dawkins   1350

« earlier    

Is Richard Dawkins Really That Naive?
http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/richard_dawkins_really_naive
“Scott — who is an atheist — has repeatedly said that one cannot claim that science requires atheism because atheism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. She leverages the standard distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism: if you are a scientist you have to be a methodological naturalist (i.e., assume for operative purposes that nature and natural laws are all that there is); but this doesn’t commit you to the stronger position of philosophical naturalism (i.e., to the claim that there really isn’t anything outside of nature and its laws).”

“The real problem is that, pace Dawkins, evidence has nothing to do with it, because this isn’t a scientific debate. Look, even the most outrageous version of young earth creationism cannot be scientifically falsified.”

“But a staunch creationist will argue (I know this from personal experience) that god simply orchestrated the whole appearance of fossils and intermediate forms to test our faith. As stunning and nonsensical as this “theory” may be, it makes the creationist completely and utterly impervious to evidence: the more evidence you bring up, the more he feels validated in his faith, because faith is belief regardless or despite the evidence. Now Dawkins will say that these people are irrational ignoramuses, and they certainly are. But that misses the point entirely: the lowly creationist has just given the mighty evolutionist a humbling (if unconscious) lesson in philosophy by showing that evidence simply does not enter the debate. If evidence is out, then we are left with sheer rhetorical force.”

“One almost gets the feeling that if Dawkins had the resources of the Inquisition at his disposal he might just use them in the name of scientific Truth (a philosophical oxymoron, by the way). Thanks for the public relations disaster, Dick!”

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.””
richard  atheism  religion  naturalism  science  deism  methodological  dawkins  philosophical 
december 2016 by yufufi
The mismeasure of machine: why machine metaphors in biology are misleading | Plato's Footnote
Dawkins disagrees, and writes in The Selfish Gene:

“When a man throws a ball high in the air and catches it again, he behaves as if he had solved a set of differential equations in predicting the trajectory of the ball. He may neither know nor care what a differential equation is, but this does not affect his skill with the ball. At some subconscious level, something functionally equivalent to the mathematical calculations is going on.”

No, it isn’t. In fact, experiments show that humans (and dogs) use a deceptively simple heuristic to catch a ball: keep your gaze fixed at the ball, and adjust your running speed such that the angle of the ball remains constant (for references to this and other claims in this post, see the original paper). When you follow this heuristic, you will be there when the ball hits the ground. As it happens, baseball players are very poor at predicting where a ball is going to hit the ground when they are asked not to run towards it. They just manage to get there when the ball does.
evolution  biology  philosophy  mathematics  baseball  design  Dawkins  Pigliucci 
october 2016 by ernie.bornheimer

« earlier    

related tags

&  (2013)  -  011415  0115  041217  0415  0417  043015  050516  0516  1115  112315  2011  2read  69  _  ab  abortion  adaptationism  advice  algorithms  amazon.com  and  animated  annoying  apologetics  ask:  atheism  atheist  atheists  athiesm  atom  aughts  barlow  baseball  bears  beka  best  bioinformatics  biology  biomorph  bitch  black  book  book_database  booklists  bookmarks_bar  books  breaking  brexit  brian  but  capitalism  catchy  charles  christina  christopher  community  concept  cool-book  cool  cooperation  creationism  critical  criticalmass  critique  culture  darryl  david  dc  dear  death  debates  december  deism  delicious  design  destroys  development  dna  does  drift  earworm  easter  ecosystems  ed  education-politics  education  eepigenetics  entropy  essentialism  ethics  everywhere  evolution  exist?  faith  feminism  finish  first  flying  for  full  gender  gene  genes  genetic-algorithms  genetic  genetic_determinism  genetics  god  good  grand  greene  greta  guy  harassment  harris  has  health  here  heroes  history  hitchens  hn  homeopathy  horses  hsu  ian  identity  ifttt  inflection  information  instapaper  instinct  interesting  internet  interview  is  islam  javascript  jesus  jon  koran  krauss  kropotkin  leather  lent  life  margulis  mass  mathematics  mcewan  meme  methodological  mitchell  molecule  monotheism  morality  mormonism  muslim  muslima  muslims  muslridley  mutation  myth  natural  naturalism  nba  neodarwinism  networking  networks  neuroscience  neutralism  new  new_atheism  nice  no  noble  of  on  origin  panspermia  park  patterning  persian  personal  peter  phil_me  philosophical  philosophy  pigliucci  plato  points  politics  pop  popular  postmodernism  primer  pseudoscience  psychology  pyotr  queer  readings  reductionism  reductionist  religion  remix  replace  reproduction  richard  richarddawkins  saved  science-education  science  sciencebooks  selection  selfish  sexism  simonyi  skeptic  skepticism  skeptics  society  sokal  some  south  spirituality  statesman  steve  stewart  study  subculture  subtitle  technology  the  theology  theory  thiel  tinderboxed  to-read  to-skim  tod  trivial  trolling  tumblr  twitter  united-states  via  video  viral  washington  watch  web  wikipedia  with  women  you  youtube 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: