Dembski's Lack of Intellectual Honesty

Posted 7 November 2005 by Ed Brayton

It has now been 5 days since I posted absolute, undeniable proof that Dembski's claims concerning why Jeff Shallit didn't testify at the Dover trial were false. That proof was in the form of a motion filed by the defense and Judge Jones' ruling on that motion, which proves incontrovertibly that Dembski's claim that Shallit was pulled from testifying because his deposition was an "embarrassment" to the ACLU is false. In point of fact, it was the defense who went to great lengths to keep Shallit from testifying. I finished that post with the following statement:

So we have now conclusively demonstrated that Dembski's assertion that Jeff Shallit was kept off the witness stand because his deposition was "an embarrassment" to our side is false. The only question that remains is whether the odds of Dembski admitting he was wrong are above or below his "universal probability boundary" of 1 in 10^150.

In the 5 days since that was posted, Dembski has written 18 separate posts on his blog, the same blog where he made his false claim in the first place. At least one of those posts refers directly to something written about him on the Panda's Thumb, so it's unlikely that he just didn't see it. Indeed, he often refers to things written on PT, so we know that he reads it regularly. As of now, there is still no admission that he was wrong. Is this the behavior of an intellectually honest person or is it the behavior of someone out to smear another scholar and then pretend, even in the face of undeniable proof that his smear was unfounded, that he was never contradicted? I leave that to objective readers to decide on their own. P.S. While we're at it, I'll make predictions on how he'll respond to this post. He will either A) ignore it; B) make a tu quoque argument pointing the finger at someone on the evolution side for the same thing, whether justified or not; or C) he'll insult me. No one offered to take a bet on his first response even with odds of 1 in 10^150 on their side. I doubt anyone will here either.

38 Comments

harold · 7 November 2005

I'll take that bet! I've got a trillionth of a US dollar on Dembski admitting he's wrong! If I lose the bet, I'll be happy to round to the nearest cent.

Remember, you have to pay me 10^138 dollars if I win.

Mike Walker · 7 November 2005

Careful with your wagers, Ed, even Dembski might be willing, for once in his life, to admit a mistake if it would net him one gadzillion dollars (or whatever 1x10^50 works out to be!)

Ed Brayton · 7 November 2005

I'm not actually offering this as a wager. If I was, I'd set up the same rules Kent Hovind does for his infamous $250,000 "challenge" to make sure I could never lose.

Zeno · 7 November 2005

It seems that creationists are not just liars, they are shameless liars. However, since their work is designed to advance the greater glory of God, I'm sure they think He must forgive them. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" was just a suggestion, wasn't it?

morbius · 7 November 2005

I'm not actually offering this as a wager.

Right, but you said you doubted that anyone here would offer to bet against you, and you were wrong. A tiny, pedantic little point, but the point at hand nonetheless.

Russell · 7 November 2005

Just out of curiosity, is there a meaningful distinction between "intellectual" dishonesty and the other kind?

Steve S · 7 November 2005

In response to

# Yes PT folks, more attempts at character assassination and name calling and less science. Stick to what you're good at. ;) Comment by Bombadill --- November 7, 2005 @ 4:02 pm

I created an account and posted

# "Yes PT folks, more attempts at character assassination and name calling and less science. Stick to what you're good at. ;) Comment by Bombadill --- November 7, 2005 @ 4:02 pm" Well, if you want to compare how much science is done by the Panda's Thumb contributors, to how much is done by the Uncommon Descent contributor, I bet I could tell you who has the higher publication or citation count. Comment by steves --- November 7, 2005 @ 7:53 pm

Anybody want to wager how many hours that'll last?

Erasmus · 7 November 2005

i wanna see a citation count Pandas vs. Uncommon!!!! Please Please Please tell me how many cites Davescot and Bombadill have. i'm dying to read the Journal of The DisEnfranchised Teleologist just tell me where it's at!!!

Erasmus · 7 November 2005

pipilangstrumpf · 7 November 2005

"You are boring." WmAD

"Also you are a girly man. PS semper fi." -- DaveScott

"Yes this is what gets to me the most about mud-to-man narrativists, I hear them every day making claims God does not exist, but isn't the fact they are boring girly men a contradiction of that!?!?!?!?" -- jboze3131

"By all means, if you have in fact succeeded in reconciling the spirited Empedocles-Aristotle debates that subsume the core issue almost perfectly, feel free to direct us to a detailed account of your insights. We can then decide, in a fully informed epistemic way, whether your girly men qua men are in fact boring in the additive information sense." -- neurode

AR · 7 November 2005

Who in his right mind could expect that Dembski would admit an error after being rebutted? He certainly knew from the very beginning that his claim about Shallit's testimony was false, that it would impress only his usual crowd of bootlickers, and that nobody having at least a semblance of common sense would take his claim seriously. All of this is of no consequence for him. He evidently enjoys insulting decent people and in the case of Shallit, who reportedly used to teach a class where Dembski was enrolled, he must have perversely enjoyed it even more. Dembski's record of self-promotion (hiding under anonymity), evading responding to critique while insidiously denigrating his critics, distorting the critics' arguments - all that speaks for itself, so his preposterous claim about Shallit's testimony has not added anything new to what had been known about him for quite a while.

morbius · 7 November 2005

Just out of curiosity, is there a meaningful distinction between "intellectual" dishonesty and the other kind?

Intellectual dishonesty is the application of fallacious reasoning to delude oneself, whereas "normal" dishonesty consists of knowingly saying something false. A wikipedia search for "intellectual honesty" redirects to "rigour", which has this to say:

Intellectual rigour is an important part, though not the whole, of intellectual honesty. For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely.

EJ · 7 November 2005

Dembski is without a doubt one of the most despicable lying scumbuckets to ever surface in the C/E arena. It's really amusing to read his blog in the morning and find several comments by new posters correcting his obvious misrepresentations and outright lies. Then, check back in the evening and *poof!*, all the dissenting posts are mysteriously gone! I speak from experience because it happened to me just this week.

I suspect he's had his 15 minutes of fame. His academic career is in the toilet, he's a laughingstock in the scientific community, and all he has left is his butt-kissing lackeys to prop up his ego.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving bottom feeder.

Mike Walker · 7 November 2005

"Thou shalt not bear false witness" was just a suggestion, wasn't it?

Well, now that those Godless liberals have been ripping down all the Ten Commandments monuments, it's been getting hard for them to remember what they're supposed to do.

Steve S · 7 November 2005

me said

Anybody want to wager how many hours that'll last?

Lo and behold, here it is just a few hours later, and from my IP address, my comments are visible--but no other IP can see them. I suppose I'd be pretty testy too, if my decade-long PR movement was going down the tubes. *** And in case you're wondering, I've now emailed Evolution News and Views three times, pointing out that their Trackbacks are broken, and have gotten nothing back three times.

Steve S · 7 November 2005

and all he has left is his butt-kissing lackeys to prop up his ego.

Yeah, I think having DaveScot and Salvador Cordova as your sycophants would actually make you feel worse.

k.e. · 8 November 2005

Not if you lay back and close your eyes.

Dave Cerutti · 8 November 2005

k.e.,

That's almost as bad as Penetrating Shaft a few weeks ago...

k.e. · 8 November 2005

Dang.... he was worse ?

I couldn't find the Monty Python sketch where a TV presenter
is sycophantically introducing his next guest ending with the promise to lick the guest's shoes until he wears a hole true his tongue and anyway someone has to deliver the coup de grace.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 8 November 2005

Right, but you said you doubted that anyone here would offer to bet against you, and you were wrong. A tiny, pedantic little point, but the point at hand nonetheless.

Ah, so it was a meta-bet!

KL · 8 November 2005

EJ wrote

"Dembski is without a doubt one of the most despicable lying scumbuckets to ever surface in the C/E arena. It's really amusing to read his blog in the morning and find several comments by new posters correcting his obvious misrepresentations and outright lies. Then, check back in the evening and *poof!*, all the dissenting posts are mysteriously gone! I speak from experience because it happened to me just this week.

I suspect he's had his 15 minutes of fame. His academic career is in the toilet, he's a laughingstock in the scientific community, and all he has left is his butt-kissing lackeys to prop up his ego.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving bottom feeder."

Usually the premise that "Time wounds all heels" doesn't play out; those that deserve to fall usually don't and those that deserve recognition usually don't get it. I think it is the most insulting part of the ID/creationist claim; that the years of toil, writing, data collecting, analyzing and interaction of countless scientists, mostly without broad public recognition, are dismissed out of hand. Surely, those who have sold large numbers of popular books and have become nationally recognized names and/or faces, they have their reward.

R.O. · 8 November 2005

Speaking of false claims, I am still waiting for you to retract this one:

The irony is that while Dembski bans pretty much anyone who disagrees with him, no matter how politely they do so, he has two mouth-breathing sycophants - DaveScot and Robert O'Brien - who have made repeated comments on his blog complaining of being banned from here.

Ed Brayton · 8 November 2005

The legendary Mr. O'Brien writes:

The irony is that while Dembski bans pretty much anyone who disagrees with him, no matter how politely they do so, he has two mouth-breathing sycophants - DaveScot and Robert O'Brien - who have made repeated comments on his blog complaining of being banned from here.

Still waiting? I didn't realize the veracity of that statement was in dispute. For the record, I am absolutely certain that DaveScot has whined on Dembski's blog about being banned from commenting on my blog. And I know that you have whined about being banned from my blog in the past, but not necessarily on Dembski's page. I tend to group you and Dave together in my mind in the World Class Jerks category, so you can understand why I might have conflated the two. I'm certainly not going to go back and search through the comments on Dembski's blog to make sure I was right, so I'll retract that particular charge. The overall point I was making remains true, of course, that while the two of you have insulted me for banning you from my blog (gee, why would anyone ban someone just for coming to his blog and calling him an f'ing moron? How unfair of them!), you sit on Dembski's blog and publicly fellate a man who bans people from his blog even for giving polite responses to his posts.

Henry J · 8 November 2005

morbius,
Re "Intellectual dishonesty is the application of fallacious reasoning to delude oneself, whereas "normal" dishonesty consists of knowingly saying something false."

Oh, is that the distinction. I had sort of wondered. So it's a question of whether its purely external, or a combination of internal and external deception?

Henry

R.O. · 8 November 2005

The overall point I was making remains true, of course, that while the two of you have insulted me for banning you from my blog (gee, why would anyone ban someone just for coming to his blog and calling him an f'ing moron? How unfair of them!), you sit on Dembski's blog and publicly fellate a man who bans people from his blog even for giving polite responses to his posts.

The juvenile imagery you invoke is consistent with your mediocre intellect. In any event, I do not "sit" on Bill' blog. I have only sent trackbacks to comments on my blog.

resident moron · 8 November 2005

I found it very odd that Casey Luskin never wrote up any glowing reviews of Behe's testimony.

Now, weeks after the fact, they are talking about it at Uncommon Descent like it was a win for ID.

Had to remind them:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/458

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/461

resident moron · 8 November 2005

I found it very odd that Casey Luskin never wrote up any glowing reviews of Behe's testimony.

Now, weeks after the fact, they are talking about it at Uncommon Descent like it was a win for ID.

Had to remind them:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/458

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/461

Steverino · 8 November 2005

R.O.,

I'm not sure anyone who backs a position unsupported by scientific data of any kind, in scientific community should be raising his voice and accusing anyone else of mediocre intellect.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 8 November 2005

What a concept, a thread entitled "Dembski's Lack of Intellectual Honesty". Coming soon from the Panda's Thumb:
The sky is blue
Tetrapods have four limbs
Obvious things are easily seen
and more!

ega · 8 November 2005

I have long since been barred from uncommondescent. Big loss for them.

But today I read of Dembski's new 'Vice', sorry 'vise' strategy and the very first comment was about the mention of god on page 2, relating to some spurious definitions of 'darwinists' (itself a spurious term suggesting 'followers').

Something along the lines of asking if it is wise to be so god-bothering when the inimitable Bill has spent so much time explaining (the poster didnt say 'explaining away' which he should have) Bill's quotes about logos and christ.

Of course Bill has deleted the posts. Amusing how he is not capable even of hearing even such a trite and obvious point.

This from the Newton of 'information theory, expected if we think information = propaganda.

neuralsmith · 8 November 2005

I just got banned from Dembski's blog about an hour ago. Jboze and others would never provide evidence for their claims, instead they would just keep repeating them. All for the better I guess; have to study for exams and do homework.

CJ O'Brien · 8 November 2005

Ah, yes...
It's sort of like Homer Simpson as football coach, ennit?

"neuralsmith, you're cut. chatfield, cut. hopkins, toejam, steve, cut. you too, steve. cut. steve, you're cut. prof steve steve, you are sooo cut. brayton, cut. henry, what are you doing here? you're cut. steve, how many gosh-damn steves do I have to cut?"

You kind of wonder: what does Dembski do all day?
Then you laugh.

Henry J · 8 November 2005

Re "henry, what are you doing here? you're cut."

Did it hurt?

Henry

Donald M · 9 November 2005

In the OP on the "You Can't Just Kill Them All" thread (which appears to now be closed), Gary Hurd wrote:

And, do read Dembski's braying pack of sycophants on their urge to kill immigrants and particularly Muslims. There are many familiar cyper-names there; Dave Scott, jboze, DonaldM, and neurode. ----snip---- One minor point; the Darwin=fascism is clearly belied by these IDiots slavering over the chance to kill.

The post I made on the blog Hurd references pointed to an article by Francis Fukuyama in the Wall Street Journal. Not one thing I wrote, not one thing in the editorial referenced says anything about killing anyone. I bitterly resent the slanderous implication in Hurd's post that I ever advocated or condoned harming anyone for any reason. I demand a public apology from Hurd for his disingenuous attempt to imply that because I made a post on a thread where someone else made some distasteful comments, that I also hold the same opinion or advocate the same position. I most emphatically do not. I demand a public apology from Hurd for the false and slanderous accusation by associaton that I, in any way, am "slavering over the chance to kill." That is an outright lie on Hurd's part.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 9 November 2005

Posted by Donald M on November 9, 2005 08:58 PM (e) (s) Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'B'

Gee, Donald, I *hope* this was an attempt to answer all the questions I've asked of you. But somehow I doubt it.

Donald M · 9 November 2005

In his OP on the thread here at PT, "You Can't Just Kill Them All" (which has apparently now been closed), Gary Hurd writes:

And, do read Dembski's braying pack of sycophants on their urge to kill immigrants and particularly Muslims. There are many familiar cyper-names there; Dave Scott, jboze, DonaldM, and neurode. ----snip---- One minor point; the Darwin=fascism is clearly belied by these IDiots slavering over the chance to kill.

While Hurd is correct that there were some very distateful comments made on the thread to which he refers, some by the names he lists above, none, however, were made by me. So, to set the record straight, I do not agree with nor hold the opinions to which he refers. Not one post by me urged the harming of anyone for any reason, nor did any comment from me condone such opinion or action. I do not support, condone, or approve any calls for doing harm to other human beings, especially based on their religious affiliations. By listing me in his post, Hurd has given the totally false impression that comments made by others represent opinions or comments expressed by me. This is totally and demonstrably false. I encourage Hurd to be more careful in the future. I am not now, nor I have I ever "slavered over the chance to kill." Such an accusation borders on slander. On the "minor point", I have never made the claim that Darwin=facism, ever! Nor do I hold such a claim to be true.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 9 November 2005

And I was right.

Sir_Toejam · 14 November 2005

a bit late, but Donald:

do you support Dembski's "vice strategy" as he originally put it forth?

I'm referring to the one where he had a little picture of Darwin's head in a vice.