Mehdi Hasan vs Richard Dawkins on flying horses

[ericdose]

You're in the wrong field. What you're talking about is Abiogenisis. Which has nothing to do with Evolution. And there are solid studies made into videos which show you mostly likely how life first formed and then how complexity arose.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEEXK...96457CAFD6D7C9

The was single celled life prior to the Cambrian explosion though. Thus the theory of evolution would be relevant. Darwin's theory is predicated on a very slow process where organisms change over time. The Cambrian explosion directly contradicts this theory.
As I stated before, the Darwinian Theory does a very good job explaining the survival of the fittest, very small changes in organisms due to their environment and such. Darwin himself noted that the Cambrian Explosion was a problem for his theory. He thought future fossil findings would fill in the gap from single celled to those found in the Cambrian Period. We've actually found the opposite.

[trollspooge]

The View . . .

I have no idea why in the world you chose those three shows that have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

I can't understand what is hard to grasp. Dawkins is trying to educate people about evolution and science. The chart shows that there is widespread denial about evolution. The chart shows a connection between denial of evolution and religious preference. I can understand why Dawkins as an educator feels it is necessary to challenge religion in order to educate people about evolution.

Not many people are going to watch a two-hour formal debate and I'm inclined to believe that the ones that do already accept evolution.

If you want to change the public's understanding you have to convince the people who are least likely to already understand. You have to find out where dumdies get their information. I've never really watched Ellen or Dr. Phil and have only watched about a 1/2 hour of The View, but my point is he should find very popular shows to speak on and not focus on philosophical debates that very few people can/will follow.

[ericdose]

I can't understand what is hard to grasp. Dawkins is trying to educate people about evolution and science. The chart shows that there is widespread denial about evolution. The chart shows a connection between denial of evolution and religious preference. I can understand why Dawkins as an educator feels it is necessary to challenge religion in order to educate people about evolution.

Not many people are going to watch a two-hour formal debate and I'm inclined to believe that the ones that do already accept evolution.

If you want to change the public's understanding you have to convince the people who are least likely to already understand. You have to find out where dumdies get their information. I've never really watched Ellen or Dr. Phil and have only watched about a 1/2 hour of The View, but my point is he should find very popular shows to speak on and not focus on philosophical debates that very few people can/will follow.

If you honestly believe that Dawkins is only trying to educate people than you are seriously deluded. Attacking one's core beliefs and making a mockery of them will not change their mind. It would have the opposite effect and cause them to be defensive. He only does the debates to further inflate his own ego.

[GreatOldOne]

Only people with an extremely narrow view of what is meaningful believe this. You are probably one of those people who believe that scientific progress is the only thing that has meaning, or counts as contribution.

The philosophy of logic is directly responsible for the philosophy of science that we have today.

Are you arguing that ethics and aesthetics are not important?

That political and social philosophy have no meaning?

To claim this is to claim that social and political beliefs and systems have no meaning.

Philosophy directly contributes to how we think about things, which is the basis for all human progress, in all fields and pursuits.

** rolls up sleeves **

I love philosophy.

But it is worth exactly chit. People who take philosophy seriously start trying to do extra sensory perception. They begin to imagine things important about the universe which exist outside of their experience and they build castles on top of those things.

Logic? BS!

Logic never got anybody laid nor did anything important on it's own. Logic is a facility we have which we typically stuggle in vein to conjure up when it is time make an important decision for which we have time to consider. The fact that we exist itself is proof that logic is of no great consequence, for early man and animals and our cousins the lobsters...had no need for logic. --> they just did things and were just fine.

Ethics is not important because there is no meaning to 'good' and 'evil'. Ethics would be the most important aspect of philosophy, being that it impacts every aspect of behavior, however it is meaningless.

Social and political beliefs are unrelated to philosophy because those things are better explained by meteorology. Better yet by social psychology and cognitive psychology. No politician was ever elected based on logic. No politician ever will be, either.

Aesthetics are the last line of defense for true meaning. However, they appear to be 'up to you'. There is a hope that psychological principles might show that there is a sense of 'universal aesthetic' across people, but it is unfounded and unsupportable without study.

So, 'there is no accounting for taste' at this time.

Philosophy has nothing to do with how you think or behave. Your behavior is dictated by the laws of physics and nothing more.





















There is a correct defense against what I have just laid out in detail: "That is just your opinion".

[Mr Beer]

Dawkins accolades are in biology, not philosophy. Dawkins wrote an anti-religious book which was primarily philosophical, and he failed at it. Someone with intellectual rigour, like you say, would not have been so intellectually dishonest and commit so many glaring fallacies/

Its exactly the same as someone writing a book called the Evolution Delusion, and the 'central argument' of their book is 'if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys lolol' and when called on it, I defend myself by pointing out that I'm an acclaimed musician with many awards for music.

No, it's like saying someone is a failed musician because you find their harmonica playing discordant but at the same time they are a world class violinist.

nice ad hom btw.

Thanks and please return the favour if you can ever find me making such a hugely pretentious and hypocritical remark.

[Myriad88]

If you honestly believe that Dawkins is only trying to educate people than you are seriously deluded. Attacking one's core beliefs and making a mockery of them will not change their mind. It would have the opposite effect and cause them to be defensive. He only does the debates to further inflate his own ego.

I agree, I think this is a rather post-hoc defense of Dawkins. He educates when he writes on evolution and against creationism, but not when he attacks religion. This is when he turns in a pure anti-intellectual propaganda machine.

[Myriad88]

No, it's like saying someone is a failed musician because you find their harmonica playing discordant but at the same time they are a world class violinist.



Thanks and please return the favour if you can ever find me making such a hugely pretentious and hypocritical remark.

yawn. His biology credentials are utterly irrelevant to his main point in God Delusion.....which was a philosophical argument'


Appeal to authority ftw.

[Mr Beer]

Evolution is evident all around us. The fact that all things came from a single celled organism has yet to be proven though. About 530 Million years ago, the first intricate animals suddenly appear in the fossil record. Dawkins avoids this little fact because it directly contradicts what he so adamantly claims to be fact when in truth it is a theory which does well to explain small changes which occur over time but not the sudden appearance of intricate life on the planet.

So by "avoids" you mean he doesn't discuss the Cambrian Explosion in his written works on evolution?

[Mr Beer]

yawn. His biology credentials are utterly irrelevant to his main point in God Delusion.....which was a philosophical argument'

Appeal to authority ftw.

Yawn. Of course, his credentials as an intellectual are irrelevant to an real intellectual.

Yawn. World-wide acclaim as an intellectual by intellectual institutions are irrelevant to being an intellectual. FTW.

[Myriad88]

Yawn. Of course, his credentials as an intellectual are irrelevant to an real intellectual.

Yawn. World-wide acclaim as an intellectual by intellectual institutions are irrelevant to being an intellectual. FTW.

They're irrelevant to his philosophical musings on God and theology, and biology credentials do not immunise one against bigotry, caricature, fallacies, propaganda, vitriol or anti-intellectualism.

Listing his credentials is a textbook appeal to authority.

[homicidal_misc]

Yawn. Of course, his credentials as an intellectual are irrelevant to an real intellectual.

Yawn. World-wide acclaim as an intellectual by intellectual institutions are irrelevant to being an intellectual. FTW.

Dawkins is a *******. Deal with it *******.

[Bhavasita87]

Philosophy has nothing to do with how you think or behave. Your behavior is dictated by the laws of physics and nothing more.

What is a law of physics, and why should there even be a law, in principle?

All a physical explanation can do, is to explain a phenomenon, in terms of something else. This is ultimately an infinite regress. Suppose you say that atoms behave a certain way, because of quarks, gluons, etc, and how they interact. Why do those behave the way they do? And so forth and so forth. Physicists' wet dream is a theory of everything, which I don't believe is possible, because you can ask "why" no matter how complex the explanation. Everything is explained in terms of something else.

It doesnt matter if you get to your theoretical, most elementary laws of physics. At this point, the question is, why should unconscious matter, throughout the universe, behave in a certain, and constant manner? To say that something behaves in a certain way "just because", presupposes that it has properties of some sort. If you are at this hypothetical, most elementary laws of physics, then there is no explanation for these. If you say that there is a deeper explanation, a deeper laws of physics, then you are back to your regression. In other words, you are ultimately saying that matter behaves, for no reason at all, it just does. In the end, the most complete or complex theory has explained nothing, in the ultimate sense. Of course it is useful for practical purposes, but nothing else.

So ultimately, saying that you behave the way you do, because of the laws of physics, is really saying that you behave the way you do, because you behave the way you do. You have explained, nor understood, anything.

[Myriad88]

GOO you've decried philosophy in one sentence and in the very next sentence espoused a philosophical position-ontological pluralism/anti-realism

[Bhavasita87]

Yawn. Of course, his credentials as an intellectual are irrelevant to an real intellectual.

Yawn. World-wide acclaim as an intellectual by intellectual institutions are irrelevant to being an intellectual. FTW.

So knowledge in one area is transferable to all areas? Using what you seem to be saying, someone who is a recognized intellectual when it comes to philosophy then goes and writes a book on physics. Does the fact that he is a "recognized intellectual" lend credence to this book?

[GreatOldOne]

What is a law of physics, and why should there even be a law, in principle?

All a physical explanation can do, is to explain a phenomenon, in terms of something else. This is ultimately an infinite regress. Suppose you say that atoms behave a certain way, because of quarks, gluons, etc, and how they interact. Why do those behave the way they do? And so forth and so forth. Physicists' wet dream is a theory of everything, which I don't believe is possible, because you can ask "why" no matter how complex the explanation. Everything is explained in terms of something else.

It doesnt matter if you get to your theoretical, most elementary laws of physics. At this point, the question is, why should unconscious matter, throughout the universe, behave in a certain, and constant manner? To say that something behaves in a certain way "just because", presupposes that it has properties of some sort. If you are at this hypothetical, most elementary laws of physics, then there is no explanation for these. In other words, matter behaves, for no reason at all. In the end, the most complete or complex theory has explained nothing, in the ultimate sense. Of course it is useful for practical purposes, but nothing else.

So ultimately, saying that you behave the way you do, because of the laws of physics, is really saying that you behave the way you do, because you behave the way you do. You have explained, nor understood, anything.

This is a great question...and something most people never even consider in my experience. Laws of physics boil down to fundamental interactions which are in turn unknowable. They are where we stop knowing.

We would like to think they are logically necessary but that is not true. They are not logically necessary and in fact they are logically contingent. That means...your actions are not up to you but they are determined by something you ultimately do not know and can never.



Problem?









Most people resolve this with, 'God'.

[ericdose]

So by "avoids" you mean he doesn't discuss the Cambrian Explosion in his written works on evolution?

He addressed it in "The Blind Watchmaker" if my memory serves but even then he tries to minimize it's importance rather than directly address how life could make such a sudden evolutionary leap forward.
I'm not arguing the Darwin is wrong just that perhaps we need to reassess his theory and make adjustments where appropriate given what we know now.

[Mr Beer]

They're irrelevant to his philosophical musings on God and theology, and biology credentials do not immunise one against bigotry, caricature, fallacies, propaganda, vitriol or anti-intellectualism.

His huge intellectual accomplishments immunise him against being a "pseudo" intellectual.

Listing his credentials is a textbook appeal to authority.

I could rely on your opinion or maybe I'll just be take the prudent approach and accept the prevailing evidence that Dawkins is a prominent intellectual.

[Mr Beer]

Dawkins is a *******. Deal with it *******.

That's an excellent argument young man and you should feel very proud for making it all by yourself. Well done.

[Myriad88]

His huge intellectual accomplishments immunise him against being a "pseudo" intellectual.



I could rely on your opinion or maybe I'll just be take the prudent approach and accept the prevailing evidence that Dawkins is a prominent intellectual.

Accolades in biology do not immunise one against being a pseudo-intellectual in another field.

[Mr Beer]

He addressed it in "The Blind Watchmaker" if my memory serves but even then he tries to minimize it's importance rather than directly address how life could make such a sudden evolutionary leap forward.
I'm not arguing the Darwin is wrong just that perhaps we need to reassess his theory and make adjustments where appropriate given what we know now.

So by "avoid", you mean "address but in a minimalistic fashion"? Is that correct and can you please explain exactly how it needs to be addressed by Dawkins?

When you refer to "his theory", what is Dawkins' theory and how does it differ from scientific consensus?

[Bhavasita87]

That means...your actions are not up to you but they are determined by something you ultimately do not know and can never.

If the things about us that make us living and intelligent beings -- will, imagination, cognition -- consciousness, are ultimately based on these properties that just are, and have no explanation in terms of something else, then we can argue that these aspects are in someway, more fundamental than the "laws of physics". This leads me to disbelieve that these things are somehow emergent -- as its nothing less than a miracle that conscious aspects could, even in principle, emerge from unconsciousness. This isn't to say that an atom has will or consciousness, but that the fundamentals of these things are inherent in what we call matter. We talk about fundamental units of matter being the building blocks of more complex structures -- what about fundamental units of consciousness?

[Bhavasita87]

His huge intellectual accomplishments immunise him against being a "pseudo" intellectual.

Maybe, but only because being classed as an intellectual vs. a pseudo-intellectual is a label, nothing more.

On the other hand, if you're seriously suggesting that doing good work somehow immunizes one from doing future bad work...

[ericdose]

So by "avoid", you mean "address but in a minimalistic fashion"? Is that correct and can you please explain exactly how it needs to be addressed by Dawkins?

"Avoid" in the sense that Dawkins is a well educated man, much more than I am. Therefore it stands to reason that he is aware of the problems the Cambrian Explosion poses to a theory he has made a career on.

When you refer to "his theory", what is Dawkins' theory and how does it differ from scientific consensus?

As is evident in the statement, I was referring to Darwin's theory of evolution. I do not recall Dawkins having a theory of his own. Scientific consensus is not a valid argument. It was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. Questioning theories, no matter how hard some try to state them as fact, is the only way to advance science.

[GreatOldOne]

They're irrelevant to his philosophical musings on God and theology, and biology credentials do not immunise one against bigotry, caricature, fallacies, propaganda, vitriol or anti-intellectualism.

Listing his credentials is a textbook appeal to authority.

Dawkins has a certain appeal.

He's right!

The fact that he does it in such a humorous way is very profitable to him, apparently.

It is pure propoganda...but that always had its place among things and sometimes it was for the good.

[GreatOldOne]

If the things about us that make us living and intelligent beings -- will, imagination, cognition -- consciousness, are ultimately based on these properties that just are, and have no explanation in terms of something else, then we can argue that these aspects are in someway, more fundamental than the "laws of physics". This leads me to disbelieve that these things are somehow emergent -- as its nothing less than a miracle that conscious aspects could, even in principle, emerge from unconsciousness. This isn't to say that an atom has will or consciousness, but that the fundamentals of these things are inherent in what we call matter. We talk about fundamental units of matter being the building blocks of more complex structures -- what about fundamental units of consciousness?

More fundamental than the laws of physics is unnecessary...because those go unexplained. I have personal doubts about them being emergent...I haven't figured out exactly why I think that yet.

I think the fundamental units of consciousness would be called, 'qualia'. Matter on the other hand and it's fundamental units would be I think, 'quanta'. Now...which one is more real?

One of them we know for certain because it's directly in front of us! (qualia). Yet we derive the matter and other permanent physical things .

You can always go with, 'there are nothing but observers'...but that seems fairly odd in many ways. In a way, it relies on complete certainty but at the same time 'floats' on something in a way which approaches denial. The something...would be the physical.

People are nervous to think about 'the things that make us what we are...are driven by fundamental, unknowable things out of our control.'. They quickly see the implication that you, yourself are not special. Not fundamentally different than the collection of molecules you are sitting in but happen to be calling a chair. You are just another part of the universe.

Yet...I don't see this as problematic or anxiety producing at all. Of course we are just another part of the universe. Were else would we be?

[GreatOldOne]

You've just activated my trap card.....

Do you play magic? Pokemon?

[boseador]

What is a pseudo intellectual?

[GregariousWolf]

What is a pseudo intellectual?

Someone who disagrees with my line of thinking.

[Myriad88]

Someone who disagrees with my line of thinking.

lol!

I insulted the exalted Lord Dawkins.

I'm in trouble now!

[boseador]

Myriad88, can you define pseudo intellectual, please?