Abstract

Since Steve Fuller begins his critique of my article on “Manufactured Scientific Controversy” with a profession of his emotional state, I will begin my reply with a profession of my own. I was delighted to read his critique! While I have written such critiques myself, this is my first time as the subject of one, allowingme to fulfill a lifelong goal of havingwork that warrants such an exchange. The specific emotional state that Professor Fuller confesses in the first line of his critique is “bemusement” with my article, and after reading his critique, I can think of no better term to describe his response. The dictionary definition of bemused is “1. bewildered or confused” or “2. lost in thought; preoccupied.” It is possible that Professor Fuller’s confused misreading of my article is the result of his being lost in an ongoing preoccupation with defending his decision to align with the intelligent design movement against the mainstream scientific consensus on evolution (a decision for which I expressed disapproval in my article), or there might be another more complicated reason for it. The result is the same either way; his response exhibits confusion about the meaning of the terminology I employed, the argument I offered, and the action that I promoted.My reply will attempt to eliminate that confusion from the response of a scholar I greatly admire, a friend and colleague without whom I would not be where I am today.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call