Has Dawkins lost credibility?

[This Guy]

I don't 'get' your ultra-glib tone. If I literally say Dawkins is brilliant you have some strong need bordering on the paranormal to believe I am saying the opposite, for some reason.



Luckily "impressing hgc" is not high on my 'to do' list.



Well, actually Dawkins himself uses that word on occasion.



That may be, but he could use his genious to discuss it with holders of opposite viewpoints in a public venue. What better why to spread it to the confused public?



But a question is a question, right? Did them having another motive suddenly make it so Dawkins could not answer the question?

The question was what alerted Dawkins to the fact that he had been deceived by those recording the discussion. The pause wasn't because he didn't have an answer to the question, it was because it was at that point that he became aware of how dishonest the crew were. He wasn't thinking about answering the question, he was trying to decide how to deal with the situation he was in. The fact that the people involved have tried to use this clip to imply that Dawkins could not answer the question just shows more evidence of how dishonest they are.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Of course, what Dawkins SHOULD have done was to embark on a Gish Gallop, spouting a load of irrelevant crap to confuse his opponent. Instead he realized that he had been misled by the film crew, paused to work out what the hell the question actually meant, and thereby "lost credibility" with the type of people who never had any credibility to lose.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yet more "genius" from the anti-dawkins fools.

 

[Acleron]

But a question is a question, right? Did them having another motive suddenly make it so Dawkins could not answer the question?

Just once more, he wasn't even considering the question, he was thinking about chucking out some people from his house who had lied to get in.

The question wasn't actually answerable in the way put. ID/creationists like to mix up concepts of complexity and information theory and as usual don't understand either of them. Read Murray Gellmann's The Quark and the Jaguar, he spent a whole book trying to explain what complexity actually is.
It reminds me of Feynmann's comment when asked to explain QED in a single sentence. "If I could explain it that simply it wouldn't be worth a Nobel prize'

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

Thanks for ignoring the gist of my reply T'roll Chi, I'd expected nothing less of you and you didn't disappoint me.

As I pointed out, and as Acleron repeated, it's easy to spew out BS soundbites in a verbal debate, but in scientists are more interested in advocating science and educating their audiences than winning the claps and hoots of intellectual fellow travellers, they will have to take time to explain the details of evidences like ERVs, human Chromosome 2, embryology, extant and fossil biogeography, fossil morphology, genetically based phylogenies... what phylogenies are, etc. And that's on top of explaining how the BS claims of Creationists like moon regression, sea salt, Lucy's knee joint, and Turkana boys cranial capacity vs. his height are the utter crap they are.

I personally think I could smoke any preacher turned "EVILution refuter" out there, but the majority of C/ID public faces are so trained in turning on the fire hose of BS that the temptation to correct every one of their lies, distortions and straw men would burn up my entire speaking time and I'd only be able to address one or two since they're more complex.

You're also avoided my question. If Creationists are so sure of their postitions, why won't they accept an invitation to a formal written debate?

If their positions are so solid, why won't they commit them to a permanent record that can be evaluated by both the judges and the audience? Why must they rely on soundbites and the cheers of fellow travellers if their positions can withstand scruitiny?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Just once more, he wasn't even considering the question, he was thinking about chucking out some people from his house who had lied to get in.

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

The question wasn't actually answerable in the way put. ID/creationists like to mix up concepts of complexity and information theory and as usual don't understand either of them.

Then he could have answered them in a different manner.

 

[cyborg]

The real question is: why to you talk as if T'ai Chi hadn't already made up his mind?

 

[Hawk one]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

What makes you think that would have made a difference to them? These are professional liars we're talking about.

Why do you keep defending the liars? Why aren't you attacking them for their dishonesty?

 

[Dr. Imago]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

Imagine you're selling your house and you invite a couple of potential buyers, after they called you demonstrating interest, inside to see the place. They stroll around, like what they see, and you decide to sit down and discuss an offer. Things start off as planned, and you talk about the neighborhood, neighbors, school district, local shops... etc. Then, the person sitting immediately across from you suddenly pulls out gun and says, "Give me all your money."

What would you do, T'ai Chi? I'm curious. Would you start babbling nonsense? Jump up and run away? Would you immediately try to negotiate? Would you maybe take a minute and collect yourself and think about how the situation had changed? Would you pause to consider the fact that you had just been ambushed?

What's the correct way to act in this situation? I know you're going to claim "straw man", so forget Dawkins for a second. Just tell me what you'd do in this situation. Very interested in your thoughts.

-Dr. Imago

 

[T'ai Chi]

Imagine you're selling your house ...

Well, let's just stick to what actually occured instead of hypothetical scenarios.

What would you do, T'ai Chi? I'm curious. Would you start babbling nonsense? Jump up and run away? Would you immediately try to negotiate? Would you maybe take a minute and collect yourself and think about how the situation had changed? Would you pause to consider the fact that you had just been ambushed?

What's the correct way to act in this situation? Forget Dawkins for a second. Just tell me what you'd do in this situation. Very interested in your thoughts.

If I were Dawkins and posessed his knowledge, I would have blinded them by my command of science and took my time to answer the question, but would have actually answered it.

 

[cyborg]

"Mr Mathematician, what is fish plus spoon?"

"... (WTF?) ..."

"You can't answer my question! Your maths is stupid! Fish plus spoon is delicious you stupid man!"

 

[Dr. Imago]

If I were Dawkins and posessed his knowledge, I would have blinded them by my command of science and took my time to answer the question, but would have actually answered it.

Just answer my question above: Does the scenario I present constitute ambush in your mind?

ambush
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century

1: a trap in which concealed persons lie in wait to attack by surprise2: the persons stationed in ambush; also : their concealed position3: an attack especially from an ambush

And, would that mean that the original premise under which you'd invited those people into your house had changed? Would you still owe any courtesy to them at that point?

-Dr. Imago

 

[T'ai Chi]

I understand my personal response is super important to you, but let's stick to the topic, to an expert in Darwinian evolution, Dawkins, and his response to the question he was asked.

You'd think that, by now, he'd have a standard answer to that question? The question certaintly wasn't new to him before he was asked it.

 

[cyborg]

You'd think that, by now, he'd have a standard answer to that question?

The standard answer is: "Your question is stupid."

 

[sol invictus]

"Mr Mathematician, what is fish plus spoon?"

"... (WTF?) ..."

"You can't answer my question! Your maths is stupid! Fish plus spoon is delicious you stupid man!"

Nice!

 

[Dr. Imago]

Nevermind, I'll answer for you:

"A trap (showing up under false pretenses and rolling videotape) in which concealed persons (concealed, a.k.a. lied about, who they really were to gain access) lie in wait (let the camera roll and ask a series of questions that had Dawkins lead to believe was the topic of discussion so he would be relaxed and off-guard) to attack by surprise (springing this question on him, in non-sequitir fashion, catching him off-guard changing the whole tenor of the interview)."

This is, in no other terms, an example of the worst form of yellow journalism out there. When "60 minutes" tried to pull this crap, they found themselves in a multi-million dollar lawsuit and eventually had to publicly apologize.

I'm not expecting that much.

-Dr. Imago

 

[T'ai Chi]

That is funny.

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't.

 

[cyborg]

the information increase question made sense

No, it doesn't. The question is loaded. The meaning of "information" is such that it is impossible for evolution to "add" to it because the questioner has already decided that this is the case.

Of course I am talking to someone who will probably gag at the fact that 'randomness' maximises information (as used in information theory where it is defined precisely).

 

[CFLarsen]

That is funny.

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't.

Note that T'ai Chi says nothing about the methods of the film crew.

It's all about criticizing Dawkins and skeptics.

 

[cyborg]

Well duh.

What I want to know is who is T'ai Chi's audience that he thinks he is getting this crap by exactly?