Joe Mac
Arch Winning (36)
Don't you mean a squadron of pelicans?
We Are Going to Die
- Thread starter light
- Start date
- Status
Don't you mean a squadron of pelicans?
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
Dawkins takes an extreme position on two things: (1) the degree to which natural selection explains evolution (Dawkins says it explains everything, and he is more wrong every year); and (2) the level at which natural selection takes place (the gene - as opposed to the organism or the species or the ecosystem - which I don't think even he entirely believes).
On your second point, what constitues "evidence"? Science is a bricolage of methods and standards; it does not have a monopoly on the concepts of "evidence" or "proof" or "truth". Philosophers invented science, and as a philosopher, I'm not constrained by it. Nor are scientists who are serious about understanding the history of science. The irony of Dawkins's position on religion is that he treats science itself as fallen from the heavens, perfectly formed, without a human and cultural history.
If you think about Godel's incompleteness theorem, what it means (in a general sense) is that truths tend to be finite. That is, a truth is a result of a set of axioms. Other truths are possible within other sets of axioms.
How about I say it's my theory that our entire universe is a droplet of water inside another universe. Not only is there no evidence for it, there can never be any evidence for it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It just shows that it's not falsifiable by science.
On your second point, what constitues "evidence"? Science is a bricolage of methods and standards; it does not have a monopoly on the concepts of "evidence" or "proof" or "truth". Philosophers invented science, and as a philosopher, I'm not constrained by it. Nor are scientists who are serious about understanding the history of science. The irony of Dawkins's position on religion is that he treats science itself as fallen from the heavens, perfectly formed, without a human and cultural history.
If you think about Godel's incompleteness theorem, what it means (in a general sense) is that truths tend to be finite. That is, a truth is a result of a set of axioms. Other truths are possible within other sets of axioms.
How about I say it's my theory that our entire universe is a droplet of water inside another universe. Not only is there no evidence for it, there can never be any evidence for it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It just shows that it's not falsifiable by science.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
This is a monster set of topics that I might or might not buy into here, but, Scarfie, with all due respect, your notion above that RD is not respected or valued or recognised at all positively within the better end of the (relevant) scientific community is just wrong, and your subsequent arguments are IMO diminished by such arguments re RD's professional standing. Eg, Balliol College Oxford does not institute prizes in scientist's names (see below) if they're considered mere batty second-raters by their Oxford peers. Just a quick wiki extract:
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
And let me say, since I have adopted a fairly shrill tone here so far, and in order to open myself to considerable contempt, is that I actually do have a gut feel about this idea that our universe is not the only thing there is. I have a gut feeling that our universe is, perhaps, a small part, or facet or viewpoint, of something even huger. Just a gut feel. It makes me happy.
Cutter
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
But intelligent design? That is based solely on the the premise that because this world suits us so well and because we humans make things, someone must have made us.
To borrow from Douglas Adams on the subject, that is like a puddle saying: "This is the perfect size for me. I fit it perfectly. Someone must have made it for me." Right up until the point it evaporates to nothing.
To borrow from Douglas Adams on the subject, that is like a puddle saying: "This is the perfect size for me. I fit it perfectly. Someone must have made it for me." Right up until the point it evaporates to nothing.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
Scarfman, can you elaborate on why RD is wrong about gene level natural selection?
To my mind it is the only theory that adequatley explains long term large scale natural selection. To say it is wrong is basically saying that if the genome of any animal was fixed it wouldn't be the key factor in the eventual extinction of that species. While the short term cause of the indivdual animal or species may be that the extinct animal was eaten by a larger stronger animal, the true overall long term and eventual cause would have been that the extinct animal couldn't evolve sufficently to ensure it's own survival. That evolution happens entirely and only at the gene level. The outwardly visible traits (fur colour, muscle strength etc) which occur due to the gene mutation dictate the viability of the mutation to survive are the back end process of gene level natural selection.
Individual and group based natural selection is a short term small scale form of natural selection which makes perfect sense when applied to indivdual species or specific situations. But doesn't adequately explain the breadth and depth of variation which exists in the world today. The short life span of humans leaves us without the ability to truly appreciate the nuances of gene based natural selection, which overall contribute to it being the large and main force behind natural selection.
Richard Dawkins as a popular science writer is unparralleled in being able to break large complex ideas down into manageable concepts the average person can understand. I am a commited anti theist, but I wish that his popular reputation wasn't built on being the worlds most recognisable athiest. To my mind his body of work as a science writer far outstrips his work for the athiest cause.
On a personal level, he is a bit of a toff and can be difficult (see Andrews Dentons interview with him on Elders) because he is uncomfortable as an indivdual of being the focus of an interview , but I would rate him reasonably tolerant considering most of the times when he is arrogant is when he is dealing with religious types who only want to tear him down and have no interest in discussing the topic at hand, evolution. Blind faith is ugly and desrves derision.
To my mind it is the only theory that adequatley explains long term large scale natural selection. To say it is wrong is basically saying that if the genome of any animal was fixed it wouldn't be the key factor in the eventual extinction of that species. While the short term cause of the indivdual animal or species may be that the extinct animal was eaten by a larger stronger animal, the true overall long term and eventual cause would have been that the extinct animal couldn't evolve sufficently to ensure it's own survival. That evolution happens entirely and only at the gene level. The outwardly visible traits (fur colour, muscle strength etc) which occur due to the gene mutation dictate the viability of the mutation to survive are the back end process of gene level natural selection.
Individual and group based natural selection is a short term small scale form of natural selection which makes perfect sense when applied to indivdual species or specific situations. But doesn't adequately explain the breadth and depth of variation which exists in the world today. The short life span of humans leaves us without the ability to truly appreciate the nuances of gene based natural selection, which overall contribute to it being the large and main force behind natural selection.
Richard Dawkins as a popular science writer is unparralleled in being able to break large complex ideas down into manageable concepts the average person can understand. I am a commited anti theist, but I wish that his popular reputation wasn't built on being the worlds most recognisable athiest. To my mind his body of work as a science writer far outstrips his work for the athiest cause.
On a personal level, he is a bit of a toff and can be difficult (see Andrews Dentons interview with him on Elders) because he is uncomfortable as an indivdual of being the focus of an interview , but I would rate him reasonably tolerant considering most of the times when he is arrogant is when he is dealing with religious types who only want to tear him down and have no interest in discussing the topic at hand, evolution. Blind faith is ugly and desrves derision.
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
G'day Charger, I afraid I don't think I actually understand your point. It almost sounds as it you are defining evolution as occuring at gene level, therefore selection must occur at gene level. First thing to say is that it's now quite clear that "evolution" is a collection of mechanisms, and natural selection is just the most important one. We've known since the 1990s that one's environment can cause genetic modification (genes switch on or off depending on conditions) and secondly that those changes can be inherited (e.g., a father who is fat at the time of conception can pass on that lifestyle-acquired fatness.)
In regard to the question of level of selection, I started typing out a reply when I found this useful Wikipedia page which explains it all beter than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection
As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong, I'm a philosopher, not a geneticist), Dawkins is in the tiny minority of people who would want to explain natural selection operating solely and exclusively at the level of the gene.
On science-philosophers in general, I would say that the more extreme your science is, the more likely you are to be successful in publishing. Steven Pinker, for example, goes well beyond generally accepted science when he claims that language is an instinct, like web spinning is for spiders. Actually, that book is absolutely comical.
In regard to the question of level of selection, I started typing out a reply when I found this useful Wikipedia page which explains it all beter than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection
As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong, I'm a philosopher, not a geneticist), Dawkins is in the tiny minority of people who would want to explain natural selection operating solely and exclusively at the level of the gene.
On science-philosophers in general, I would say that the more extreme your science is, the more likely you are to be successful in publishing. Steven Pinker, for example, goes well beyond generally accepted science when he claims that language is an instinct, like web spinning is for spiders. Actually, that book is absolutely comical.
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
And Cutter, to be honest, I don't know the first thing about intelligent design. It doesn't sound like an idea worth my time. All I'm saying is that it is historically and philosophically wrong to equate science with truth or evidence. Science has boundaries, and when someone claims something (like I did, above) that is not falsifiable by science then you simply can't use science to make a statement about it. To go beyond that point is to place your faith in science, as Dawkins does, which is why he is simultaneously the loudest and most ignorant science-philosopher on the planet.
I know it's only Wiwipedia, but I doubt Dawkins' knowledge of the philosophy of science, and epistemology in general, extend even that far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
If nothing else comes out of this thread, I hope I convert a few people to Stewart Leeism.
I know it's only Wiwipedia, but I doubt Dawkins' knowledge of the philosophy of science, and epistemology in general, extend even that far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
If nothing else comes out of this thread, I hope I convert a few people to Stewart Leeism.
Roundawhile
Billy Sheehan (19)
Scarfman, this may come as a surprise to you but the existence of multiple universes is accepted scientific theory in physics, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_universes
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_universes
Cheers
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
"Multiple universes" is just one idea put forward by physicists. They haven't found any evidence to support that idea sufficiently yet.
As for this whole "science vs philosophy" thing. Philosophy is just a name we give to all the collective methodologies humans use to gain knowledge. Comparing the scientific method to "philosophy" would be like comparing epistemology to philosophy. (well you could use different definitions to me and come to a different conclusion, but that would be besides the point).
Science can paint a clearer picture of reality than any other methodology we have. Mathematics and pure logic deal with more absolutes than science, but that doesn't make them more important or more accurate. (it all depends on the context you measure them in).
I don't know what Scarfman is basing his opinions of Dawkins on, maybe he could show us what he is basing these claims on? Dawkins might hold an extreme position on a few issues, but all in all he seems respected amongst biologists for his general contribution to the field. His pop-science books also make him popular with the public, I have a basic understanding of biology/evolution/natural selection thanks to people like him.
As for this whole "science vs philosophy" thing. Philosophy is just a name we give to all the collective methodologies humans use to gain knowledge. Comparing the scientific method to "philosophy" would be like comparing epistemology to philosophy. (well you could use different definitions to me and come to a different conclusion, but that would be besides the point).
Science can paint a clearer picture of reality than any other methodology we have. Mathematics and pure logic deal with more absolutes than science, but that doesn't make them more important or more accurate. (it all depends on the context you measure them in).
I don't know what Scarfman is basing his opinions of Dawkins on, maybe he could show us what he is basing these claims on? Dawkins might hold an extreme position on a few issues, but all in all he seems respected amongst biologists for his general contribution to the field. His pop-science books also make him popular with the public, I have a basic understanding of biology/evolution/natural selection thanks to people like him.
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
Nah bro, I know about this stuff. But "accepted scientific theory" is an odd sort of statement. There's zero evidence for any of it, and there's very unlikely to ever be any evidence, given that a multiverse includes that which is by definition unobservable.
That Wikipedia page is nice in that it shows that if multiverses are true, they were predicted by several religions.
(P.S. Just to be clear, I am an atheist. I believe, I have faith, that there is no god.)
That Wikipedia page is nice in that it shows that if multiverses are true, they were predicted by several religions.
(P.S. Just to be clear, I am an atheist. I believe, I have faith, that there is no god.)
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
How do you define faith? Isn't it believing in something whether it's true or not?
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
Yes, that's what I was saying.
Whoa there. What do you mean by reality? Things as they really are? Really are to whom? If reality depends on an observer, then reality is subjective. The only kind of creature capable of objectivity is god. But what if god doesn't exist, can't exist? What if objectivity is empirically impossible within this universe? As I have said, science can be extremely useful (and extremely harmful - Hiroshima, Facebook), but it is a mode of representation, not a decoding of truth.
Seriously, you don't. You have a distorted, ideologically-driven understanding of biology and evolution from reading him. The fact that Dawkins holds an extreme position on the central issues of his theory (role of natural selection in evolution = 100%; level of selection = genes 100%) says it all - they are positions that are not widely supported. I can't give you access to academic databases, but maybe using Google Scholar you can find some stuff.
OK guys, my wife is kicking me off the computer. Back later.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
OK, true.
I'm a bit confused by all this, I might PM you about it because I'd be just asking you lots of questions.
You know I am just a pendant!I know.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
This argument almost becomes a bit chicken and egg scenario. What changed first? The gene, the individual, the group or the species? As all of those levels are affected by different evolutionary pressures and I suspect (by sitting on my lounge reading the ideas/work of other people) that evolution occurs at all those levels in different measures.
But the main reason I like the genes as the primary location for natural selection to occur (over 99%) is that they are the real long term winner or loser in evolution . The genes are the replicators which have survived the last 4 billion years. The bodies of the organisms that the genes inhabit are just short term vehicles.
I suspect that the level we should judge that at which natural selection occurs should be referenced against the time frame which we are measuring it over.
But the main reason I like the genes as the primary location for natural selection to occur (over 99%) is that they are the real long term winner or loser in evolution . The genes are the replicators which have survived the last 4 billion years. The bodies of the organisms that the genes inhabit are just short term vehicles.
I suspect that the level we should judge that at which natural selection occurs should be referenced against the time frame which we are measuring it over.
- Status