Content deleted Content added
→Inconsistent or false: p.s. that paragraph is starting to look patched together, needs better wordsmithing |
Markbassett (talk | contribs) →Inconsistent or false: not Shallit, was just poor paraphrase |
||
Line 343:
::::The equivocation in question is between Shannon information, which has been part of mainstream information theory for nearly seventy years, and Dembski's CSI, which is scarcely, if at all, mentioned in credible peer-reviewed literature in the field. [[User:Just plain Bill|Just plain Bill]] ([[User talk:Just plain Bill|talk]]) 21:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::::p.s. That being said, the second paragraph in the criticism section is showning signs of being a patchwork written by a committee. Some cognizant wordsmithing is called for, IMO. [[User:Just plain Bill|Just plain Bill]] ([[User talk:Just plain Bill|talk]]) 23:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::::: [[User:Just plain Bill]] - it isn't Shallit paper theme 3 about wordin. That does not match the article text being about math, and does not fit to the next line of the section. The wording issues were in the prior paragraph and this looks like just a poor paraphrase of the exchange with Erik Tellgren.
::::::* Shallit theme 3 about flawed wording, the [[Equivocation]] of using a term that means two things as if it means the same thing -- does not support a line about a mathematics refactoring to mathematical norms: "When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, those claims can be shown to be fallacious." (I'm dubious how or if any RS stated some interpretation to "make them meaningful" or what are the "minimal standards of mathematical usage", but in any case there is no math in Shallit theme 3 so it's not that cite.)
::::::* The next line of the section is "Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity"." That exchange is a reply to a mathematical criticism:
::::::::: August 2002 “If Only Darwinists Scrutinized Their Own Work as Closely: A Response To Erik.” www.designinference.com/documents/2002.08.Erik_Response.htm
::::::::: 30 June 2002 Erik Tellgren. “On Dembski’s Law Of Conservation Of Information.” www.talkreason.org/articles/dembski_LCI.pdf . (The byline of this essay contains only Tellgren’s first name, Erik)
::::: So I will take a whack at the mathematics line citing to Telgren, and redo the next line. If you want to put the SHannon/CSI bit into the prior paragrapgh about wording would seem OK, or if you've got some further cite that goes to mathematics then add a line in this one. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 06:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
| |||