But is it Science?

When a Federal District Court judge says information bearing the imprimatur of the Discovery Institute is NOT science, it is a good bet he is right.

Generally when a publisher classifies a book, it is for purposes of clarity within the ontology. When the Discovery Institute people classify their books it is for the purpose of destroying the integrity of the structure of knowledge.

If libraries can't deal with the issue, they have a problem discriminating honesty from dishonesty. The judge said that the Discovery Institute people are disingenuous and dishonest. Just how does that translate into a "different point of view?"



  1. Mr. Calder - Though I certainly welcome and appreciate your linking to my article, Bias by Design, I fail to discern any connection in your prefaced blog thoughts. An ISBN (International Standard Book Number) has absolutely no relationship to content. What you may well be conflating here is the CIP (Cataloging in Print) classification number assigned by publishers, like the the Discovery Institute, to assist librarians. By no means should a CIP be considered an imprimatur.

    This said, my issue is the institutional malfeasance of those in my profession who would rather preclude consideration of entire swaths of subjects (e.g. intelligent design). As per your thoughts, the science of classification has been left hopelessly irrelevant in light of keyword technology. Trust me. Patrons have long since ceased using Library of Congress Classification manuals and perusing stacks by call number. They simply feed keywords.

    The salient point here is about collection, which is also my point in Bias by Design. Surely, as a freethinker you agree that Discovery Institute publications deserve the same right to shelf space as Hawking's Bantam Press monographs in your local library?



  2. Thanks so very much for your input. I have deleted the reference to ISBN and my bitchy reference to librarians.

    My point is that there are a couple of organizations that have the authority to define Science. They claim that works on Intelligent Design are not Science. I wouldn't deny them the opportunity to speak. I would deny then the right to identify themselves as scientists and their subject as Science.

    On the other hand, I suppose you could find plenty of books that contain totally bogus arguments against something or other that are shelved near the thing they are critical of. Or could you?

    If Dawkins is attacking religion, perhaps his books belong in the religion section.