Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Criticisms of Dembski's latest opus Wilson , David Aug 24, 2004
Mark Perakh wrote:

I take the liberty, though, to
quote your words, "I do have a sufficiently strong background in all the
fields necessary to follow the mathematics of the paper" (it relates to
Dembski's new paper on "variational information"). This description fits
the definition of an expert, so that a characterization of your
qualifications as those of an expert seems to be sufficiently justified.

This usage of the term "expert" is certainly reasonable, and I am quite happy to identify myself as an expert in that sense. However the term is also rather vague. If I see someone described as an "expert in information theory" (for instance), I would normally take it to mean that he or she was either performing research in information theory of sufficient quality to be publishable in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, or capable of performing such research at short notice. I would certainly not claim expertise of that calibre in any of the areas covered by Dembski's article.

I agree with you that there is no need to
make an excessive fuss regarding the (not very consequential) error in
Dembski's paper that you noticed, but in my view no excessive fuss has taken

Oh, yes. Since you have done no more than refer your readers to an article of mine in talk.origins, I quite agree that you have not at all exaggerated the importance of the error. I am sorry if my remarks gave the impression that I thought you had.
Related Articles: Dembski goes mathematical

Title Author Date
Criticisms of Dembski's latest opus Perakh, Mark Aug 25, 2004
I appreciate David Wilson's remarks. It looks like there is hardly any serious disagreement between myself and David Wilson, except, perhaps, for some subtle nuances in the interpretation of a few terms.

Mark Perakh
Related Articles: Dembski goes mathematical