Turncoat
Posts: 129
Joined: Dec. 2007
|
| Quote (BillB @ Oct. 06 2009,11:56) | | The alternative I suppose is to refute the paper from a technical standpoint through academic journals, and try and hint at the possible dishonesty through that means. |
It often takes more words to rebut a smooth creationist argument than are in the argument itself. It's hard to explain what's wrong with some fundamental things that Dembski and Marks breeze right through, like the notion of search.
In the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society, which includes investigators in evolutionary computation, rebuttals go in a peer-reviewed "magazine," not the primary journals, and manuscripts are limited to 8 double-spaced pages. The notorious information-smuggling president of society, David Fogel, tells me that the rebuttals are of articles in journals published by our society, not those of other societies (e.g., Systems, Man, and Cybernetics). I need to check with the editor of the magazine to see if there might be an exception. I don't know him, and the matter is politically sensitive.
I have to decide what strong points I can get across in very few words, and forget the others, even if I think they're very important. I frankly am very poor at disciplining myself to do that.
--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman
|
