\nwants. When someone took a good look at one of his papers, and
\nposted a critique, Bill’s response was the threaten to sue them for
\ncopyright violation. Knowing how utterly trustworthy the Disco gang
\nis, I’ve got a screen-capture of the post with the threat below the fold, in
\ncase they try to change history by deleting it.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"dembski-capture.png\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/scientopia.org\/img-archive\/goodmath\/img_408.png?resize=625%2C501\")
<\/div>\n The story in more detail: Deitmar Eben wrote an What does a real, serious scholar do when he’s confronted with A real scientist, scholar, or researcher welcomes<\/em> critism. That But Bill Debski isn’t really a scholar or a researcher. He’s a polemicist. For those who have slightly better memory of recent events than an average gerbil, you’ll surely remember that not too long ago, the Intelligent Design folks, with the help of Ben Stein, put together a whole movie about how evilutionists are all a bunch of evil fascists, out to silence the poor, hard-working IDers. You’ll […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[16,31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-debunking-creationism","category-intelligent-design"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-dj","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/825","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\narticle at rationalwiki<\/a> which provides a thorough critique of Dembski and
\nMark’s paper “The Search for a Search – Measuring the Information Cost of
\nHigher Level Search”. It’s a pretty good refutation – Deitmar checked
\nD&M’s references, and found that they didn’t say what D&M said they
\ndid; he provides detailed mathematical critiques of various stages of their
\nargument; and he presents a complete counterexample to their proof. (Dietmar
\nis critiquing a later version of the one that I looked at here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n
\ncriticisms of his work? As someone who has all-too-frequently been
\nin that situation myself, I feel very qualified to explain the proper
\nresponse. (I’m pretty good at the informal writing style that I use
\nhere on the blog; I’m much less good at the very proper formal style
\nthat you use in technical papers. Combine that with my tendency to
\nbe interested in less trendy research areas like software configuration
\nmanagement, and I’ve gotten quite a lot of rejections, complete with
\ndetailed criticisms.)<\/p>\n
\ndoesn’t mean that we’re happy<\/em> to be criticized – we’re not. But
\ncriticism is a sign that the critic is engaged<\/em>, interested<\/em>
\nin your work. And by listening, talking, and debating with him\/her, you can
\nfind problems in your work, refine your presentation, get new ideas,
\nand maybe convince them or be convinced by them. It’s the<\/em> key
\nprocess of science. Peer reviewed publications aren’t the most important
\nthing: the engagement<\/em> with other researchers is. The publications
\nget your work out there, where other interested people can see it. Then
\nthe good part starts – the part where you get feedback, both positive
\nand negative, from other people.<\/p>\n
\nHe’s not interested in doing research, or in learning, or in engaging in
\nactual discussions with other researchers. His papers aren’t written to share
\nhis work with fellow scholars. They’re written so that he can say “Nyah, Nyah,
\nI got a paper published”, and to use that the fool the rubes into thinking
\nthat Dembski’s work actually has some scientific credibility.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"