Has Dawkins lost credibility?

[Dunstan]

As far as I know, Dawkins leaves the origins of physical laws to physicists.

I agree. He does briefly discuss some of the possibilities in The God Delusion, but doesn't endorse any particular one as far as I recall.

 

[articulett]

Art'! I am shocked! Have I had some effect on you? Don't you realize Seth Lloyd favors the concept of our universe being as a computer? I thought you bucked me when I suggested the likes of that.

No Von-- it's your slam of Dawkins, your misunderstanding of natural selection, and your insinuation of a purposeful design/designer with a plan.

 

[VonNeumann]

No Von-- it's your slam of Dawkins, your misunderstanding of natural selection, and your insinuation of a purposeful design/designer with a plan.

1. My "slam" of Dawkins? Perhaps you make reference to my pointing out his "illustration" of natural selection via nothing more than a stencil. His "Methinks" illustration was no more instructive of a natural selection function than what one should expect of dropping sand through a stencil. He merely built a software filter and called it a demonstration of natural selection. Is my pointing that fact out a "slam"? The question he was trying to answer begs the question what is the natural source of the stencil's specification. If Dawkins had a better demonstration then I am sure he would have delivered. He is not stupid. It's the best he could do and if you are an astute skeptic, you'd want more than to be bamboozled.
2. My misunderstanding of natural selection? No, sister. My deeper understanding, apparently deeper than yours, that what is called natural selection applies to a complex system, a system that I've pointed out is orders of magnitude more complex than all the human neural networks on earth combined. You assign this super complex system the power of creating long strings of DNA codes for all kinds of purposes, yet, it is blind and purposeless. The burden is on science to have a "theory" of how natural selection can do this self-bootstrapping, without merely resorting to hand-waving and saying "it's obvious it should work and you are slow if you can't see that it should and in fact does work." There is no argument from me nor from most dissenters (I assume) that natural selection is a negative force that prunes and thereby weeds out poorly adapted forms, but to jump to the conclusion that this pruning can work along with random generation of new forms to cause progressive advancement of lifeforms is something not proven.
3. My insinuation of teleology? The current paradigm of science is to eschew teleology in any/all theoretical models. This has been a successful plank in the method. Science is a method. We must understand this and not forget it. Science is not synonymous with truth. There are things that you know exist that are not touched by science. Science cannot prove you are conscious. I bet you are though. I don't know that your are, but I know that you are. The latter being a statement of faith, not of science. I could be wrong, but I'll bet you a dollar you are. So if this forum is for the purpose of adhering to science in all things we can talk about here, then mention of teleology in nature would be out of order. But the whole paradigm of science is in need of a new revolution. The need for overhaul has been cooking since the dawn of the quantum understanding of what lies at the fundamental level of existence. I was surprised you champion the likes of Seth Lloyd because I've made many references to the fact that our universe acts more like a computer than any other thing we humans can use as metaphor. More than a hundred years ago, metaphor of billiard balls or solar systems may have been reasonable metaphors when we tried to understand how an atom might appear/behave. Today, the best metaphor for fundamental understanding of the universe come from information theory and numerical computation. Algorithmic complexity needs to be basically understood and the old ideas of randomness need to be upgraded to current knowledge. But the question of teleology is not ruled out by science because teleology is FALSE, rather because teleology is not what science is ABOUT.

Back to Dawkins... He is smart, but he appears to me as a very religious person. His religion is "science" but he does not appear to me to be a person that Lee Smolin would call a "seer". This forum is full of very bright people but probably is not an attractor for seers. ...birds of feather... That's what I see here. There's a lot of good stuff on this forum and a lot of bright people. IMHO, Dawkins and Hawking are not seers. Penrose is a seer.

I don't know if Dawkins lost credibility with the general public, but he is more a guy who spouts well the 'establishment', he is not a revolutionary. And he appears to me more a theologian, a conservative (conserving 150 year old ideas), not a progressive.

As I've said to you before Art', I am too much a skeptic to believe the creative force of the universe is as simple as randomness coupled with natural selection. There is too much underlying the physical universe that we cannot/have-not probed for us to conclude so wishfully. A hundred years ago (even 50 years ago) we looked at cytoplasm and saw jelly--now we see a city's-worth conglomeration of fine-tuned machinery. We look at quantum mechanics and see that our models are good at predicting statistical outcomes of experiments. Then we get into arguments over whether it is meaningful for science to ask questions about the mechanism underlying quantum physics (eg Einstein-Bohr arguments). Let's not pretend that we can conclude no-teleology when we cannot (yet?) probe the fundamental quantum computer that makes up our universe. Since you give Seth Lloyd some credence, I must say I am pleased... you are expanding your religion and you are showing you can think outside the box. Good for you, girl!

 

[articulett]

I'm not flattered by your approval Von. Complexity is always built from the bottom up by information that is good at getting itself replicated-- there is no model of top down telelogical design... it's backwards. It doesn't happen. It's anti-entropic.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/Tooby.html

And rest assured-- I find your complaints of Dawkins and skeptics as smarmy and misguided as all woo. I suspect you are jealous, because no one takes your expertise very seriously. And I'm too much of a skeptic to think that you are saying anything more valuable than what Behe et. al. are saying.

 

[VonNeumann]

I'm not flattered by your approval Von. Complexity is always built from the bottom up by information that is good at getting itself replicated-- there is no model of top down telelogical design... it's backwards. It doesn't happen. It's anti-entropic.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/Tooby.html

And rest assured-- I find your complaints of Dawkins and skeptics as smarmy and misguided as all woo. I suspect you are jealous, because no one takes your expertise very seriously. And I'm too much of a skeptic to think that you are saying anything more valuable than what Behe et. al. are saying.

I will credit myself with having had some positive impact on you since you have expanded your consideration in the direction of my slant on things (I wouldn't call it "expertise", but thanks...you could have chosen some lesser term) -- I'm speaking of the Seth Lloyd reference you made.

I'm not sure I can rest assured that my complaints of Dawkins or Hawking are "smarmy" and "misguided". I don't know if you mean "insincere" -- I'm not that. Perhaps you think, since i don't follow lockstep with the establishment, that I'm overconfident to not be riding in the same track you are, and therefore am misguided. No, I think for myself as any person who is truly skeptical, should.

I don't think it is likely for me to change the minds of others -- not in any confrontation. It is not human nature to admit in front of a challenger. So i don't expect you to say so or even to recognize it yourself. But after the thousands of words that have fired back/forth twixt us, it is possible you have opened a little -- that's good. Couldn't hurt you. I've never admitted to my business partner, of many years ago, that he opened my eyes to the vacant foundation of random mutation and natural selection. I don't think you've moved an inch on that...but if you start looking into quantum physics (and along the lines of NKS, Zuse, etc) a bit and ask yourself if the universe could be based upon information (as opposed to matter/energy) you might start asking yourself more and more questions until you start to take a peek outside of the groove you're in.

BTW, I was just reading what Hawking said circa 25 years ago. (Since Dawkins doesn't address Physics, I bring in Hawking). He predicted it could easily come true that a unified field theory be established within 20 years -- meaning it is 5 years late right now. I am not slamming him -- not dissing Dawkins either... but Hawking is extremely bright yet he still suffers from the human flaw -- what the Greeks called hubris. ...or overconfidence, if not "pride". String theory was called by many, our best chance of achieving a theory of everything. Now String theory will soon become a big embarrassment when it is considered how much research money was wasted on the boondoggle. The frontier is more difficult than ever to approach in the right way. The best minds can be quite wrong -- reality is stranger than fiction.

Why don't you communicate what you really think, instead of calling me names, Art'. Really! Is that all you've got, girl?

 

[Acleron]

Is my pointing that fact out a "slam"? The question he was trying to answer begs the question what is the natural source of the stencil's specification.

The environment.

You assign this super complex system the power of creating long strings of DNA codes for all kinds of purposes, yet, it is blind and purposeless. The burden is on science to have a "theory" of how natural selection can do this self-bootstrapping, without merely resorting to hand-waving and saying "it's obvious it should work and you are slow if you can't see that it should and in fact does work." There is no argument from me nor from most dissenters (I assume) that natural selection is a negative force that prunes and thereby weeds out poorly adapted forms, but to jump to the conclusion that this pruning can work along with random generation of new forms to cause progressive advancement of lifeforms is something not proven.

Evolution does not produce progressive advancement of organisms, it produces organisms best fitted for their environment. Sometimes this means losing a part of the phenotype as in blind cave fish.
New forms are produced by random mutation and natural selection, a good recent example is the production of a viroporin in HIV that makes the virus more effective. Behe realises this is important and damaging to his cause because he is just uttering rather puerile invective while trying to ignore it.

There are things that you know exist that are not touched by science. Science cannot prove you are conscious. I bet you are though. I don't know that your are, but I know that you are. The latter being a statement of faith, not of science.

By "conscious", I will make the assumption you mean self-aware. This is a difficult problem but perhaps not intractable. We already recognise various levels of self-awareness in animals and in humans under different conditions. This is being investigated with PET scans. This research may not be successful in the near future but it is incorrect to imply that the topic is outside the remit of science.

But the whole paradigm of science is in need of a new revolution. The need for overhaul has been cooking since the dawn of the quantum understanding of what lies at the fundamental level of existence.

Science appears to be working very well, explaining more and more as our understanding grows. For example, it was the scientists who developed quantum theory and mechanics using scientific methods.

Today, the best metaphor for fundamental understanding of the universe come from information theory and numerical computation. Algorithmic complexity needs to be basically understood and the old ideas of randomness need to be upgraded to current knowledge.

I thought about answering these sentences but there is just too much internal contradiction.

Back to Dawkins... He is smart, but he appears to me as a very religious person. His religion is "science" but he does not appear to me to be a person that Lee Smolin would call a "seer". This forum is full of very bright people but probably is not an attractor for seers. ...birds of feather... That's what I see here. There's a lot of good stuff on this forum and a lot of bright people. IMHO, Dawkins and Hawking are not seers. Penrose is a seer.

Lee Smolin has a very strange and indeed elastic definition of seer and seers, it changes from one edition of his book to another.

I don't know if Dawkins lost credibility with the general public, but he is more a guy who spouts well the 'establishment', he is not a revolutionary. And he appears to me more a theologian, a conservative (conserving 150 year old ideas), not a progressive.

Yes, a theory with a long history that is falsifiable yet has stood the test of time. More than can be said for the 'universe is a computer' argument.

I suppose that the combination of the words Dawkins and strident have failed so is the new attack 'Dawkins and discredited'?

 

[articulett]

Why don't you communicate what you really think, instead of calling me names, Art'. Really! Is that all you've got, girl?

I think I've had my fill of creationist doublespeak. Maybe someone else will play the "lets talk in circles" game.

 

[VonNeumann]

I think I've had my fill of creationist doublespeak. Maybe someone else will play the "lets talk in circles" game.

What? I've lost my charm?

 

[VonNeumann]

The environment.

Evolution does not produce progressive advancement of organisms, it produces organisms best fitted for their environment. Sometimes this means losing a part of the phenotype as in blind cave fish.
New forms are produced by random mutation and natural selection, a good recent example is the production of a viroporin in HIV that makes the virus more effective. Behe realises this is important and damaging to his cause because he is just uttering rather puerile invective while trying to ignore it.

By "conscious", I will make the assumption you mean self-aware. This is a difficult problem but perhaps not intractable. We already recognise various levels of self-awareness in animals and in humans under different conditions. This is being investigated with PET scans. This research may not be successful in the near future but it is incorrect to imply that the topic is outside the remit of science.

Science appears to be working very well, explaining more and more as our understanding grows. For example, it was the scientists who developed quantum theory and mechanics using scientific methods.

I thought about answering these sentences but there is just too much internal contradiction.

Lee Smolin has a very strange and indeed elastic definition of seer and seers, it changes from one edition of his book to another.

Yes, a theory with a long history that is falsifiable yet has stood the test of time. More than can be said for the 'universe is a computer' argument.

I suppose that the combination of the words Dawkins and strident have failed so is the new attack 'Dawkins and discredited'?

You say “the environment” answers the question ‘what is the natural source of the stencil’s specification’? I meant, in Dawkin’s program, the software filter (the stencil) was designed by Dawkins to give no possible result except the literal string “Methinks it is like a weasel”. He didn’t need a computer to demonstrate it. He could have dropped sand through a template. It was trivial. It was teleological. It did not demonstrate anything about natural selection. He demonstrated how a template works – that’s all.

You say evolution does not produce progressive advancement of organisms. Well if evolution is merely adaptation to the environment, then there is no beef. However, would I be wrong if I said you would attribute the fact that we evolved from single-celled life of more than 0.5BYA? Yes? That single-celled life evolved from some older more primitive life, maybe billions of years old? Yes? Do you not attribute ALL of that to evolution? No? ..or, rather YES: it’s due to evolution? Then I don’t understand why you would say that the progressive advancement from pre-cellular organisms to human organisms is not a product of evolution. Which is it: mere adaptation? …or is evolution responsible for a long progressive advancement of organisms?

The term “self-aware” is okay with me. The only test we have right now for self-awareness is for the specimen to tell us that they are. We have to take their word for it. Surely a theory may encompass a correlation between specific neural activity and self-awareness. Maybe if we can find someone who lapses in and out of self-awareness, we could use in a test, but he can only tell us when he is self-aware; he can’t say “now, I’m not self-aware” because he’d have to be aware of his non-self-awareness to make such a report. So that’s why I think such a theory will be impossible to verify. At this point, I’d add to my comment by noting that dualism is not ruled-out by science – but dualism is incompatible with the present day paradigm. Science cannot decide this one yet.

Science is still working very well, I agree. You indicated confusion over what I might mean regarding “overhaul” and fundamental level of existence. Try this for more clarity… We still have the problem of locality. In the history of quantum discovery over the last 70 years, the problem since EPR first expressed it, still stands. Yes, we know now that space is not a “stage”. Some people think that hidden variables were ruled out. There is confusion over what is this phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” Hidden variables were NOT ruled out (sorry John von Neumann – at least this one time you were wrong). Hidden variables are still in the game as long as they are non-local. What does that mean? Who knows? That’s all science delivers so far on that. But I’ll give you my interpretation (and most people here give me little credence). First, I think I’ll go with Einstein on GR, and say that information does NOT travel through space faster than the speed of light. The other idea, that the conditions for the split particle experiments were predetermined, I think we can also dismiss. That means all this recent fad about free-will being an illusion, based on quantum physics, can go away. Free-will is back. What it means is that the split particle is really one object at some other level of existence. The object projects into our space-time but it’s “description” is not here in space-time. This is conjecture, but as far as I know, it is consistent with observation. That is what I mean by needing an overhaul though. Waiting seventy years for resolution of non-locality and hidden variables, there appears to be no avoiding a stark change in the way we think of space-time.

You declined to try to make sense of my statement of how computation is a good metaphor for how the universe behaves. In my paragraph above, the split particle mystery at least has a metaphor for us to hang onto if we think of the particle as being an algorithm. What we think of as particles separated by space is really a single object with two almost identical instantiations, each with different space-time coordinates. We need to think of space being an attribute of an object rather than a stage in which particles move around. While you read these words, you may think of the words as being fundamentally pixels on your screen – and they are. But more fundamentally, the words are coded representations in the RAM on your Main board. If I go to your graphics chip and pop a bit in the character ROM, I can make all the letter “a”-s on the screen instantly have a bad pixel. If you live in the screen you’d have a hard time explaining how they all changed at once. We live in “space-time” which is a place where we cannot see the fundamental mechanism, so some things look “spooky”. So I just tried to illustrate how a different way of thinking can become a basis of a new paradigm to explain non-locality. The present state of science is such that you could lose tenure saying stuff like this, though. Oh, I don’t know. MIT has allowed guys like Ed Fredkin to hang around there a long time.

What you say about Smolin may be true. But I wish there were more Smolins around.

Harking back to what you said evolution is… you said it was merely about adaptation and it is not about progressive advancement… okay: if THAT is all that evolution is then fine with me; it has stood the test of time. And I have no trouble with you stating that “universe as a computer” is mere conjecture, either. But finally, I’ll say that at the core of evolution is “randomness” and there are new ways of looking at what randomness is at a fundamental level. This is where the mechanism of evolution has its creative power (since selection takes away – that leaves randomness as the basic driving force). I don’t know if Dawkins has taken that subject to much depth.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, that's like that Kirk Cameron goon from that TV show, going on about how he is a "former evolutionist"... as though he was reading Origin of Species between takes or something.

Given the level of sophistication of his arguments he more likely read The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter after his epiphany. At least Willie Ames is enough of a mess he's pretty much dropped off the radar as did Lisa Welchel after she made her preacher hubby the luckiest man of 1988.

 

[Acleron]

It was remiss of me to debate you so much off topic, I'd be delighted to converse in a more appropriate thread.

But going back to the OP

Harking back to what you said evolution is… you said it was merely about adaptation and it is not about progressive advancement… okay: if THAT is all that evolution is then fine with me; it has stood the test of time. And I have no trouble with you stating that “universe as a computer” is mere conjecture, either. But finally, I’ll say that at the core of evolution is “randomness” and there are new ways of looking at what randomness is at a fundamental level. This is where the mechanism of evolution has its creative power (since selection takes away – that leaves randomness as the basic driving force). I don’t know if Dawkins has taken that subject to much depth.

Put very simply, the random nature of mutation and recombination, strikes out in all directions. Natural selection is the guiding force. The random part of mutation follows classical statistical randomness, no further explanation is required. The randomness induced by recombination of genes is, however, very complex and Dawkins, and others, have studied this to considerable depths, but again, as yet the position of the crossover appears to be classically random unless interfered with by other well understood effects. It is the main point of being an evolutionary biologist. He is now the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and he's pretty good at that too, I suggest you read some of his biology books to see the depth and breadth of his understanding of the subject of evolution.

Just to tie in with the OP and not in response to your comments, if anyone believes that Dawkins is discredited by a lying, fraudulent and unethical set of id/creationists they are very credulous.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You say “the environment” answers the question ‘what is the natural source of the stencil’s specification’? I meant, in Dawkin’s program, the software filter (the stencil) was designed by Dawkins to give no possible result except the literal string “Methinks it is like a weasel”. He didn’t need a computer to demonstrate it. He could have dropped sand through a template. It was trivial.

Yes. He was making things simple for the kiddies.

He might have known that however simple you make an explanation, an idiot will always manage to misunderstand it. Or, as a last resort, whine about how it's too simple.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Now String theory will soon become a big embarrassment ...

How splendid that you can predict the future of physics without doing any.

When Stephen Hawking does it, it's "hubris". When you do it ... well, I guess you're just smarter than him.

... when it is considered how much research money was wasted on the boondoggle.

Are pencils and paper expensive where you live?

 

[VonNeumann]

Yes. He was making things simple for the kiddies.

He might have known that however simple you make an explanation, an idiot will always manage to misunderstand it. Or, as a last resort, whine about how it's too simple.

Dawkin's demonstration was misleading. I said "[The program] was designed by Dawkins to give no possible result except the literal string “Methinks it is like a weasel”.

Dawkins demonstrated that a mechanism that is designed to output a unique and predefined set will produce a unique and predefined set. Short of a bug, an early halt, or fault in his computer, it is impossible for his program to have delivered anything but the string "Methinks it is like a weasel.".

I can see that. I presume you can see that. If Dawkins intends this computer model to represent natural selection, he is teaching that natural selection has a built-in purpose. Surely Dawkins would not be intending to teach THAT.

 

[articulett]

What? I've lost my charm?

I'm burnt out from this thread with others like you (with much less charm of course) where this nearly identical thing is being discussed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94834

Yes, I am quite certain that natural selection explains what we observe quite well.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dawkin's demonstration was misleading ... I can see that. I presume you can see that.

You go ahead and pwn yourself, I'll just sit quietly in a corner.

If Dawkins intends this computer model to represent natural selection, he is teaching that natural selection has a built-in purpose.

No, of course not, as you admit that you can see when you post:

Surely Dawkins would not be intending to teach THAT.

Surely he wasn't. You know that he wasn't.

---

He has not misled you. He has not taught that natural selection has a built-in purpose. You know perfectly well what point he was trying to put across, as your own post makes perfectly clear, you slimy little weasel.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dawkins demonstrated that a mechanism that is designed to output a unique and predefined set ...

... via random mutation and selection, with no intelligent guidance ...

... will produce a unique and predefined set.

Short of a bug, an early halt, or fault in his computer ...

... or the stupid ravings of creationists having any kind of validity ...

... it is impossible for his program to have delivered anything but the string "Methinks it is like a weasel.".

 

[VonNeumann]

How splendid that you can predict the future of physics without doing any.

When Stephen Hawking does it, it's "hubris". When you do it ... well, I guess you're just smarter than him.

Are pencils and paper expensive where you live?

In general, I received these impressions from Lee Smolin's book (I think it was called The Trouble With Physics). This forum is not restricted to research scientists who are allowed only to opine in their line of expertise.

 

[Dr Adequate]

In general, I received these impressions from Lee Smolin's book (I think it was called The Trouble With Physics). This forum is not restricted to research scientists who are allowed only to opine in their line of expertise.

Quite so. The forums are also open to people who've read pop science books and want to prophecy the future of physics based on the "impressions" that they've received "in general" from these works.

They are also open to those of us who think that this is an amusing way to behave, such as me.

 

[VonNeumann]

You go ahead and pwn yourself, I'll just sit quietly in a corner.

No, of course not, as you admit that you can see when you post:

Surely he wasn't. You know that he wasn't.

---

He has not misled you. He has not taught that natural selection has a built-in purpose. You know perfectly well what point he was trying to put across, as your own post makes perfectly clear, you slimy little weasel.

Of course I think we know what point Dawkins was trying to make. Clearly a program that produces a singular output, in a roundabout way, demonstrates NOTHING about the point that Dawkins WANTED to make. He failed.

Since you would rather get emotional and call me names, you are the one who has humiliated himself.

If Dawkins could have achieved what he intended to, he would have illustrated natural selection with a program that might select useful theorems out of a set of randomly generated theorems, or something of that sort, where the result would be unspecified, unexpected but wonderful. ... not a mere canned output. (why can't you see this?)