Professor Gross reviews Berlinski

So Berlinski, a non-scientist, writes a book about science, with endorsements from three non-scientists and one ex-scientist, William Behe. So where do they plan to sell this abortion? At the Answers In Genesis bookstore?

And to read that Berlinski thanks right-wing spokesharridan Ann Coulter (whose jaws are wired shut as we speak, thank Ghu) for her help just puts the frosting on the cake: This is just another science-denialist tract; another product of the Dishonesty Institute's anti-think tank.

Faith, n:

That quality which enables us to believe what we know to be untrue. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?), "The Devil's Dictionary"

This would seem to be a more plausible origin of the quip, given that the Alexander Abingdon book appears to be from no earlier than 1931 (according to my brief Google search).

Dear Mark,

As an aside I would note that not only is Paul Gross a professor emeritus of biological sciences at the University of Virginia, but he was also its provost, and, much earlier, director of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole. He is also the most prominent conservative life scientist I know of (Others here at Panda's Thumb may recognize him instantly for being the co-author, with philosopher Barbara Forrest, of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design".). Therefore he's truly uniquely qualified to review Berlinski's latest pathetic exercise in mendacious intellectual pornography. He's so uniquely qualified that his forthcoming rebuke of Berlinski's loathsome piece of "literary" trash is the best I have read so far.

Thanks for posting this early. It's the best Christmas present that I - or anyone else interested in condemning Berlinski and the rest of the Dishonesty Institute - should except to receive this year.

Appreciatively yours,

John

P. S. I meant to say....

It's the best Christmas present that I - or anyone else interested in condemning Berlinski and the rest of the Dishonesty Institute - should expect to receive this year.

Appreciatively yours,

John

P. P. S. Obviously didn't do a good job of proofreading before posting my previous comment.

To John Kwok: I fully share your opinion of Paul Gross. He is a great guy and I admire him wholeheartedly.

Paul Burnett said: ... right-wing spokesharridan Ann Coulter (whose jaws are wired shut as we speak, thank Ghu) ...

John Kwok said: Therefore he's truly uniquely qualified to review Berlinski's latest pathetic exercise in mendacious intellectual pornography.

Dr. Berlinski is a man who, for several years, falsely claimed his PhD was in mathematics. I think that Richard Dawkins summed up this nutball most succinctly, "Anyone who rejects the theory of evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (bu he didn't want to consider that). Berlinski is neither ignorant, stupid, or insane.

Faith is believing something you know ain't true
--Mark Twain

I never read his book, but went to his opening talk on his book tour. I'm gratified to learn that it was basically the same information in the talk and the book, though he never read from the book in the opening talk of the book tour. I also asked him about the strange lack of reference to significant recent scientific discoveries, as he seemed to feel that evolution was unique in being unaccepted by the masses, and he seemed to have great difficulty in answering my question. I posted my impressions and some video of his speech and Q&A on my blog, if anyone is interested - http://biosaari.blogspot.com/2008/04/davids-delusions-agnostics-pretensions.html

Berlinski seems to take considerable stock in Tom "Never
Met Fringe Science I Didn't Like" Bethell. I've said it
before, the evidence for modern evo science is only half
the reason I buy it ... the other half is the fact that,
considering all the effort expended, if there was really anything
seriously wrong with evo science they wouldn't sound like they were
trying to bluff their way through finals after staying up
watching the Movie Channel all night before.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

SLC said: Dr. Berlinski is a man who, for several years, falsely claimed his PhD was in mathematics.

As an aside I would note that not only is Paul Gross a professor emeritus of biological sciences at the University of Virginia, but he was also its provost, and, much earlier, director of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole. He is also the most prominent conservative life scientist I know of (Others here at Panda’s Thumb may recognize him instantly for being the co-author, with philosopher Barbara Forrest, of “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design”.). Therefore he’s truly uniquely qualified to review Berlinski’s latest pathetic exercise in mendacious intellectual pornography. He’s so uniquely qualified that his forthcoming rebuke of Berlinski’s loathsome piece of “literary” trash is the best I have read so far.

— John Kwok

Flint,

I'll dig a little deeper, but a quote attributed to Yogi Berra might also apply to Twain:

"I really didn't say everything I said."

Mark Twain probably leads the list of people to whom attribution is falsely credited.

There are those who scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow: Yet it was the schoolboy who said "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar.

The utter irony is just palpable!

Mark Perakh said: To John Kwok: I fully share your opinion of Paul Gross. He is a great guy and I admire him wholeheartedly.

To Paul Burnett: Thanks for your kind words.

I don't know whether Lilly is Bobby, and have no interest for researching this question. I saw no reason to ban his(her) comments as long as he(she) did not resort to obscenities. His (her) comment about beating one's wife made me hesitate for a while - whether or not to delete that disgusting comment, but finally I decided to let it remain - it speaks about Lilly more than about his/her opponents, so let it expose the character of that commenter - it was his (her) own choice.

On the other hand, I felt compelled to delete a comment by "Science Avenger" where he used profanities. Please avoid such a style, creos can be hit without descending to their level.

Regarding the original comment that invoked the discussion of Berlinski's PhD degree, Lilly's question about sources of the information was legitimate, regardless of his/her overall position which we may detest. It seems that, while Berlinski was several times referred to as a "mathematician with a PhD degree," he himself did not claim it, but rather wrote that his PhD degree was in philosophy, hence the accusation was apparently misleading. In no way can this exonerate Berlinski whose record is appalling enough without attributing to him something he was not guilty of.

You people have no tolerance for outside views! Berlinski is a controversial figure, even entertaining at times, sure. In fact, one sometimes wonders if he is even serious, based on his radical ID associations.

But just because ONE scholar wrote a hard-hitting, negative review, doesn't mean that everyone has to have a celebration. What about Berlinski's actual arguments. Does anyone here care to address those?

Until then, I'm afraid it's the evolutionists, not Dr. Berlinski, who "can't be taken seriously."

NS
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

NotedScholar said: You people have no tolerance for outside views! Berlinski is a controversial figure, even entertaining at times, sure. In fact, one sometimes wonders if he is even serious, based on his radical ID associations. But just because ONE scholar wrote a hard-hitting, negative review, doesn't mean that everyone has to have a celebration. What about Berlinski's actual arguments. Does anyone here care to address those? Until then, I'm afraid it's the evolutionists, not Dr. Berlinski, who "can't be taken seriously." NS http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

NotedScholar said: You people have no tolerance for outside views! Berlinski is a controversial figure, even entertaining at times, sure. In fact, one sometimes wonders if he is even serious, based on his radical ID associations. But just because ONE scholar wrote a hard-hitting, negative review, doesn't mean that everyone has to have a celebration. What about Berlinski's actual arguments. Does anyone here care to address those? Until then, I'm afraid it's the evolutionists, not Dr. Berlinski, who "can't be taken seriously." NS http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

noscholar wrote:

"What about Berlinski’s actual arguments. Does anyone here care to address those?"

Well he really didn't make any arguments that I could see. He certainly presented no evidence, nor did he address any of the evidence that does exist. He did however state an opinion:

"Berlinski grants that only a few of the examples he mentions "exhaust" the concept of science and are worthy of respect. He names four -- only four -- products of the scientific revolution that began in the seventeenth century, shaking man's view of himself and his world. Berlinski's list: Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's field theory, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics."

Well, I must respectfully disagree. I believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Mendel's Laws of inheritance rank right up there with the four things that he cited. Dismissing an entire field of science, simply because you are completely ignorant of it, or religiously biased against it, doesn't seem to be very sound reasoning. It really does not appear that this guy has earned the right to cirticize evolutionary theory. Indeed, he seems to completely lack the knowledge and competence to do so with any credability. He's certainly free to write any books he wants and everyone if free to completely ignore them.

Mark Perakh said: I don't know whether Lilly is Bobby, and have no interest for researching this question.

On the other hand, I felt compelled to delete a comment by "Science Avenger" where he used profanities. Please avoid such a style, creos can be hit without descending to their level.

Here you are, folks: "David Berlinski Ph.D. received a Ph.D. in Mathematics from Princeton and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has been a professor at several universities and is now an author of books on science." - http://www.creation.or.kr/library/darwinskeptics.html But on the other hand: "David Berlinski Says: September 9th, 2007 at 8:54 am - I have never claimed to have a Ph.D in mathematics from Princeton University. My Ph.D. from Princeton is in philosophy. This is what my resume says; it is how I am described at the DI website; and it is how I am described on the dust jacket of my books. If there is a website that claims otherwise, I revile and denounce it. As long as I am correcting misapprehensions, I might add that I am a critic of intelligent design and not one of its supporters. In this regard, you might consider my essay “Has Darwin met his Match,” in the December 2002 issue of Commentary. It is devoted perceptively to attacking Johnson, Behe and Dembski. I cannot say that my friends at the DI were pleased to see what I wrote, but they were made wiser by reading it. My feelings toward intelligent design remain what they have always been: Warm but skeptical. Nonetheless, I regard the general hysteria about these issues as intellectually disgusting. As for the question why so many editors are interested in publishing what I write, I suspect that this is because so many readers are interested in reading it." - http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=596

The truth is that Berlinsky does not have a degree in biology, has never studied biology, knows nothing about biology and has no right whatsoever to cirticize professional biologists. He makes no real argument and in fact ignores all of the evidence. All he offers is uninformed opinion and misguided logic.

Everyone is free to question the validity of general and special relativity. However, if one does not have a degree in physics, has never studied physics and knows nothing about physics, then they really have no right to critize Einstein. If the same person insists that 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/8 then it is fair to assume that they do not have the math skills to understand Einstein let alone criticize him. This is the level of Berlinsky's "argument". He doesn't even understand the basics, so his uninformed opinion is worthless.

The troll of many names should take a lesson here. Refusal to read scientific references automatically disqualifies one from criticizing those who write the references. Demonstration of complete lack of knowledge in a field is sufficient cause for everyone to ignore anything you say about that field. Using over fifty different aliases in direct violation of the rules of this site should be grounds for immediate and irreversible banishment.

DS said: (snip)... and has no right whatsoever to cirticize professional biologists.

Robin said: This quibble applies to your comment regarding the right to criticize Einstein as well.

Stanton said:

Robin said: This quibble applies to your comment regarding the right to criticize Einstein as well.

My mother can't stand Einstein: she tells me that if I ever let my hair become as unpresentable as his, she'd kick me out of the house.

When I suggest that our side should not descend to using profanities and calling names, I don't mean to say the creos have not earned such epithets - many of them worked hard to deserve such a treatment. However, I believe being rude is counter-productive. Let me ask the following question: which of the two following statements is stronger (1) "Professor X's assertion is insufficiently substantiated" or (2) "The assertion of that idiot X is garbage." I maintain that the first statement is stronger and more effective. Understatements usually work better than overstatements. (Exceptions may exist).

Back to Berlinski and his PhD. The commenter who wrote that Berlinski falsely claimed to have a PhD in mathematics, imho should have indeed retracted his statement and, perhaps, even apologize. However, this should not be construed as an exoneration of Berlinski. Apparently he has not claimed having a degree in mathematics, but there have been other occasions when Berlinski made false and sometimes libelous statements. One such case was when Berlinski published an article in a Californian newspaper where he falsely accused the TalkReason site of using a derisive distortion of Dembski's surname. When this lie was revealed (TalkReason never posted a single piece wherein Dembski's surname would be distorted in any manner) Berlinski, instead of apologizing, tried to bury the indisputable facts in a semantic fog, maintaining that his (quite unambiguous) accusation was just misunderstood. The set of Berlinski's letters to Talk Reason and of answers to them, discussing that matter, is found in the Letters section on Talk Reason (click on "Index of Letters," and then on Berlinski's name). Moreover, his appearance in the mendacious pseudo-documentary "Expelled" is another telltale display of serious deficiencies in Berlinski's not quite straightforward mettle. We should not, though, behave a la Berlinski.

Mark Perakh said: Let me ask the following question: which of the two following statements is stronger (1) "Professor X's assertion is insufficiently substantiated" or (2) "The assertion of that idiot X is garbage."

Mark Perakh said: When I suggest that our side should not descend to using profanities and calling names, I don't mean to say the creos have not earned such epithets - many of them worked hard to deserve such a treatment. However, I believe being rude is counter-productive. Let me ask the following question: which of the two following statements is stronger (1) "Professor X's assertion is insufficiently substantiated" or (2) "The assertion of that idiot X is garbage." I maintain that the first statement is stronger and more effective. Understatements usually work better than overstatements. (Exceptions may exist).

Noted Scholar writes:

"But just because ONE scholar wrote a hard-hitting, negative review, doesn’t mean that everyone has to have a celebration. What about Berlinski’s actual arguments. Does anyone here care to address those?

Until then, I’m afraid it’s the evolutionists, not Dr. Berlinski, who “can’t be taken seriously.”

Well, I've not read Berlinski's newest tome, nor do I intend to. I am quite comfortable, however, in being of the opinion that he canot be taken serioulsy.

Two reasons (there are many more, but these were the icing on the cake fo rme):

1. His youtube spiel about how he made a list of 50,000 differences between whales and camels, and declared that therefore whales could not have evolved from camels.

2. His recent claim that the existence of mathematics is 'evidence' for ID.

Robin said:

Stanton said:

Robin said: This quibble applies to your comment regarding the right to criticize Einstein as well.

My mother can't stand Einstein: she tells me that if I ever let my hair become as unpresentable as his, she'd kick me out of the house.

LOL! And I'm sure she has every right to say so, however is she criticizing Einstein's application of science here or just his apparent lack in sense of style? ;)

I'm not sure about anyone else here, but I would consider "Darwinism" a perfectly reasonable term to describe just one aspect of modern evolutionary biology, though it certainly seems to be the most important one.

Richard, posted 12/01/08 10:13 PM I’m not sure about anyone else here, but I would consider “Darwinism” a perfectly reasonable term to describe just one aspect of modern evolutionary biology, though it certainly seems to be the most important one.

The back cover of Dr. Berlinski's Newton's Gift can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743217764/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

He is described as a mathematician in spite of the fact that Dr. Berlinski flatly claimed none of his books describe him thus.

John Farrell said: The back cover of Dr. Berlinski's Newton's Gift can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743217764/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link He is described as a mathematician in spite of the fact that Dr. Berlinski flatly claimed none of his books describe him thus.

Henry J said:

Richard, posted 12/01/08 10:13 PM I’m not sure about anyone else here, but I would consider “Darwinism” a perfectly reasonable term to describe just one aspect of modern evolutionary biology, though it certainly seems to be the most important one.

When used by a reasonable person, yes. The trouble is when it's used by an anti-evolutionist as a substitute for actually specifying which hypothesis of the theory they disagree with, or giving an evidence based reason for that disagreement. Henry