Re: Kitcher's Book

From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 22:41:17 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Magnetic field energy loss"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "allenroy" <>
    To: "John W Burgeson" <>; <>
    Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 8:20 PM
    Subject: Kitcher's Book

    > "The hard core evolutionists I've debated from 1993 and on, including
    those on
    > Talk.Orig, either agreed the book stunk or simply distanced themselves
    from it;
    > none were able to defend Kitchers' book without embarrassing themselves.
    > abused his own reputation with that book."

    I could not recall any t.o. regulars disliking
    Kitcher's book. So I just did a google search for
    "Kitcher Abusing Science" and got 71 hits, most
    of which included recommendations of the book by regulars. One, a list of books for an
    FAQ does state that the book is not recommended
    for creationists, who might find it offensive. That
    book list also does not '*' the book, '*' means
    that the book is recommended but the review also states the book is out of
    print & many books do not
    get '*'s so I think that is not significant. If the reviewers
    thought it was a bad book they would have said so
    or left it off the list. t.o.'s resident philosopher and voluminous
    book-list spewer recommended the book,
    but stated that he is skeptical of some of Kitcher's
    claims. Unsurprising, he is skeptical of a lot of things.
    I think your friend is incorrect regarding the disdain regulars have for this book. Perhaps
    he could point to some posts, I saw some going
    back as far as 1992.

    Incidentally Howard Van Till's et al's book 'Science
    held hostage' got a '*'

    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
    Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 09/29/2003

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 22:33:51 EDT