Richard Dawkins as 'Anti-Philosopher'

[Jonathan.s]

The universe is there whether we denote it or not

A point of view is always assumed in such statements. In saying this you are imagining a Universe which exists in the absence of an observer - but such a Universe is still imagined from a point of view. The point of view brings to it both space and time, which provide a framework within which all statements about 'the universe' are intelligible. Without a viewpoint nothing is nearer or further, sooner or later, larger or smaller. So the way in which the Universe might exist from no viewpoint, is never known to us. To set it as the benchmark of what is real is a grave (and common) error.

[ForgedinHell]

The universe is there whether we denote it or not

A point of view is always assumed in such statements. In saying this you are imagining a Universe which exists in the absence of an observer - but such a Universe is still imagined from a point of view. The point of view brings to it both space and time, which provide a framework within which all statements about 'the universe' are intelligible. Without a viewpoint nothing is nearer or further, sooner or later, larger or smaller. So the way in which the Universe might exist from no viewpoint, is never known to us. To set it as the benchmark of what is real is a grave (and common) error.

The universe exists without an observer, and that would be true even if no conscience being ever evolved.

[ForgedinHell]

Wilson and Dawkins are having the mother of all battles at this very moment. Quite apart from the specifics of the debate, the vituperative tone is an interesting reflection of the politics of evolutionary science.

This debate is a complete no-brainer.
Dawkins position which emphasises gene selection is wrong and so is WIlson's emphasis on group selection.

It is plainly obvious that selection occurs when some individuals die, and other individuals survive. There are no simple criteria for determining "fitness", because perfectly good individuals die and perfectly crappy ones survive. Additionally each surviving individual comes replete with a collection of neutral , negative and positive traits, genes and behaviours, so it is not possible to simply point to a gene and say that gene in particular is what has caused the individual to survive.

All we can do is speculate. Both Dawkins and WIlson are both right and wrong. They are both right because you can look into genes, individuals, kin, groups, environment to try to understand the process; they are both wrong to deny the other's work and pretend that their emphasis is the better one.

Darwin said pretty much all that needed to be said about the Origin of Species, all the rest is hot air speculation and a means of perpetuating a career in Biology.

Gee, Comrade Chaz, you seriously think that Wilson never thought that people living and dying have something to do with passing on genes? You don't know what you are writing about, as usual. Wilson's group selection also includes individual selection. It's just that the earlier kin selection theory seemed far-fetched, and has also been mathematically proven false. Dawkins, as usual, is a mindless rube. How he ever got to be the spokesperson for the "New Atheist" movement, I'll never know.

[Bernard]

The universe is there whether we denote it or not

A point of view is always assumed in such statements. In saying this you are imagining a Universe which exists in the absence of an observer - but such a Universe is still imagined from a point of view. The point of view brings to it both space and time, which provide a framework within which all statements about 'the universe' are intelligible. Without a viewpoint nothing is nearer or further, sooner or later, larger or smaller. So the way in which the Universe might exist from no viewpoint, is never known to us. To set it as the benchmark of what is real is a grave (and common) error.

Why do I get the feeling my argument is being skirted?


My point is that the universe MUST BE - according to all evidence I am aware of - one of many other things that are alike to it, as is the norm with all observable things.

Sheesh! Is it that hard?

[chaz wyman]

Darwinism is not a philosophy, as such. Natural philosophers are interested in what 'is' and not what 'ought', that is as valid a aim for a philosopher as asking what is a good life. This does not make Dawkins an 'anti-philospher', but he does have part of the answer for you too. He is busily engaged in an attack on a major fallacy by which people do live their lives and as I said earlier removing this fallacy is the first vital step to living an authentic life.

Curious.. I think there is a tendency to elevate evolutionary theory to a kind of 'secular religion', which is a large part of the problem. And assuming that religion itself is a fallacy, is a belief, not a scientific judgement. Dawkins books are in the Religion section of bookstores. He is actually a religious writer, not a scientist, and I disagree with his religious views.

Now you are not only contradicting yourself but offering false information to back up your claims.
1) Contradiction: You have already stated that RD does not recommend Darwin as an example of how to live our lives. QED he is not offering a religion.
2) It is factually inaccurate to suggest that RD's book are in the religion sections of bookshops. even if they were that would not mean that any part of what RD is offering is religion - the opinions of bookshop owners does not reflect significant philosophical thought on the difference between popular science (where his books appear in my bookshops) and religion.
He and I do not hold religious views, if you want to go down that road you had better save your words for idiots willing to listen to them.

You might not like what he is doing, or you may have missed it. He is engaged in a secular "summer school" to replace religious summer schools for kids of atheist parents who want to avoid their children in religious indoctrination. In the school which he has been widely criticised from 'preaching' the science of religion, kids learn about the natural world and how to think using methods of science such as the hypothetical/deductive method.

Well, good for them. And the more scientists we get, the better, we need many of them, and science education does not get nearly enough attention.

So that would imply that you agree kids need religion?

Speaking of Dennett, do you level the same criticism at him - he who is indeed a professor of philosophy?

Which speaks to the sorry state of the discipline, in my view. My view of Dennett was summed up by Leon Wieseltier's review of his "Breaking the Spell"

THE question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superstition, one of the dominant superstitions of our day; and it is not an insult to science to say so. For a sorry instance of present-day scientism, it would be hard to improve on Daniel C. Dennett's book. "Breaking the Spell" is a work of considerable historical interest, because it is a merry anthology of contemporary superstitions.

You are confused. either you think RD is offering moral guidance or he is not, You want your cake and want to eat it too.

[chaz wyman]

Wilson and Dawkins are having the mother of all battles at this very moment. Quite apart from the specifics of the debate, the vituperative tone is an interesting reflection of the politics of evolutionary science.

This debate is a complete no-brainer.
Dawkins position which emphasises gene selection is wrong and so is WIlson's emphasis on group selection.

It is plainly obvious that selection occurs when some individuals die, and other individuals survive. There are no simple criteria for determining "fitness", because perfectly good individuals die and perfectly crappy ones survive. Additionally each surviving individual comes replete with a collection of neutral , negative and positive traits, genes and behaviours, so it is not possible to simply point to a gene and say that gene in particular is what has caused the individual to survive.

All we can do is speculate. Both Dawkins and WIlson are both right and wrong. They are both right because you can look into genes, individuals, kin, groups, environment to try to understand the process; they are both wrong to deny the other's work and pretend that their emphasis is the better one.

Darwin said pretty much all that needed to be said about the Origin of Species, all the rest is hot air speculation and a means of perpetuating a career in Biology.

Gee, Comrade Chaz, you seriously think that Wilson never thought th
.

Its about emphasis you fuck-witted moron.
Fuck off

[ForgedinHell]

Its about emphasis you fuck-witted moron.
Fuck off

No, seriously Chaz, telling someone to "fuck off" does not demonstrate wisdom on your part. You were incredibly idiotic to write a comment assuming that Wilson, a Harvard Professor in Biology, an expert in the field, would not have tsaken into account eh obvious in forming his opinions. You are really that juvenile to think he hadn't? That would be like accusing Dr. Tyson of not knowing how to add and subtract. Keep writing though, you keep proving your stupidity.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Its about emphasis you fuck-witted moron.
Fuck off

No, seriously Chaz, telling someone to "fuck off" does not demonstrate wisdom on your part. You were incredibly idiotic to write a comment assuming that Wilson, a Harvard Professor in Biology, an expert in the field, would not have tsaken into account eh obvious in forming his opinions. You are really that juvenile to think he hadn't? That would be like accusing Dr. Tyson of not knowing how to add and subtract. Keep writing though, you keep proving your stupidity.

A Harvard professor can't be stupid? Academia is full of highly educated idiots.

[ForgedinHell]

Its about emphasis you fuck-witted moron.
Fuck off

No, seriously Chaz, telling someone to "fuck off" does not demonstrate wisdom on your part. You were incredibly idiotic to write a comment assuming that Wilson, a Harvard Professor in Biology, an expert in the field, would not have tsaken into account eh obvious in forming his opinions. You are really that juvenile to think he hadn't? That would be like accusing Dr. Tyson of not knowing how to add and subtract. Keep writing though, you keep proving your stupidity.

A Harvard professor can't be stupid? Academia is full of highly educated idiots.

Of course a professor can be stupid. However, there is no way that he would not have considered some extremely basic and simple aspect of evolutionary theory in considering his position. That was my point. And, in this specific case, Wilson is not stupid by any means. For Chaz to have assumed that his simple idea was not considered by Wilson was idiotic. And, by the way, I have read Wilson's latest work, and Chaz is wrong on the point he raised.

[Notvacka]

The universe is there whether we denote it or not... talk about a species with a God complex! Sheesh!

Of course the universe is there, whether we denote it or not. But it's not a "thing" until we denote it as such. Your previous argument is not valid for the "real" universe, the one that exists "out there", but perhaps for our concept of the universe, which is not the same:

So seeing that we think \and talk about the universe, we can safely say it is a thing, and because we can say it is a thing we MUST deduce that it is one of many like things, because there is no observation of any thing that tells us that there are 'one off' things.

The world exists as a whole and it contains a lot of interesting stuff. Human consciousness draws the dividing lines that defines and denotes "things", dividing forests into trees and trees into branches, twigs and leaves. To us a leaf is a "thing", a twig is a "thing", a branch is a "thing", a tree is a "thing", a forest is a "thing". But none of these things exist as "things" in themselves. And it's perfectly possible to have a category of one. Your deduction is from language alone. We can talk about other universes, as we can talk about God and invisible pink unicorns. How these things exist in our imagination and how we talk about them doesn't necessitate anything in physical reality.

[Bernard]

Forgive me for saying but I think you're clutching at straws, yet very understandably so, as I understand that my views are basically insane. My view for instance that stars, trees, ants, cells etc are all beings that perceive and that see things as separate as we see things as separate' but not of course not in the way we do, but according to whatever their differing modes of perception demand. It is also my contention that whatever we perceive is a living thing or some aspect of a living thing, and that there is nothing outside of living things: life, existence, is just the infinity of living things. That we perceive the earth as a physical object, for instance, is just a limitation of our perception, as far as i see it, because our perception is physically orientated to the max. In the case of our perception of the universe our perception is likewise held fast, but is even less capable of seeing it as a whole. As anology, we may be looking at the universe as if looking at the spot on a giraffe and never seeing the giraffe in its entirety. The point is though, is that we do see something which is not any thing we can catagorise as any thing else we know, but what we do know is that if it is another catogory of thing, then from our observation of things there MUST be more of like things to it: there will be more spots and there will be more giraffes!

We want to see the universe as something singular and only original to itself. That to my mind is merely the creation of God again.

[chaz wyman]

Its about emphasis you fuck-witted moron.
Fuck off

No, seriously Chaz, telling someone to "fuck off" does not demonstrate wisdom on your part. You were incredibly idiotic to write a comment assuming that Wilson, a Harvard Professor in Biology, an expert in the field, would not have tsaken into account eh obvious in forming his opinions. You are really that juvenile to think he hadn't? That would be like accusing Dr. Tyson of not knowing how to add and subtract. Keep writing though, you keep proving your stupidity.

There are dew here on the Forum more stupid than you.
You are too stupid to have noted that I did not even imply that he has not considered the obvious.
I am saying that they both depart from it into the realms of fantasy.
Like I said, it is about what they (Wilson and RD) tend to emphasis. They both suffer from Darwinitis and have no scientific reason to emphasis what they in fact do. Evolution is in fact all about the obvious the rest is hot air a speculation neither RD or Wilson has a case to prove from Speculation, as neither of their approaches is of the kind that can submit to proof.
Fuck Off is better than you deserve.

[ForgedinHell]

Its about emphasis you fuck-witted moron.
Fuck off

No, seriously Chaz, telling someone to "fuck off" does not demonstrate wisdom on your part. You were incredibly idiotic to write a comment assuming that Wilson, a Harvard Professor in Biology, an expert in the field, would not have tsaken into account eh obvious in forming his opinions. You are really that juvenile to think he hadn't? That would be like accusing Dr. Tyson of not knowing how to add and subtract. Keep writing though, you keep proving your stupidity.

There are dew here on the Forum more stupid than you.
You are too stupid to have noted that I did not even imply that he has not considered the obvious.
I am saying that they both depart from it into the realms of fantasy.
Like I said, it is about what they (Wilson and RD) tend to emphasis. They both suffer from Darwinitis and have no scientific reason to emphasis what they in fact do. Evolution is in fact all about the obvious the rest is hot air a speculation neither RD or Wilson has a case to prove from Speculation, as neither of their approaches is of the kind that can submit to proof.
Fuck Off is better than you deserve.

Chaz, you really are cute when angry.

[Arising_uk]

... Dawkins, as usual, is a mindless rube. How he ever got to be the spokesperson for the "New Atheist" movement, I'll never know.

Well, for one its that there is was no group as the "New Atheists" as this term has pretty much been made-up by the god-bothering Yank media. All Dawkins did at first was write a couple of books that postulated that the gene was the unit of selection and that a 'God' had nothing to do with 'designing' all species, nothing new there as its what Darwin said without the Genes. You appear to want the Genes and a 'God' or 'Purpose'? That philosophically he's gone off the deep-end is more to do with the hysterical reaction from the god-bothering end-timing Yanks than him being a 'rube' as this 'rube' has more than satisfied your criteria of being a 'scientist'. Unless of course you are one of those Physics knobs who thinks anything apart from Physics is not 'science', if so then I'll point out to you that with the Genes Biology now has Engineering and as such is.

[ForgedinHell]

... Dawkins, as usual, is a mindless rube. How he ever got to be the spokesperson for the "New Atheist" movement, I'll never know.

Well, for one its that there is was no group as the "New Atheists" as this term has pretty much been made-up by the god-bothering Yank media. All Dawkins did at first was write a couple of books that postulated that the gene was the unit of selection and that a 'God' had nothing to do with 'designing' all species, nothing new there as its what Darwin said without the Genes. You appear to want the Genes and a 'God' or 'Purpose'? That philosophically he's gone off the deep-end is more to do with the hysterical reaction from the god-bothering end-timing Yanks than him being a 'rube' as this 'rube' has more than satisfied your criteria of being a 'scientist'. Unless of course you are one of those Physics knobs who thinks anything apart from Physics is not 'science', if so then I'll point out to you that with the Genes Biology now has Engineering and as such is.

Dawkins is a Brit, isn't he? From your elite school, Oxford? And he has done such idiotic things on behalf of atheism as start off a debate admitting that a "strong case may be made for deism." That "America is a Christian nation." The man is a rube, and he is a British rube from Oxford. Please keep your stupid people away from American soil.