<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Austringer &#187; Philosophy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/category/philosophy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://austringer.net/wp</link>
	<description>Wesley R. Elsberry&#039;s personal weblog, talking about falconry, science, antievolution, computation, and the broken body he lives in.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:50:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Concern Trolling at the Mansfield News-Journal</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/01/16/concern-trolling-at-the-mansfield-news-journal/</link>
		<comments>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/01/16/concern-trolling-at-the-mansfield-news-journal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:34:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antievolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1934</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A perfectly reasonable letter to the editor from Walter Kania elicited a response from Andrew Ricks with all the hallmarks of the concern troll.
I was moved to enter a comment there that I&#8217;ll share here. There was a 1000 character limit on online comments.

I read the previous letter by Walter Kania. The response from Ricks [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2010/01/16/concern-trolling-at-the-mansfield-news-journal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IDCs Accept Common Descent? News to Me</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/12/28/idcs-accept-common-descent-news-to-me/</link>
		<comments>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/12/28/idcs-accept-common-descent-news-to-me/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:02:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antievolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1914</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A philosophical look at evolution and creation by a newly-minted history Ph.D., Leslie Tomory, is titled The Shock and Awe of Creation. Tomory is in the theistic evolution camp, and argues on philosophical grounds that antievolution is a bad thing, while affirming that faith and science can co-exist. 
That&#8217;s fine by me. But here is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/12/28/idcs-accept-common-descent-news-to-me/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opderbeck and Dover, Round 3</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/12/09/opderbeck-and-dover-round-3/</link>
		<comments>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/12/09/opderbeck-and-dover-round-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antievolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1885</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a reply to a comment by David Opderbeck in this thread. Since David has consistently accused me of misunderstanding, I&#8217;m going to pull in a number of sources to demonstrate that such is not the case. So I&#8217;ll tag quotes as follows: [DO S&#038;S 1] for David&#8217;s first &#8220;Science and the Sacred&#8221; post [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/12/09/opderbeck-and-dover-round-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opderbeck and Dover, Round 2</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/12/01/opderbeck-and-dover-round-2/</link>
		<comments>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/12/01/opderbeck-and-dover-round-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antievolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m going to respond to a comment left by David Opderbeck to my previous post.
[David Opderbeck:] Wesley, I have one more post coming, more on theological issues. On the Kitzmiller opinion itself, if you don’t think the “demarcation” question was central to the opinion, you’re just misreading it.

David,
We seem to be at an impasse, then, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/12/01/opderbeck-and-dover-round-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Out of the Ashes?</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/11/02/out-of-the-ashes/</link>
		<comments>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/11/02/out-of-the-ashes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:04:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antievolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1838</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Philip Clayton at &#8220;Religion Dispatches&#8221; has a post up about evolution/creationism issues and the yin/yang of the classes of antievolutionists and new atheists who agree that one must choose between religion and science, but just disagree on which way to jump.
There&#8217;s a brief mention of &#8220;non-overlapping magisteria&#8221; (NOMA) (with a disclaimer that it isn&#8217;t necessarily [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/11/02/out-of-the-ashes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Look at Law and Theory</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/07/03/another-look-at-law-and-theory/</link>
		<comments>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/07/03/another-look-at-law-and-theory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:40:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terminology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1592</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s a lot of philosophical discussion about what, precisely, constitutes a law or a theory in scientific practice. There&#8217;s also a lot of usage of the terms that has come to us over several centuries of not-quite-consistent application of terms. 
What I&#8217;d like to offer here is not a scheme to try to make past [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/07/03/another-look-at-law-and-theory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Specified Complexity Relies Upon Implicit Design Conjectures</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/06/05/specified-complexity-relies-upon-implicit-design-conjectures/</link>
		<comments>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/06/05/specified-complexity-relies-upon-implicit-design-conjectures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:01:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antievolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[specified complexity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William Demsbki]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1606</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[William Dembski&#8217;s No Free Lunch contains the following passage:
The presumption here is that if a subject S can figure out an independently given pattern to which E conforms (i.e., a detachable rejection region of probability less than alpha that includes E), then so could someone else.  Indeed, the presumption is that someone else used [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/06/05/specified-complexity-relies-upon-implicit-design-conjectures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comment Upon Lynch&#8217;s Roots of ID Post</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/06/04/comment-upon-lynchs-roots-of-id-post/</link>
		<comments>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/06/04/comment-upon-lynchs-roots-of-id-post/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:09:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antievolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discovery Institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligent design creationism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1602</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Lynch has a post critical of the Discovery Institute&#8217;s self-serving obfuscation over the phrase &#8220;intelligent design&#8221; and its history. Lynch makes a great number of cogent criticisms, but it seems to me that the manner in which the conversation goes may still work to the DI&#8217;s benefit. I left the following comment there:

The issue [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/06/04/comment-upon-lynchs-roots-of-id-post/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Richard Dawkins and the Purpose of Purpose</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/03/09/richard-dawkins-and-the-purpose-of-purpose/</link>
		<comments>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/03/09/richard-dawkins-and-the-purpose-of-purpose/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:59:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antievolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[richard dawkins]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[photopress:WRE_1118_proc_ws.jpg,full,aligncenter]
Oxford University&#8217;s previous Charles Simonyi Professor for Public Understanding of Science, Richard Dawkins, visited Michigan State University in East Lansing on March 2nd and 3rd. Prof. Dawkins gave a lecture on &#8220;The Purpose of Purpose&#8221; to a sold-out crowd at the Wharton Center on the evening of the 2nd, and held an hour-and-a-half question and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/03/09/richard-dawkins-and-the-purpose-of-purpose/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Notes from a Behe Talk</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/02/27/notes-from-a-behe-talk/</link>
		<comments>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/02/27/notes-from-a-behe-talk/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Austringer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antievolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligent design creationism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michael behe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=1280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lou FCD at After the Bar Closes has posted a set of notes from a Michael Behe talk last evening.
I corrected Behe on his deployment of &#8220;falsifiability&#8221; back in 2001, as I note in a later comment there. Behe, though, is still falsely telling audiences that he has provided a falsifiable &#8220;intelligent design&#8221; creationism claim.
 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/02/27/notes-from-a-behe-talk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
