Aren’t West and Klinghoffer mostly focused on PR rather than scientific details?
Sure. In this case, West decides to charge us with (bordering) academic fraud. That is fairly surprising, even for them.
I don’t think so. This is typical DI fare. They want this out there in the search results so as to confuse the public as much as possible. It’s what they do.
Hmmm… I wouldn’t be surprised.
Precisely: Squid ink.
Has the DI produced anything that isn’t 100% pure anti-science propaganda? I sure can’t think of any examples.
How in the world can a book review contain academic fraud?
Suppose that I were to write a book under a pseudonym. And then suppose that I wrote a review lavishing praise on that book, but without disclosing that I was the author. Then that would be academic fraud.
So yes, a book review could contain an academic fraud.
In the case that we are actually concerned with – no, that could not be a fraud. When West says it is a fraud, we should take him as merely saying that he dislikes the review.
Didn’t Dembski get caught doing exactly that with self-reviews using pseudonyms of his book on Amazon?
I thought I read something about that before, so I did a little googling. Yes, “a reader from Waco” posted a critique of Mark Perakh’s “Unintelligent Design” and promoted a book of Dembski’s. A later glitch at the Canadian Amazon site accidentally revealed the identities of anonymous posters - and “a reader from Waco” apparently was Dembski. You can read more detail here:
Maybe note quite “exactly that”, since it was just a review on Amazon, but a pretty similar event.
This is an overwhelmingly bad response to a review. I wonder if they really think this was fraud or if they are just that far out on a limb.
Regardless, I still look forward to dialogue with them. Will they show up?