51. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235512 by Mitchell Gilks on August 23, 2008 at 6:58 am

301. Comment #235501 by Brian English

No, I agree, Darwinian mechanisms and theism is not compatible. Evolution and theism is, you just must reject Darwinian mechanisms.

52. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235500 by Mitchell Gilks on August 23, 2008 at 6:34 am

295. Comment #235495 by Steve Zara

I know, it's a sad and laughable hypocrisy. Because if one's views of religion involve a literalist interpretation such as that, then Meadon is really just saying "abandon your religious views and adopt mine" and then scathing RD for not promoting views of religion that he agrees with.

Pointing out that the Pope accepts evolution (although an appeal to authority and irrelevant in the first place) says nothing to non-catholics. Saying "hey these religious people believe in God and evolution" says nothing to people that don't subscribe to such views.

If the children maintain that view then it would be pointless, Steve, but I think that pointing out flaws in their reasoning, and promoting critical thinking, and reason will go along way to softening, if not changing such views. Which is what RD did.

53. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235478 by Mitchell Gilks on August 23, 2008 at 5:58 am

278. Comment #235474 by Meadon

My criticism is hard fought, and probably impossible to get you to concede, so I'll adopt Steve's far more contextual criticism, and ask you to address his.

Any compatibly you think exists between Darwinism, and religion (and I'll leash my disagreement with this view for the sake of context and precision) you must agree that science and religion are different things, and it is not up to Dawkins to support or promote a theological position on a scientific theory in a science class room? He is a scientist, not a theologian.

54. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235470 by Mitchell Gilks on August 23, 2008 at 5:33 am

269. Comment #235465 by Meadon

Both lines of reasoning were heavily criticized, and I don't see you addressing those criticisms.

55. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235466 by Mitchell Gilks on August 23, 2008 at 5:27 am

265. Comment #235454 by Meadon

I'm still not clear. Are you merely saying "sorry you didn't like my comments" or "sorry for making unfair, inaccurate, unsupported, and slanderous accusations about your person"?

Because all I see is the former. Saying "sorry I offended you" seems disingenuous, and is not at all the same as apologizing for the wrongness of what you said.

I also think that it is unfair to say that we are all assuming malice here, if that were the case then attempting to show you you're wrong, and argue for why this is would be a fools errand. You'd already know, and would be doing it out of malice.

Don't worry, Meadon, I'm confident that the vast majority of us are attributing your mistakes to stupidity and not malice.

56. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235441 by Mitchell Gilks on August 23, 2008 at 4:15 am

259. Comment #235439 by Dr Doctor

Well s/he never admitted fault in the first place. S/he made bald slanderous unsupported accusations, and then when challenged, gave her/his word that s/he was certain, and when pushed quoted some of the transcript and quibbled over what "it" meant, despite it being irrelevant if it did mean what s/he thought it did.

That is not an apology. An apology admits fault, and refrains from doing the thing you have apologized for in the future. S/he did neither.

57. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235433 by Mitchell Gilks on August 23, 2008 at 3:57 am

250. Comment #235429 by Sargeist

I'd say it's the difference between understanding that it's right, and understanding why it's right. Which I think are different things.

58. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235424 by Mitchell Gilks on August 23, 2008 at 3:08 am

225. Comment #235386 by cerebate

Yes, it very much is unscrupulous knowing that that is not valid reasoning. You are asking teaches to promote appeals to logical fallacies. Again it seems that critical thinking is what theists really fear.

It is cowardly and mendacious, and it is just giving them fish, it isn't teaching them to fish for themselves (got fish on the brain now).

I have a weird fantasy that education teaches kids how to think for themselves, and not just a list of facts to regurgitate on command. A teacher promoting invalid forms of reasoning, and knowingly doing this, is exactly what is criminally bad pedagogy. Not what RD was doing...heaven forbid (it seems theists damn well think it should) promoting proper forms of reasoning, and thinking for one's self.

59. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235421 by Mitchell Gilks on August 23, 2008 at 2:54 am

230. Comment #235395 by Shuggy

You need a far better grasp of evolution...I am baffled that you could accept it when you think it states that specific animals sprout ad hoc limbs...

Flying fish have adapted already existing appendages over thousands of generations to preform an additional function. Their fins that have been reshaped by natural selection were already in existence. Anything that is shaped by natural selection necessarily must already be in existence in order to be shaped.

60. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235358 by Mitchell Gilks on August 22, 2008 at 8:47 pm

203. Comment #235354 by Don_Quix

It definitely sounds like it, doesn't it? RD is accused of "promoting atheism" because he points out that some reasoning is flawed. It really does seem like they themselves are equating critical analysis with atheism.

I'm flattered.

61. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235356 by Mitchell Gilks on August 22, 2008 at 8:44 pm

204. Comment #235355 by PennAndTeller

Hawkings? He's an astral physicist? I think Ian is right, you can't be that stupid sober.

62. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235350 by Mitchell Gilks on August 22, 2008 at 8:36 pm

199. Comment #235349 by PennAndTeller

Fish don't usually live billions of years, nor do they sprout appendages for any reason, let alone because they feel like it.

You're favorite book must be "the secret".

63. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235348 by Mitchell Gilks on August 22, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Lastly a compatible view with theism and evolution is logically possible, if and only if you reject Darwinian mechanisms, and thus the scientific explanation for evolution, and instead insert your own explanation (i.e Goddidit). Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are spontaneous genetic mutation, and natural selection. Adding a type of divine magical selection usurps the scientific explanation, and is thus not compatible.

You can believe in theism, and that life evolved, but you must reject the scientific explanation for how it evolved, which is not compatible with what is taught in schools, and you might as well line right up beside the creationists, you're both rejecting science and evidence.

64. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235346 by Mitchell Gilks on August 22, 2008 at 8:26 pm

I think that this fear of "promoting" atheism is utter foolishness, and completely impossible to interpret that way unless you misunderstand what that would look like. Telling someone that their religion is wrong is not necessarily promoting atheism, other theists do that all the time. Pointing out that your reasoning for believing something is invalid, or fallacious also in no way implies that what you belief for that reason is therefore wrong necessarily. One is quite capable of believing something that is true for really bad reasons.

It would appear to me that the problem Meadon has is with RD correction obvious fallacious reasoning, and promoting critical thinking. Unless he thinks believing something because it was the first thing you were told, or because you were raised to believe it are good reasons for believing something then s/he should have absolutely no objection to RD pointing this out.

Promoting atheism would only be him telling them that no gods exist, neither theirs, anyone else's or even non-interventionist deist gods. It is impossible to promote atheism without being pretty damn specific. Saying that if you're religion teaches X and we have proven Y which contradicts X, then you're religion is wrong in this regard is neither promoting atheism, nor should it be even remotely controversial.

The only things RD does is correct obvious fallacious reasoning, and say that creationism is wrong, and evolution is true. The former is an act of christian charity (of which their real teachers damn well should be doing), and the latter is necessary in order to teach evolution.

65. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234216 by Mitchell Gilks on August 21, 2008 at 2:24 am

Are you meaning to be unintelligible, GordonYKWong?

Because I haven't the foggiest what the hell you are trying to say in any of your comments. I know they're all to Wooter...so are you trying to fight fire with fire?

66. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233576 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 4:04 am

54. Comment #233561 by Bonzai

How often do you rely on systematically tested evidence in conducting your daily life?

67. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233550 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 3:22 am

45. Comment #233544 by Bonzai

If someone has tried for "modern medicine" and it doesn't work for his particular condition" but an "alternative" works, I think this is a reason to think that the alternative works better for that person with that particular condition. Evidence from personal experience is still evidence!

68. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233540 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 2:58 am

34. Comment #233525 by beeline

There is no such thing as an "impersonal opinion". Opinions are inherently personal.

That argument only refutes a non-existent form of absolutist relativism, where everything is absolutely relative. Which is a contradiction in itself.

I've never heard anyone state that objective issues are relative, that violates the law of noncontradiction.

In short it's a strawman. Find me a single relativist who says that you can be doing two contradictory things at the same time (and not be making a silly point about the relativity of language) and I'll retract my strawman accusation.

I don't know if there were such people in Socrate's day, but I find it extraordinarily hard to believe there are any today.

69. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233527 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 2:41 am

29. Comment #233518 by Bonzai

I was gonna say, your hypothetical seemed rather out there. I've had a sinus infection for going on three months now. Though I've only gone to the doctor once...I hate going to the doctor. Their last stuff didn't make it go away, though the inflammation nasal stuff reduced my headache, and it has yet to return that bad. I still have an earache, nasal congestion, and a slight sore throat. I'll likely end up having to go back, because it doesn't seem to be going away.

Anywho, I think you got the impression (perhaps rightfully from the way I worded my post) that I thought that unless it was medically tested than it couldn't possibly work. I didn't mean that, despite saying almost exactly that. It was hyperbole.

I only meant that there is no particular reason to assume that it would, and especially no reason to say that it works "just as good" as modern medicine. I do hope if you get something serious, you'll go to a real doctor.

I think that your "average person" criticism is misplaced in this case, as I don't see why it wouldn't be as, if not more so true for alternative medicines. It isn't as if they test it on every individual person, it most also be an effect (supposing there is on at all) that is drawn from people that also are not you. In fact, surely the professionals have tested it on a much larger group of people than an herbalist would have.

Personally, I'd rather normative figures to none at all.

70. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233510 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 2:13 am

24. Comment #233505 by Spinoza

I think you've created a false dichotomy there, Spinoza. ;D

Besides...I have my reasons...

71. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233507 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 2:10 am

23. Comment #233501 by beeline

That's obvious nonsense. By that logic it is impossible for someone to think a food is terrible tasting, and another person to think that it is delicious. Opinions don't reflect the actual things they are talking about, they only reflect your disposition towards them.

Saying all opinions are equally valid does not say that all opinions equally reflect reality.

Besides. A statement like "stuff falls down when you drop it" or any other statement about how the objective world operates is not a statement of opinion, it is a statement of fact, that is either right or wrong. An opinion by its very nature reflects a subjective view of things, and is neither right nor wrong.

72. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233495 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 1:48 am

17. Comment #233486 by Bonzai

If they claimed its effect was placebo, and the "medicine" had no effect other than that, then sure. To that affect it might work.

I don't know how they establish how medicines work. I assume they test mixtures and record statistically significant reactions to it. That implies that mixture A results in effect B. Or some such.

Well, I don't know the criteria, but I assume that medical science has some, that "alternative" medicine can't meet.

I don't know the all the criteria that historians use to establish if a document is authentic either, that doesn't mean I should accept alternative views, that are "alternative" because they can't meet those criteria.

It is enough that I know that formal, and scientifically established medicine works, and offers all that great medical stuff I see on ER. I know it works, I just don't know how.

73. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233489 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 1:41 am

16. Comment #233484 by hungarianelephant

FDA has approved 33 drugs in the last two years. So far as I am aware, not one of them is mechanism-known.

74. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233475 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 1:26 am

Yes..."alternative medicine"... To go along with your "alternative physics", "alternative biology", "alternative history"...Gah! This "alternative" garbage is just a way of trying to get an idea that has miserably failed, or you know couldn't possibly succeed in a rigorous investigative environment, or contradicts well established knowledge about the world, through the door.

If it worked, it wouldn't be "alternative" it would be just plain medicine.

75. Bill Maher on Religion

Comment #233467 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 1:05 am

I know what's going to happen when I die. The universe will implode, because it surely can't go on without me.

76. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232912 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Bonzai, you're completely right about Canada's regulations of literature, and I am also deeply troubled by this as well. Harper has tightened them since his reign began, and if he gets a bigger control of parliament, he has said that he plains to tighten them further. Even putting far stronger regulations on what can be published in Canada by Canadians.

77. No credit for creationism

Comment #232553 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 10:52 am

Good. They can't possibly win. Reality doesn't have a "view point". Christians talk as if "secular" is actual a thing, and not just the lacks of something.

I'm afraid that you don't have the right to view the world through a "geocentric viewpoint" and still get college credits in a relevant field.

78. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232543 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 10:42 am

Well, I think their wasting time and effort with bibles, but I am deeply troubled by such regulation. I indeed do think it's wrong.

79. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232343 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 1:15 am

Ha, I think that in writing is more clear. If not, I'd never remember what my original subject was when it got dragged into the inevitable countless tangents...so I could return to it when they were resolved.

I was discussing with my brother the other day, the value of art to our mental health and development, and then we went off on a tangent about what constitutes art to begin with, for about an hour, and then we couldn't remember what the original topic was. I eventually did.

80. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232335 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 12:44 am

140. Comment #232334 by chewedbarber

I stated when I first responded to the subject that I thought it was far less likely than life just having started on earth. I was saying that I think that the principle of pan-spermia is viable, and that I think that it is highly likely that numerous planets in the universe owe their habitation to it.

I'm not certain, but I believe Steve is saying that same thing. That he thinks that the principle of pan-spermia is pretty likely

Also, even if he does mean on earth, I'm confident that he doesn't imagine an outside our solar system origin of the microbes.

81. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232332 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 12:33 am

I simply reject a definition of "knowledge" that denotes absolutes all together. It is a useless way to use the word, as it can never be accurately applied to anything.

I use knowledge to mean "justified true belief" and truth to mean "that which is strongly implied by a robust amount of evidence". In which case I will say that I know that all religions are false. I will say that I'm confident that a deist god does not exist, because it contradicts knowledge about intelligences, and complexity.

When it comes to theists, of any of the worlds religions. I feel comfortable telling them that I know that their god does not exist.

Any omnixxx god is logically incoherent.

When it comes to anything supernatural, I'm almost at the point where I'd say that I know that it doesn't exist as well. I need a hair more convincing, and I'll be there.

82. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232326 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:52 pm

I feel I need to fight this fiercely because telling me to speak in formal language is in essence telling me to shut up.

83. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232324 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:50 pm

132. Comment #232323 by Steve Zara

I was talking about the viability of pan-spermia. Then it went somewhat into probability (and I said some things that would likely make Bonzai slap me) and then we started to quibble over semantics.

84. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232322 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:39 pm

127. Comment #232318 by Steve Zara

Not at all. I don't think that what you said has been inappropriate. I'm very interested in what you have to say. I forgot about that blog post. I will go check what you said.

85. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232316 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:36 pm

119. Comment #232310 by Goldy

I may be arm-flailing more than necessary, but I don't feel unfairly persecuted.

86. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232313 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Steve is right, in a formal usage of the word "proof" science, or anything else can't prove anything about the objective world. Everything we know about the universe is only implied by the evidence, it is not necessitated.

87. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232308 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:27 pm

113. Comment #232303 by Goldy

...I didn't mean no one on the site are scientists, I meant the specific people I was discussing with. I don't find it hard to believe that Steve is, but I'm disappointed if the other two were.

It doesn't make you "stupid in others" it just makes you no more formally educated in them than a layman. You very well could be far more knowledgeable in them than most layman, but it doesn't imply that you would be.

112. Comment #232302 by Steve Zara

What you are doing is misusing terms which apply in any area of science. A biologist would disagree with you as much as a nuclear scientist.

88. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232300 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:07 pm

109. Comment #232298 by Steve Zara

Don't you work with computers or something?

Besides, being a biologist isn't going to imply that you are more knowledgeable in other areas of science. So no matter what type of scientist you are, I see you discussing several fields, in which you surely don't have an formal educating in them all. Being a scientist doesn't make you a polymath. So I think that's disingenuous.

Site like this? This isn't a site for scientists. It engages largely, if not mostly, with political topics.

Well anything I stated that I thought was true was based on what I read or heard from experts, and what they thought were true. You make it sound like I was ignorantly pontificating based on nothing. I really don't think that is fair.

89. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232297 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:54 pm

107. Comment #232294 by Steve Zara

I'm not a scientist, who is trained in the jargon and terminology. I can only offer to speak in natural language. In fact none of us here are scientists, so I think that quibble of semantics is merely a distraction.

Though you said "beyond any possible doubt", which is rather naive. It's quite possible to doubt that 2 2 = 4. It may not be reasonable but it is possible. Why should I bring this up and quibble if I know what you meant? Or it isn't exactly relevant to the issue?

Isn't our mutual understanding more important than everything being exactly proper? Especially when something like that may not be possible for me.

I'm a layman, and I'm limited in this discussions to regurgitating information I've read, to that 60-75% accuracy that I can expect my memory to offer.

I hope you don't expect me to be an expect in everything I talk about. Isn't it fine as long as I don't pretend that I know more about it than I do? I don't expect anything more than that from anyone else.

90. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232292 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:35 pm

102. Comment #232287 by Steve Zara

You're equivocating "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." -dictionary.com

The word has meaning in natural language as well as formal language. You can quibble over the word "true" but if you adopt a "known with absolute certainty" definition than you will have merely robbed it of any possible accurate application, and made the word useless.

91. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232285 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:29 pm

97. Comment #232282 by Steve Zara

Given. Though I think that using statistics the chances of it having not happened are far less likely than it having happened.

Worded out by the assumption of how many planets we expect to have life, how often they chance material with other planets in their solar systems, and what have you.

92. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232283 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:26 pm

95. Comment #232280 by Steve Zara

I think you are slightly equivocating the word "proof", the definition of the word I offered, science can offer us, and does offer us.

93. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232281 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Observation: life exists on celestial bodies in space. Hypothesis: Life can travel from one celestial body in space to another celestial body in space, and propagate. Test: is there a medium for life to travel from one body to another? Confirmed. Can life survive traveling through space? Confirmed. Can life surviving a high speed landing? Confirmed. Can life propagate on terrestrial planets? Confirmed. There is even evidence that life can exist on planets with extreme environments.

All that remains is actually witnessing its occurrence.

94. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232276 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:14 pm

90. Comment #232274 by J Mac

You've called me "fucking blind" and now an "irrational fool". Where have I insulted you? Where have I misquoted you?

I also stated what I thought was evidence, you said that it was not, so I asked what you thought would be if not what I suggested.

We aren't talking about something supernatural here, it should be easy for you to give an example of what you would consider evidence.

95. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232275 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:11 pm

I should clarify that I'm not talking about pan-spermia for life on earth, but merely the principle of pan-sperima.

I think that it is highly likely that several planets in the universe owe their habitation to it, based on the evidence.

Which is that planets within a solar system frequently exchange mass, micros can survive years in deep space, and can survive the crash landing.

96. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232272 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Are you just not going to respond to my question?

97. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232269 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:04 pm

85. Comment #232267 by J Mac

...I know you didn't...that is what I was saying...

I said that such a dichotomy was not offered, so if s/he said s/he meant that choosing an option would be 50/50 it would not be relevant to what you said.

98. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232268 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:03 pm

81. Comment #232262 by J Mac

I'm going to ignore your probability fumble...and move past it.

You neglected to answer my questions.

Also, proof and evidence are not "quite different" things. The only proof that applies to the world, baring logical, and mathematical is "evidence enough to establish something as true, or produce belief in it's truth" by definition.

The only different between proof and evidence is in amount. A proof about the world is merely a lot of evidence.

Now, what would constitute as evidence for pan-spermia? There is also evidence against a deistic god. It contradicts what we know about complexity and intelligences.

99. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232265 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Not to mention that the options of "deist god, or pan-spermia" was no even offered, mostly because it is not either or. Both could be true, the likeliness of either was is unrelated to the likeliness of the other. So by this virtue it excludes the 50/50 probability of ones chances of picking a correct one. So even if you meant that would not be relevant to this example.

100. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232260 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 9:50 pm

78. Comment #232256 by eggplantbren

Sigh...

Guess what my cats name is

1 kikyo
2 kagome

You don't know what the probability of either is, but there is a 100% chance that it is one of these, and a zero percent chance that it is the other. You're ignorance of the probability does not make either equally likely, it only makes your chances of chosing the correct option 50%, it doesn't make the chances of either option 50%.

The chances of something being true, and the chances of your chosing the correct option are not equivalent.