor reduces to psychoanalysis and ad hominem. Which, I would agree, is unhelpful. Not terribly surprising though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dennett&#8217;s quoted commentary on Fodor reduces to psychoanalysis and ad hominem. Which, I would agree, is unhelpful. Not terribly surprising though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nakashima</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-recent-articles-in-the-uk-press/comment-page-1/#comment-350390</link>
		<dc:creator>Nakashima</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=12395#comment-350390</guid>
		<description>Mr Barfety,

You are conflating what Dennett about Fodor (clever) with what Dennett said about his thinking (irrational) and his book (laughable and dangerous). This kind of carelessness in argument is unhelpful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr Barfety,</p>
<p>You are conflating what Dennett about Fodor (clever) with what Dennett said about his thinking (irrational) and his book (laughable and dangerous). This kind of carelessness in argument is unhelpful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Franck Barfety</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-recent-articles-in-the-uk-press/comment-page-1/#comment-350361</link>
		<dc:creator>Franck Barfety</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:57:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=12395#comment-350361</guid>
		<description>From the Guardian article:
&lt;blockquote&gt;Says Dennett, via email: &quot;Jerry Fodor&#039;s book is a stunning demonstration of how abhorrence of an idea (Jerry&#039;s visceral dislike of evolutionary thinking) can derange an otherwise clever thinker . . . a responsible academic is supposed to be able to control irrational impulses, [but] Fodor has simply collapsed in the face of his dread and composed some dreadfully bad arguments.&quot; What Darwin Got Wrong, Dennett concludes, is &quot;a book that so transparently misconstrues its target that it would be laughable were it not such dangerous mischief&quot;.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Interesting how a &quot;clever thinker&quot; and &quot;responsible academic&quot; is suddenly labelled &quot;irrational&quot;, &quot;dreadful&quot;, &quot;laughable&quot; and &quot;dangerous&quot; once he becomes a dissident.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the Guardian article:</p>
<blockquote><p>Says Dennett, via email: &#8220;Jerry Fodor&#8217;s book is a stunning demonstration of how abhorrence of an idea (Jerry&#8217;s visceral dislike of evolutionary thinking) can derange an otherwise clever thinker . . . a responsible academic is supposed to be able to control irrational impulses, [but] Fodor has simply collapsed in the face of his dread and composed some dreadfully bad arguments.&#8221; What Darwin Got Wrong, Dennett concludes, is &#8220;a book that so transparently misconstrues its target that it would be laughable were it not such dangerous mischief&#8221;.</p></blockquote>
<p>Interesting how a &#8220;clever thinker&#8221; and &#8220;responsible academic&#8221; is suddenly labelled &#8220;irrational&#8221;, &#8220;dreadful&#8221;, &#8220;laughable&#8221; and &#8220;dangerous&#8221; once he becomes a dissident.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

