Has Dawkins lost credibility?

[Smiledriver]

This is a truly remarkable post. It's gonna actually make me come to Dr. Dawkins defense. Amazing!

Here's the thing...

Think about anything in which you are well educated. Art, auto mechanics, fantasy literature, anything. Now consider the simplest question you can be asked about that subject. Now consider pausing for 11 seconds before dodging the question. Would you do that, if so why?

I am well educated in Philosophy, if someone asked me if Socrates retracted all of his idea's because Xenophon and Plato wrote an Apology of Socrates. Why the hell would I be stumped, or even hesitate to answer that question? Further, why would I not point out how the question itself is ridiculous. Apology in the sense used in Plato and Xenophon's dialogues means "reasoned defense speach" not a admission of guilt. On the contrary both dialogues are historical accounts of Socrates defending his ideas to the Athenians however ironically.

The only way you could ask me, or a first year philosophy student for that matter, that question on film and make me look confused is with trickery.

Shame on these people.

 

[CFLarsen]

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?

T'ai Chi doesn't need any other audience than himself.

He clearly believes he is outwitting us all.

 

[cyborg]

He clearly believes he is outwitting us all.

I'm sure he does. That just makes it all the more funny/sad.

 

[Lonewulf]

To answer the OP: Yes, Dawkins lost his credibility... but only to those that felt that he had none in the first place.

I.E., the same ignoramuses as have always criticized Dawkins blindly.

 

[wahrheit]

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

It's all about criticizing Dawkins and skeptics.

T'ai Chi doesn't need any other audience than himself.

He clearly believes he is outwitting us all.

Couldn't agree more. You can sum this up to a one word term that has been mentioned before.

 

[Smiledriver]

Y'know part of me wants to agree with the whole "Dawkin's should have corrected them answered the interviewer if truth was on his side" argument. I support a thriving free marketplace of ideas. However, the point of the marketplace is to eventually weed out falsehood. You engage in debate only to the point were the idea is repeatedly shown to have no merit and then you don't need to listen to it anymore.

The good doctor has debated, written and spoke on the matter repeatly. His responses are widely available to anyone with a internet connected or failing that a library card. That is to say nothing about countless others who have done the same.

It's telling the lengths these people will go to make it appear that there is a lively debate raging in science on the matter. It's the only way to keep these ideas rattling around the marketplace.

 

[sol invictus]

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

Aha! So maybe you're actually interested in this, rather than just in trolling? Probably not, but I'll try to explain anyway.

There are ways to define the "information in the genome". One way is to use a version of entropy - determine (there are several ways to do that) the probability p_i that a given codon will appear in a given position i in the genome, then compute S = -Sum_i (p_i log(p_i)) over the genome sequence. The larger S is, the more information there is in the genome.

With that definition, many mutations will increase the information, and many will decrease it. It's actually an interesting question to ask which a random mutation is likely to do. But the question they asked is nonsensical, because there are an enormous number of boring answers which don't teach you anything.

It's like asking for an example of a stock price which when you multiply it by the square-root of 3 has a 7 in the 16 digit of its decimal expansion. If I'm an expert on the stock market, does my pausing after you ask me that mean that the stock market is a myth?

 

[articulett]

To me, the question would be akin to asking:

"So if the earth is round, how come all the oceans don't spill out, huh? huh?" "And don't give me that spinning planet stuff because I get motion sickness very easily, and I would know if the earth was spinning!" "What's the matter science-man-- cat got your tonuge???" "Ha! even the science man has no explanation for this claim the earth is round!" "Did you ever measure it personally, Mr. Science man--huh? huh?"

Creationists endlessly abuse the patience of those who would gladly teach them some of the coolest things human beings have come to know-- if only the creationists weren't so damn sure they knew everything already and had an inkling to their huge gaps in knowledge.

Look at T'ai-- he's posted over 10,000 posts and been on this forum forever. Has he learned a single thing? Made a valuable point? Furthered anyone's knowledge in any way? And like the proverbial incompetent in my sig-- he's sure that he's the one proffering bits of wisdom to those silly old skeptics that don't have the magical access to "higher truth" that he has somehow stumbled upon. The most incompetent cannot learn from others because they don't know they are the incompetent ones.

This is what faith does to thinking. Scary. Keep the kiddies away from creationists or they could end up like T'ai.

 

[Biscuit]

I love the word "darwinist". Just like anyone who believes in gravity is a "Newtonist". *Nods*

I love this point but want to express a pet peeve of mine regarding the word belief.

I feel strongly that rational thinkers need to stop saying they believe in gravity or believe in the TOE. While I, and most people understand what you mean when you say that, there needs to be a distinction between belief and comprehension. We should get in the habit of saying that one does not have belief in scientific theories but rather one either understands a theory or does not.

Religion requires a belief system, and leap of faith. Science requires understanding.

Got that off my chest, sorry for the derail.

 

[articulett]

I agree... when people ask if I believe in evolution-- I say I accept evolution... just like I accept that the earth is spherical.... just as all scientists accept evolution. We accept facts we understand and use them to understand more.

Faith refers to believing something without or despite evidence-- often because there are rewards promised for that belief.

That's another dishonest inference proffered by the ID crowd (and all they've got is dishonest inferences)-- it's the idea that science is a "belief". The earth is spherical whether one believes in it or not. And humans are subject to gravity even if they have no clue as to what it is and they think it's demons that keep things stuck to the earth.

 

[wahrheit]

To me, the question would be akin to asking:

"So if the earth is round, how come all the oceans don't spill out, huh? huh?" "And don't give me that spinning planet stuff because I get motion sickness very easily, and I would know if the earth was spinning!" "What's the matter science-man-- cat got your tonuge???" "Ha! even the science man has no explanation for this claim the earth is round!" "Did you ever measure it personally, Mr. Science man--huh? huh?"

Creationists endlessly abuse the patience of those who would gladly teach them some of the coolest things human beings have come to know-- if only the creationists weren't so damn sure they knew everything already and had an inkling to their huge gaps in knowledge.

Look at T'ai-- he's posted over 10,000 posts and been on this forum forever. Has he learned a single thing? Made a valuable point? Furthered anyone's knowledge in any way? And like the proverbial incompetent in my sig-- he's sure that he's the one proffering bits of wisdom to those silly old skeptics that don't have the magical access to "higher truth" that he has somehow stumbled upon. The most incompetent cannot learn from others because they don't know they are the incompetent ones.

This is what faith does to thinking. Scary. Keep the kiddies away from creationists or they could end up like T'ai.

Just wanted to take the opportunity and say that I liked the posts made by articulett I recently read very much. I have no idea who articulett is, but I enjoyed reading the posts a lot.

 

[T'ai Chi]

With that definition, many mutations will increase the information, and many will decrease it.

Well I believe that's true, and they were asking for just one example. Surely there is one example in the literature that Dawkins would know of or could point them in the right direction.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Religion requires a belief system, and leap of faith. Science requires understanding.

Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

 

[Biscuit]

Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

The phrase scientism has as much wieght in my world as truthiness and makes me laugh just as hard.

How can learning the mechanism of the natural world be thought of as negative? How can stating, "we don't know the answer yet but we are going to work at it till we do!" be thought of as extreme? Sure there are plenty of problems that science has yet to fix but name one problem religion has? I am going to but my money on science finding the answer before religion does.

Has anyone ever gone to war over the theory of gravity? Has a geologist ever burned a chemist at the stake?

I know I am getting way off topic here but it appears we all agree Dawkins' pause has not lost him credibility.

 

[Acleron]

Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

id/creationist alert. T'ai Chi finally exposed.

All the signs are finally there.

Inability to respond to reasoned debate.

Ignoring of stated facts.

Blind repeating of argument without reference to facts which make it irrelevant.

Use of the the phrase 'can only be explained by'.

Use of the word Scientism.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The phrase scientism has as much wieght in my world as truthiness and makes me laugh just as hard.

At least it is a real word.

How can learning the mechanism of the natural world be thought of as negative? How can stating, "we don't know the answer yet but we are going to work at it till we do!" be thought of as extreme?

That is not negative, never suggested it was. I suggested carrying the belief in science to the extreme, at the expense of everything else, is.

Sure there are plenty of problems that science has yet to fix but name one problem religion has?

Religious certainly helped in the civil rights movement. I saw videos of MLK and fellow church members out there, for example. I also look at some food drives and disaster relief and see tons of religious groups doing these. I know of people who are sick or dying getting comfort provided by religion. And there are religious hospitals.

You have the gov's Faith Based and Comminuty Initiatives stuff. This is recent news:

October 24, 2007 - White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Convenes Roundtable to Discuss Human Trafficking

WASHINGTON, DC — The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives hosted “Faith-Based and Community Solutions to Combat Human Trafficking” as part of their Compassion in Action Roundtable series.

“Faith-Based and Community Organizations are freeing innocent victims and restoring the lives of those forced into modern-day slavery,” said Jay Hein, Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. “These organizations are fighting for those coerced into bonded labor, bought and sold in prostitution, exploited in domestic servitude, enslaved in factories and captured to serve unlawfully as child soldiers. By partnering U.S. Government resources with the efforts of the faith-based and community organizations, we are determined to end human trafficking.”

and

Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative

Each year more than 650,000 men and women return from prison. Department of Justice studies of this population indicate that almost two-thirds of those individuals will return to prison within three years of release, many within the first few months. In 2004, President Bush announced his Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (PRI) designed to assist ex-prisoners and the communities to which they return. Through this program, returning offenders are linked to faith-based and community institutions that help ex-prisoners find work and avoid a relapse into a life of criminal activity. Currently there are 30 PRI grantees across the country that are providing mentoring, employment and other transitional services to more than 5,789 participants. Initial results are promising with high levels of employment and significantly reduced recidivism rates.

These are just some examples that come to mind. I can search the internet and literally find hundreds. But can you name any corresponding promoting-atheism counterparts and their accomplishments? I'm sure some exist.

I am going to but my money on science finding the answer before religion does.

Well, I personally don't think they are competing. This is proven time and time again by people who are scientists yet who are also religious.

Has anyone ever gone to war over the theory of gravity? Has a geologist ever burned a chemist at the stake?

Some examples that come to mind; we have atom bombs produced by a science program, various dehumanizing eugenics movements, Tuskeegee syphillis experiment, and numerous examples of scientific fraud. There was recently a tragic shooting in Finland, and there was a tragic shooting at Columbine some years ago. In each, the shooters were reportedly infatuated with natural selection (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-at-columbine/). And of course there are cases of invididuals who happen to be scientists who have committed various crimes of all sorts. So I'm really not sure what you're trying to ask here.

 

[T'ai Chi]

id/creationist alert. T'ai Chi finally exposed.

I guess the only thing that has been exposed is someone like you with no actual substance in this debate.

Use of the word Scientism.

Yeah....

Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Shermer 2002).

..apparenly Shemer (and probably millions of others using that word) is a creationist to you?

 

[Acleron]

I guess the only thing that has been exposed is someone like you with no actual substance in this debate.

I and others (Dr Imago, Cyborg and Hawk One...) have given you reasons why Dawkins paused, you have not responded to those reasons in any way. Where is the substance in your accusation?

..apparenly Shemer (and probably millions of others using that word) is a creationist to you?

All cows eat grass, John eats grass, John is a cow? I learned that logical fallacy 50 years ago.

However if John has four legs, a stomach divided into four parts and eats grass, he is very probably an id/creationist like yourself descended by uncommon descent from a primate ancestor.

And while I'm typing let me say that Dawkins has not lost any credibility by being ambushed by people who have to resort to the tactics of lying and fraud.

Unfortunately there is a new film being produced to be called Expelled. Various scientists, including Dawkins, were interviewed by a group claiming to be making a film about evolution called Crossroads. These interviews, no doubt highly edited with 'pauses', are to be used to claim that id/creationists are being denied access to mainstream science university departments. (Is this familiar to you?) I presume they will not feature Dembski's totally fraudulent letter purporting to come from the Dean of such a university in support of another of his ilk who tried to gain credence by registering in that university.

If you really have some facts, please show us how the theory of evolution is incorrect, scientists would love it, but if your only premise is to attack a leading proponent of the theory with a bogus argument you have already lost because even if, (and he could), Professor Dawkins couldn't answer the question, it would have no relevance to theory of evolution.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who is astonished by the hypocrisy of this statement coming from someone who has actually bragged about the number of people on his ignore list.

 

[Alareth]

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

No the real question is, why does anyone reply to T'ai Chi at all?