It is the difference between crystals and language; snowflakes and code. It is the difference between organization and meaningful content.
Meaningful is a loaded word. It requires an observer to decipher meaning. It begs the philosophical question, if specified complexity falls in the forest, is it still specified complexity?
Please do explain.
Scientists are generally loathe to mix the disciplines of science and religion. As we've discussed, the two answer different questions. A popular book that discusses religion and science will not likely get much critical attention from scientists.
That is a sad considering the amount of scientific peer review offered those who use scientific data to make religious statements of the oppsoie extreme.
I have yet to see a peer-reviewed scientific article that says "god doesn't exist." The conclusions may conflict with YOUR idea of god, but that doesn't make the statements religious.
Another reason may be that much of his work is a restatement of data and information already presented into the scientific community as problematic. He told the emperor that he was naked.
That might just mean that he's bringing up issues that have already been addressed. To play off your fable reference, the boy's still crying wolf.
None that I have read have impressed me, as 95% of them have been based on the subjects that you brought up
The subjects I brought up? You mean lack of a definition of information? Lack of cited references? The fact that he has nothing to lose by including the above?
Did you read the review I posted? It mentions some of the issues YOU brought up, but not really critically. It's a popular review befitting a popular work, so mentioning this stuff isn't out of line. He claims to ignore these issues and argue against the content. I'll leave that judgement up to the reader.
mmmK
It is the difference between crystals and language; snowflakes and code. It is the difference between organization and meaningful content.
Meaningful is a loaded word. It requires an observer to decipher meaning. It begs the philosophical question, if specified complexity falls in the forest, is it still specified complexity?
Please do explain.
Scientists are generally loathe to mix the disciplines of science and religion. As we've discussed, the two answer different questions. A popular book that discusses religion and science will not likely get much critical attention from scientists.
That is a sad considering the amount of scientific peer review offered those who use scientific data to make religious statements of the oppsoie extreme.
I have yet to see a peer-reviewed scientific article that says "god doesn't exist." The conclusions may conflict with YOUR idea of god, but that doesn't make the statements religious.
Another reason may be that much of his work is a restatement of data and information already presented into the scientific community as problematic. He told the emperor that he was naked.
That might just mean that he's bringing up issues that have already been addressed. To play off your fable reference, the boy's still crying wolf.
None that I have read have impressed me, as 95% of them have been based on the subjects that you brought up
The subjects I brought up? You mean lack of a definition of information? Lack of cited references? The fact that he has nothing to lose by including the above?
Did you read the review I posted? It mentions some of the issues YOU brought up, but not really critically. It's a popular review befitting a popular work, so mentioning this stuff isn't out of line. He claims to ignore these issues and argue against the content. I'll leave that judgement up to the reader.