Are you saying then that Dawkins does not have a bone to pick with Wilson because Wilson critiqued Dawkins findings? It works both ways. Furthermore, Wilson has been on the forefront of research a lot longer than Dawkins. A this point, it’s not a matter of trust for Wilson (although it is if compared to you). It’s a matter of the reasons and level of argument that Wilson makes. Even if that argument is debatable, it demonstrates that Dawkins assertions are not above question. For me, the issues regarding memes and several others of Dawkins raise serious questions. Remember, I never explicitly refused to acknowledge Dawkins as a scientist. But when another scientist says that someone who writes a lot of books is not a scientist, he does it in a specific context. What Wilson was saying is that Dawkins is not a “scientist” the way people in his class are scientists (they do research; they publish peer review papers, etc.) I mentioned this before. Using one and only one definition, anyone can call any titled podiatrist a “scientist”. And before that statement gets corrupted, I’m not saying that Dawkins is comparable to a podiatrist. Don’t regret the lack of “honor” for me. In my research, I have found several other scientists with, I presume, better credentials than you who have helped me reach my present opinion.
Posts by Etude
-
189Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
bohm:
Your marbles are falling out of your head. I never ranted about “him” without recognizing his good qualities. Does that not count for something? I did speak of his smugness to illustrate how he responds to his critics. I also spoke about the nature of the criticism brought on by other experts due to disagreement with his postulates. So, rants? Please put the marbles back in.
Hey, sorry if you can’t handle a Thesaurus. I understand, having witnessed your limitations. That’s why you think I spoke about testicles, which I didn’t. If you’re thinking of mine, since you’re already have masturbation in your head, STOP.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
“Well, there's part of the problem: you're reading a book intended for lay-people and expecting it to be a published journal study.”
OK, then. Please advise me on which particular work of Dawkins I should read in order to determine if “memes” is a viable hypothesis. I’m not being sarcastic here. I just think that if the criticism I’ve read of that postulate means anything, I would have to reconsider a scientist who is making the same mistake you’re suggesting I’m making: taking a proposal from a lay-book rather than a scientific paper.
I already mention Wilson’s Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion as a reference. I’m not sure, but I venture to guess that someone of Wilsons caliber would base his criticism on more than a popular book. I took two courses in college on Biology and one included Evolution. We converd Phenotypes and Genotypes; Molecular Evolution; Inheritance and other topics. Even then I had some interesting questions for my professor. But, I don’t think you’re really that interested since you’re assuming I’m still carrying the “sticking thinking” (?) of the JWs. OK, whatever.
“Sure, but I think the greatest abuse of the English language is how believers are not called on the carpet for creating a false equivalency by using a single word ('faith') to support beliefs in theology AND science.”
I’m with you there. No argument from me. It has been my mission for a while to expose what is false and misleading. I’ve done plenty of that. However (drum roll please)… you are incorrect in saying that the question of belief is binary. You’re likely thinking about a mathematical numbering system that only has ones and zeros. Well, that would exclude other logic models that are tri-state or even multi-state. Don’t close yourself to other possibilities. Beyond that comparison, I have never conceived of what we can or cannot logically deduce as a state of belief. Yes, in logic you can have a positive answer or a negative answer. But you can also have an inconclusive answer, one where there isn’t enough information to be certain either way.
When most people flip a coin, they generally think that there are two possible outcomes: heads and tails. Would I be incorrect in assuming that it would never occur to you a coin could land on its edge? Do you consider that out of the realm of possibility? One of the easiest sources I find is this one on Wikipedia: “Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown.” [1][2][3] But one repercussion, at least for me, is that the very lack of reasonable assertions or evidence leads me to conclude the question of a deity is a non-issue. It is that same criticality that helps me examine other subjects. By your line of thinking, it would be impossible for an electron to exist in two places at the same time. For you it either is or it isn’t and Schrodinger’s cat is either alive or dead and can’t possibly be both while still in the box. Well, not everything in life is that way.
Again: “In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.” [3][4][5] Is that dogmatic enough for you? Can it change in definition? Sure. But then, we would have to revisit the whole issue. You can wait for the day “when the clouds part and God reveals Himself” so you can ask Him/Her/It questions. I have no such illusions and will not contemplate what will happen if that take place. Oh wait, were you being a bit facetious? That’s OK because we’re in agreement then and I’m not so much as you suggest, with my JW "sticking thinking" and all. All-righty, then.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
bohm:
Your inability to ascertain whether or not I know the difference between Dawkins the writer from his “advancing certain ideas” makes my point of how narrow you are. So, here we have a writer who is popular and can explain in common terms certain aspects of science while conjecturing how the interaction of those scientific points lead to something he invented, like Memes. So tell me, really, what is the difference?
When or where did you get from me that I “don’t like Dawkins as a popular writer”? See what I mean? You really are obtuse. I’ve read several of his books. Did I mention that already? Hmm… I guess you missed that too. Think deeper, man. Why would I continue to read someone’s work whose style I detest? Duh! The part you’re missing is that Dawkins’ conclusions are not as holy as you will have them. You also miss that I don’t think this is the case for everything Dawkins writes.
If my vocabulary is too much for you, please excuse me. English is my second language. As a non-native speaker, I try to bring out the right words that will convey as much clarity as possible. I’m sorry if they escape you. But I understand. This is why you need to resort to insults rather than a more intelligent discussion. That requires paying attention. When in doubt, ATTACK! It’s natural, since you missed the contrast I offered between Sierra Cartwright and Masters & Johnson. So naturally, even though I suspect you don’t know who Masters & Johnson are, your visceral reaction rose to MASTURBATION! It goes to show how you think. I guess you know a lot about it.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
“Well, no kidding, but that's because Dawkins is not writing as a scientist who's writing articles for professional journals to be read by his colleagues, but he's writing for the public, the layperson.”
EXACTLY! And on that point, you contradict bohm. I’ve been communicating all along that while Dawkins uses science to illustrate his point, he is not putting forth sanctioned scientific explanations in Natural Selection. That other scientists contradict him at least brings his postulates into question. He is a “populist” writer, in my opinion. He has interesting premises. I just don’t swallow all of them hook, line and sinker. This is why I search for what other heavies are saying.
Now, tell me if I’m wrong in assuming that the characterization of Dawkins by some here has not been one of a purveyor of scientific facts. Tell me if at any time, I have said that Dawkins doesn’t know jack shit. I realize it’s not so simple to distill a complicated subject for the general public. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who do and do it well enough to not venture beyond what can be said about a subject. That’s not Dawkins’ aim and that’s why other “experts” dispute him. I for one am not afraid of the “'ugly details' of biochemistry, biology, etc.”
If you’re referring to Bart D. Ehrman (I’ve read “Jesus Interrupted” and “Misquoting Jesus”), I also consider him a very good writer. But, he is not without his critics (many of them erudite scholars) who also criticize his conclusions. For me, the only criticism I have of Ehrman is that in spite of his exposing the inherent problems and contradictions of canonical writings, he holds to the idea that they are valuable for the more benign “message” of love and understanding. I don’t agree. I think those values can be had without any religious writings.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
bohm:
I don’t besmirch Dawkins’ ability to write. I praised him before for having a commanding control of English. I think he’s a good writer. I just don’t think that what he writes rises to the level of other serious scientists who have way more credentials then Dawkins. I mentioned two in other posts. Did you look them up? From this last reaction, I take it you didn’t. Even so, the important thing is why and how they feel that Dawkins is wrong about many of his assumptions.
I realize he is famous. But he is not famous the way or for the parallel reason Stephen Hawking is famous. It’s the significance of the work that has made Stephen Hawking famous. Google Sierra Cartwright and you’ll find a lot of information. She writes erotic novels and has probably made a ton of money for it. That doesn’t mean that, even if she’s able to stimulate your gonads, she is the equivalent of a Masters or Johnson.
Keep telling yourself whatever you’re stating here and miss the point of what I’m saying. Your obtuseness is becoming evident. You misconstrue my assessment of Dawkins by insinuating he doesn’t have admirable qualities. I see why. You don’t want to invalidate the less decorous ones that support your myopic view.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
bohm: I guess you do know jack shit. That's my point. However it's characterized, it's still shit if you chose to ignore what other scientists say.
braincleaned: The same applies to you. I did not make the statement that Dawkins is not a scientist. It was made by the biologist Edwin Willson. If it comes down to your opinion of Dawkins and that of Willson, I'll take his any day, any time.
-
69
How men become homosexuals...
by Calebs Airplane infinally, i've found the reason why some men become homosexuals.. the 1976 book "your youth: getting the best of it" explains it here in great detail.... .
-
-
Etude
When I was a kid, I thought that all homosexuals were, pardon the term, "fruits" because they were effeminate. Then the issue became complicated when I learned of men like Rock Hudson and others, including some pro football players that were gay. It busted my perception. To top that off, I realized that traits (body hair, deep voice, premature baldness because of high Testosterone) had nothing to do with orientation. In my mid 20s, I had 3 JW roommates out of which one had a great deep voice and was hairy. He nevertheless had effeminate mannerisms. Still, he pictured himself as "manly" because of those attributes. I couldn't understand his self image, especially after he confessed to me that he had gay tendencies. I read an interview with Neil Sedaka and learned he is not gay, despite being effeminate. He explains his mannerisms as a result of being raised with sisters. He’s been faithfully married to the same woman for a long time.
While in Bethel, I knew two roommates, both of whom did weight lifting. They bulked up. The blonde one had some mannerisms and the other one was straight as an arrow. It took a bit for me to realize that the blond one had, dare I say, fallen in love with the other. The other was in the difficult position that, while he was trying to be "Christian" and not reject his roommate and friend, he was not about to do something he couldn't do. Years later, when I connected with the first guy who had since also left the JWs, he declared to me that he "had come out". I think my unperturbed response of "Yeah, OK" disappointed him. I think he was expecting shock or something in that order from me. Somehow I knew. Still it's impossible me to tell for a lot of people. And so, I readily accept it when someone says that they've known since they were 2 years old that they were "different" or that they've had a penchant for the same sex as long as they can remember.
This has been going on since Ham fiddled with Noah’s patriarchal “staff”. So, when the Bible says: “And Noah awoke from his wine, knew what his younger son had done unto him”, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that homosexuality has been a part of life for a long time, notwithstanding that Ham took advantage of Noah. I hope the world finally comes to a point where they can live and let others live no matter who they chose to love.
-
85
Dawkins Chapter 2 - Dogs, Cows and Cabbages
by KateWild ini have to say, i am afraid i found this chapter labourious to read in most places.
imo i felt he just wasn't getting to the point.
i don't get why dawkins felt the need to teach me all about platoism, essentialism and rabbits.
-
-
Etude
Well, it stands to reason that large boobs and Natural Selection are intrinsically linked. That supports the idea of Group Selection and the distribution of the "large boob" gene into a population. I'm sure he had to restrict his examples for brevety's sake and therefore did not expand his discussion on the "large penis" gene. Oh yeah, let's not forget the "big butt" gene.
-
85
Dawkins Chapter 2 - Dogs, Cows and Cabbages
by KateWild ini have to say, i am afraid i found this chapter labourious to read in most places.
imo i felt he just wasn't getting to the point.
i don't get why dawkins felt the need to teach me all about platoism, essentialism and rabbits.
-
-
Etude
tec:
"I, personally, will not read Dawkins if i want to read something about science. I will go to a scientist who has no other agenda or bias. I would really just want it straight. Just the facts... no spin on them."
PRECISELY! It doesn't mean that Dawkins or any other similar writer can't be correct about something. But if one really wants to cut throught the bullshit (other than for entertainment purposes), there are better ways than reading popularists books.
