Dawkins / The Root of All Evil (merged) (1 Viewer)

[billygannon]

Re: Dawkins

but i think he's symptomatic of science as a whole, which treats beliefs which fall outside of its rational logic as completely false/dumb/pointless, and only serves to widen the gap between people like dawkins, who is a very great thinker, and people who may also happen to believe in god/yoga/mushrooms or whatever...

That's actually untrue. Isaac Newton was a committed Christian, as are many scientists today.

I might read up on this Dawkins chap. Maybe. In many ways, I couldn't care less what he thinks.

Basically, do his theories offer me more money, a longer, healthier life and a more fulfilling sex life? I'll take two of the three.

 

[hugh]

Re: Dawkins

he is basically a 'fundamentalist', and refuses to even consider (not accept) ideas which fall outside the limited confines of accepted scientific theory- or the scientific 'dogma'.

That's not really true. What science refuses to consider are things for which there are no evidence. Once evidence for something is produced science falls over itself considering it, and, if the evidence holds up, quite happily scraps entire theories and models which may have been accepted for decades or even centuries in order to accomodate it.

As opposed to religious thought, which sees no problem believing things for which there is no evidence, and even believing things when there is massive amounts of evidence against.

Science is not a 'dogma' ... in fact it's the opposite.

 

[shitepipe]

Re: Dawkins

ok, ok, i accept most of the criticisms, didnt really express my self clearly... science does examine evidence indeed, which sets it apart from belief or faith based systems, and as such makes it reasonably self regulating and open to development and improvement.

but for science to accept evidence it must be observed, defined and quantified through the scientific process, making it is a closed system- but it doesnt mean that outside this system alternatives lie (which may in time be brought into the 'scientific' process)

i mean we take science as a value free set of principles, but it is based basically on a greek model, like all western culture. for example a chinese doctor might use quite different techniques to diagnose or cure a patient than a western doctor- they dont have the same idea over a split in the physical body and the mind, which is a dominant feature is western thought.

so all i'm trying to say, is there's alot to which science does not have an answer, although thats not to say it wont answer it in the future, and so people like dawkins should be rather more humble in their assessment of these grey areas. and also the idea that science as it is practiced now is a value-free system is untrue- its embodies all the morals and values of western culture since the greeks...

 

[shitepipe]

Re: Dawkins

speak of the divil:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/profile/story/0,11109,1682655,00.html

 

[Shine]

Re: Dawkins

That's not really true. What science refuses to consider are things for which there are no evidence. Once evidence for something is produced science falls over itself considering it, and, if the evidence holds up, quite happily scraps entire theories and models which may have been accepted for decades or even centuries in order to accomodate it.

As opposed to religious thought, which sees no problem believing things for which there is no evidence, and even believing things when there is massive amounts of evidence against.

Science is not a 'dogma' ... in fact it's the opposite.

Hmmm -yup umm.. nope... Well. I like what shitepipe's been saying and i have a little thing to add about science. It's that it fucks me off that it is treated with such reverence by the lay community. OOOh - a scientist expert says "'tis so" so 'tis so... Surely there are some things that are true but cannot be proven by scientific methods thusfar. Yes? No?

And while I'm at it... Ferfugssake... Someone finds evidence for something and publishes it in some shoddy journal and it lies there for a hundred fucking years unfound, unfawned over. So much science is being produced all the time, only the topical bits and pieces are caught up in the waves of publicity and consciousness changing - only a few bits become Dawkins memes... So what bits are these? Ahem. Who pays the scientists? Capitalists, industrialists, pharmaceutical companies, war machines.... da da de da dum da... Who gives grants to the "free" scientists - those in institutions like universities? GgGovernments!
Does this place any bias on the type of science being produced? Is it to benefit the planet and all mankind? Or is it to make money for corporations and to strengthen the capitalist and governmental system?
No bias?
Oh - I'm sorry. My mistake.

Which is to say that Dawkins is a good scientist. Think I've only read The selfish gene but it's well worth a read. (Not sure Hammy if twill improve your sex life - depends how Lady Burger likes her sweet nothings... you asking the wrong person about making money from anything... and as for a longer healthier life... wtf man? you don't ask for much from a book... jeeesh... ) Being science it doesn't offer a social commentary, but being science it is seized upon by social commentators .. social darwinists and the like. It may provide a few nice little rightwingy misunderstood soundbites and rise up a few hackles on the other side too.
Par example: I once mentioned the book to a socialist friend of mine who immediately got all snotty and defensive: "There's nooo such thing as a gene for selfishness..."* I had to let it go.
Dawkins doesn't like religion, yet would have his word taken as gospel. He's a little blind himself if you ask me. If you were to ask me i might say that.



*in case u dunno - this is funny because the book doesn't say this - it says that the basic unit of natural selection is the gene not the individual - thus offering an explanation for "apparent" acts of altruism, cooperation etcetera. Am reading Kropotkin (anarchist) 's "Mutual Aid"... wondering if he and Dawkins woulda got on... as a by the bye the bye bye night night. Wine. Apologies.

 

[billygannon]

Re: Dawkins

Why is this line always spun when mentioning religion:
"when the world was an inexplicable and scary place, a belief in the supernatural was both comforting and socially adhesive"

I think humans have gotten more afraid of nature over the millenia. If you ask me, religion comes from boredom.

 

[Super Dexta]

Re: Dawkins

did anybody catch yon program last night? my friend woke me up in the middle of the night to tell me it was "pretty poor.. whenever I've seen him on tv he makes a fool of himself.. stick to the books". I did wonder alright how he was going to pull off 'everyone except me is a gullible idiot' with any panache.
his books are still great though.

 

[quasiquasi]

Re: Dawkins

If you ask me, religion comes from boredom.

My feeling is that a lot of the religious impulse comes from a fear of the meaninglessness of death and hence of life. I doubt that anyone is completely immune to occasionally wondering what's the point in anything...to avoid this you either have to deny that everything is ultimately pointless (and have faith in something like a religion) or be very very distracted by materialism or drugs or whatever.

On another point: scientific journalism has but a tenuous correlation with actual science...journalists are looking for topics that will grab the attention of a wide audience, hence miracle cures, cute animals and 'breakthroughs' that are 10 years old but never got packaged in an appealing way. Reports (even from supposedly reliable outlets) are frequently very distant from the science they're supposed to be reporting on. But such is life. I'm sure all science journalists end up in Purgatory.

 

[taubstumm]

Re: Dawkins

But such is life. I'm sure all science journalists end up in Purgatory.

they used to go to limbo, but then that, like no disco before it, got cancelled.

 

[taubstumm]

Re: Dawkins

oh, i was going to have another bash at a proper reply here, but i have to go to bed. so instead i'll ask - why is this thread in politics?

 

[1000smurfs]

the root of all evil

anyone see this on channel four on monday?

Richard Dawkins making the case for religion as one of the great modern
evils in the world today.

Compulsive viewing so it was whatever your spiritual persuasion

I'm on the same buzz as him, but I would imagine and hope it provoked a lot
of moderate people.

the next episode deals with the notion of religion as a virus

 

[shitepipe]

Re: Dawkins

If you ask me, religion comes from boredom.

drugs also has alot to do with it...

 

[skinnerchinner]

Re: the root of all evil

the same sort of religion that leads to wars all over the world or religion
the subject we learned in school about fish and bread being made out of
wheat and fish eggs and turning water into wine and whatnot

 

[Wheels]

Re: the root of all evil

Yeah it was compelling stuff alright, especially when he was talking to the Jewish settler from New York. Scary shit. It’s a very difficult viewpoint to try and argue with the people that he is, but I’d like to see more of the series.

 

[broken arm]

Re: the root of all evil

is it available online?

edit: i seem to be asking this a lot recently.

 

[c0De_n1NjA]

Re: the root of all evil

is that the selfish gene chap?

 

[hugh]

Re: Dawkins

ok, ok, i accept most of the criticisms, didnt really express my self clearly... science does examine evidence indeed, which sets it apart from belief or faith based systems, and as such makes it reasonably self regulating and open to development and improvement.

but for science to accept evidence it must be observed, defined and quantified through the scientific process, making it is a closed system- but it doesnt mean that outside this system alternatives lie (which may in time be brought into the 'scientific' process)

Oh yeah absolutely. If you can't measure it, gather evidence, and conduct experiments then science should have nothing to do with it. Existence of God being a classic example. I'm not quite sure what Dawkins says about this, it's either

(a) There is no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore as a scientist I will not believe something for which there is no evidence.

or

(b) As a rational human being I have considered the options (i.e. God exists and He created the world and we'll all go to heaven if we are good etc etc or else God does not exist and the idea was created because of our fear of death etc etc) and the latter seems way more plausible to me.

If he is saying (a) then I would have a problem with that as that issue would seem to me to be something about which scientists should shut up, but if he is saying (b) then I would be with him all the way. There's no real evidence for or against so all you can do is believe what seems most plausible to you.

The evolution thing however is different. There is evidence. There is a serious theory (Darwinism) that thousands of people have studied, developed, attempted to disprove, challenged, documented etc etc and it seems to stand up pretty well. As opposed to Creationism for which there is no supporting evidence other than God wrote it in a book therefore its true or something like that.

I think what you are really talking about though is things like alternative medicine etc and suggesting that there are many theories and practices there that science refuses to consider when it could clearly do so as there is no problem gathering evidence and conducting experiments and so on. If so, I would agree with you to some extent. Science is certainly a fairly conservative beast and moves slowly.

Take acupuncture for example. I don't know much about this kind of thing but is there an accepted scientific theory/explanation as to why it works? Assuming it does work - why isn't there such a theory? Surely some hotshot young scientists will make their careers by proving that acupuncture works and explaining why.

They are either investigating this thing or they are not. If they are investigating, then either they have failed to show that it works (that could be because it doesn't ), or else their tests have been inconclusive, or else they have established that there is someting there but simply failed to explain it (in which case they are going to either continue, or else give up and admit it's outside the current reach of science). The other alternative is of course that they are not investigating it at all. This could be, as Shine would suggest I think, for political/economic reasons (i.e. medical science is in thrall to private interests/ governments/ corporations, there's no money in sticking needles into people, so let's ignore that stuff and develop drugs we can sell instead). That's a serious problem all right, particularly in some fields, and seems to be getting worse. As Shine said, the problem is the funding and the influence that those supplying the funding may or may not be able to exert. But that's not a problem with science per se, its a problem with how it is funded.

i mean we take science as a value free set of principles, but it is based basically on a greek model, like all western culture. for example a chinese doctor might use quite different techniques to diagnose or cure a patient than a western doctor- they dont have the same idea over a split in the physical body and the mind, which is a dominant feature is western thought.

so all i'm trying to say, is there's alot to which science does not have an answer, although thats not to say it wont answer it in the future, and so people like dawkins should be rather more humble in their assessment of these grey areas. and also the idea that science as it is practiced now is a value-free system is untrue- its embodies all the morals and values of western culture since the greeks...

True.

 

[glen]

Re: the root of all evil

He's Jeff Hanneman's cousin.

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

Re: the root of all evil

 

[glen]

Re: the root of all evil