That was a very encouraging interview. The strange silence of your most worthy opponents is very telling to the fact that you have reached a level of unimpeachable integrity. I for one think you have done a great service for science by providing the mathematical foundation for detecting design in biology. Your opponents, for the most part, would not know a first principle of science if it bit them on the behind. Keep up the good (but hard) work Dr. Dembski.

I’ll try to read some of your more mathematical rigourous work soon- I’d like to finish your NFL book first- school just keeps grtting in the way though 🙂

Never mentioned it, but I really enjoyed your new papers on Active Information in Searches. Good work and useful approach to analyzing the information flow in searches.
We want more. 🙂

I was wondering when the solution to the mathematical puzzle you posted on your site over a year ago will appear, and the context in which it is applied?

He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996.

It’s comforting, when reading his books, to know that Dembski has all of his academic bases covered. I find so often that when someone is strictly a scientist, the philosophy behind their theories will be very poor (e.g. Dawkins’ “Methinksitisaweasel” argument, for one), or that when one is strictly a philosopher, one doesn’t know how to apply his learnings correctly to the real world of science. Anyway, keep on truckin’ Dr. Demski.

That’s the opposite of what I was saying. I was stating that he is both a scholarly scientist and philosopher, both of which are strongly needed by someone who wishes to put forth good arguments like the ones he does. Furthermore, I really respect his willingness to take the heat that he’s been taking in the scientific community.

That was a very encouraging interview. The strange silence of your most worthy opponents is very telling to the fact that you have reached a level of unimpeachable integrity. I for one think you have done a great service for science by providing the mathematical foundation for detecting design in biology. Your opponents, for the most part, would not know a first principle of science if it bit them on the behind. Keep up the good (but hard) work Dr. Dembski.

Been listening to Robert Greene I see?

Ben Z: More than just listen — I teach RG’s books.

Good interview.

I’ll try to read some of your more mathematical rigourous work soon- I’d like to finish your NFL book first- school just keeps grtting in the way though 🙂

Never mentioned it, but I really enjoyed your new papers on Active Information in Searches. Good work and useful approach to analyzing the information flow in searches.

We want more. 🙂

I was wondering when the solution to the mathematical puzzle you posted on your site over a year ago will appear, and the context in which it is applied?

SCheesman, are you referring to finding the min-term of the set, that one? If so, I was wondering the same thing.

He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996.Dude! That is seriously impressive!

I believe its “Dr. Dude” to you. 😉

It’s comforting, when reading his books, to know that Dembski has all of his academic bases covered. I find so often that when someone is strictly a scientist, the philosophy behind their theories will be very poor (e.g. Dawkins’ “Methinksitisaweasel” argument, for one), or that when one is strictly a philosopher, one doesn’t know how to apply his learnings correctly to the real world of science. Anyway, keep on truckin’ Dr. Demski.

nemesis.

Are you suggesting Dr. Dembski is not a scientist?

🙂

christopheratlee:

That’s the opposite of what I was saying. I was stating that he is both a scholarly scientist and philosopher, both of which are strongly needed by someone who wishes to put forth good arguments like the ones he does. Furthermore, I really respect his willingness to take the heat that he’s been taking in the scientific community.