Was it supposed to be serious mathematics/science or just a scheme to make money for the CUP?
Did the editors of the series simply include the Dembski volume as a cynical ploy to make money out of brain dead fundamentalists... or was there serious content that serious mathematicians, logicians and scientists thought was worth serious consideration by academics...
I genuinely want to know the answer to this question.
Maybe I should just sit down and send this question to them by email and ask.
Am I supposed to look at the list of advisory editors and say "bunch of total jokers"?
Here they are:
Brian Skyrms
Ernest W Adams
Ken Binmore
Jeremy Butterfield
Persi Diaconis
William Harper
John Harsanyi
Richard Jeffrey
Wolfgang Spohn
Patrick Suppes
Amos Tversky
Sandy Zabell
If you do a google search on each you do not immediately think.... erm... this is a wind up!
2 comments:
Jeff,
Are you saying that mathematicians and statisticians can say nothing helpful about evolution because they are not biologists?
Is the production of new information in a living organism essentially a probability issue?
I think your description of the book is unfair. Have you read it or have you read any reviews of it?
This book lays out the theoretical foundation for design inferences, and does not treat biology specifically, except to mention that the techniques can be used there as well.
If this book were really a ploy to make money off fundamentalists, then it would be a bad idea, since most fundamentalists would find it hard going for lack of the relevant training.
Post a Comment