Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Togo1 »

Chriswl wrote:That's a fairly generous interpretation of his comments. Having read a great deal of Dawkins, he regularly goes well beyond the science, suggesting that his view of the universe is correct, and that other views are both incorrect and actively harmful to humanity.
I don't know what "go beyond the science" means here. A book isn't a scientific paper, there are different conventions, different expectations. Opinions and comment are allowable. An engaging writing style is more important than absolute precision - ambiguities are resolved through extended discussion (though I actually can't think of a general writer who writes with more precision than Dawkins). What's important is that he doesn't misrepresent things as being scientifically accepted facts when they aren't and I don't think he does this.[/quote]

I think he comes quite close, although this is perhaps a matter of style as much as anything else. One common pattern in his books is to introduce a topic area, go over the science, and then gradually introduce his own ideas and conclusions. While this is informative and gives a good impression of perhaps why he might think the way he does, a more careful writer would put a firm dividing line between experiemental results and personal speculation.
Chriswl wrote:
Togo1 wrote:While he is quite careful in some areas, limiting his claims of what is and is not shown by the science to what can be reasonably inferred, he still adopts the view that his view is superior because it appears cosmetically similar to scientific principles. In doing so, he is making claims that are not scientific, and which lack philosophical rigour.
Adopting the view that your view is superior is pretty much inherent in advocating for any position at all. If he's not publishing a science or a philosophy paper I don't see why he has to write as if he is.
It depends on how you view his writing, which tends to mix science with logical claims with opinion. Again, he is quite careful about what he says, but he doesn't make clear the divisions between an emperical finding, a logical impossibility, and something he simply doesn't think is likely. Given that his books are aimed at non-experts, I don't really respect that approach.
Chriswl wrote:
Togo1 wrote:Sam Harris takes a similar approach, except with less care, and some fairly basic lapses in logic.
Yeah, I'm definitely less of a fan of Harris (though I thought his little book on free will was surprisingly good, he made a very strong case for hard determinism).
I think he's good on various types of determinism, such as hard versus soft. However he struggles in writing about ideas he doesn't share, whether that's non-determinist positions, or poltiical or religious views, and descends into burning simplistic straw men.
Chriswl wrote:Polemic is good and I've never found Dawkins' arguments to be weak. What always strikes me is his opponents' unwillingness to take him seriously at all. This thread is fairly typical in taking one sentence out of context and interpreting it in a deliberately uncharitable way. Not what you do if you want to seriously engage with someone's ideas.
Which is why we need to decide whether we're treating his work as polemic or serious philosophy/science. As the latter, it is weak, and poorly structured, but I can see it's not intended to be rigourous or densely argued. As the former, I find the intensity of his distrust of religion quite distracting.

I find him hard to take seriously precisely because his work never rises to the level where serious consideration is possible. If you try and build a solid arguement based on his work, what you end up with is full of holes. I think we can either argue that we're wrong not to take him seriously, or that his work is polemic and not intended to be rigourous. I don't see we can argue both at the same time.
Chriswl
Posts: 21
Joined: May 28th, 2009, 9:10 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Chriswl »

Togo1,

I don't see the need to pigeon-hole Dawkins' writings like this. I think he would be a worse writer and a worse communicator if he structured his writing in the way you seem to want him to.

The full quote from which the sentence that starts this thread is:

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

What's wrong with that?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Fooloso4 »

-0+:
No design suggests no designer.

Right, but that does not mean no designer no design.
Accepting that it could have a low level design is a step towards accepting that the universe could have a designer, and this designer could be called God …

One might infer a designer from a design but it is this inference that Dawkins is questioning. If we can show that a natural process can occur without recourse to a designer then why make take the step toward a designer unless one wishes to defend the claim that there is a designer?
How can this be determined without access to behind the scenes? The first step can always be to describe the behaviour. The next step can be to try to find rules that fit the behaviour. If rules can be found that accurately predict behaviour, does it make much difference if they are descriptive or prescriptive?

It can't be determined. That is why I said the ontology of the laws of nature remains problematic . It does matter whether the laws are descriptive or prescriptive if we are discussing such things as the origin of the universe.
Most definitions of 'design' suggest there is some orderly action behind the design that would normally be performed by a designer, but "a coherent or purposeful pattern, as opposed to chaos" is less suggestive of this.

I am not clear on the distinction you are making between design and pattern or what “purposeful” means in this context. Materialism or naturalism or whatever term one might use to exclude the supernatural from an explanation of natural phenomena, thinks of “orderly action” as the forces, behavior, and interaction of the “stuff” of the universe.
Which came first, the design or the designer? Or must there ultimately be no separation between the two?

For materialism there is design without designer. As long as design can be explained in natural terms there is no need for a designer. Many materialists take a less polemical stance than Dawkins. It is not for them a matter of excluding God but of not including God. If things can be explained without recourse to God there is no reason to add God in. They are betting on the continued success of materialism of some form.
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Togo1 »

Chriswl wrote:Togo1,

I don't see the need to pigeon-hole Dawkins' writings like this. I think he would be a worse writer and a worse communicator if he structured his writing in the way you seem to want him to.
Less entertaining, certainly.
Chriswl wrote:"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

What's wrong with that?
Well it's very emotive, but it's also nonsense. Why on earth would the amount of suffering in the world tell us whether genes are selfish or physics is blind? Why would it tell us whether there is either rhyme or reason in the universe? And what on earth is the connection between no design and no purpose and the existance of suffering?

Unless of course he's leaning on an exessively simplistic straw man arguement, in the way Sam Harris does?

I don't mind if he thinks that the universe is undesigned, or that he wants to characterise the universe as full of suffering. But he's writing about these opinions as if they form an argument, and they don't.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Spectrum »

Togo1 wrote:That's a fairly generous interpretation of his comments. Having read a great deal of Dawkins, he regularly goes well beyond the science, suggesting that his view of the universe is correct, and that other views are both incorrect and actively harmful to humanity. While he is quite careful in some areas, limiting his claims of what is and is not shown by the science to what can be reasonably inferred, he still adopts the view that his view is superior because it appears cosmetically similar to scientific principles. In doing so, he is making claims that are not scientific, and which lack philosophical rigour.

Sam Harris takes a similar approach, except with less care, and some fairly basic lapses in logic.

Both of these individuals are indulging in cultural polemic. Whatever you might think about the pros and cons of getting involved in this kind of discussion, it involves a fair number of arguements that are, from a scientific or philosophical perspective, hogwash. What standards we should be judging them against is a decision that needs to be made.
I think you are expecting too much from Dawkins and Harris. I note Dawkins and Harris often placed qualifications, reservations and limitations to their views.
I have no issue with Dawkins comparing his views being 'superior' especially in contrast to the theistic views. Note how Dawkins contrasted evolution's gradual trend as comparing to the theistic leap of faith to a Creator.
Wiki wrote:Climbing Mount Improbable is a 1996 popular science book by Richard Dawkins. The book is about probability and how it applies to the theory of evolution. It is designed to debunk claims by creationists about the probability of naturalistic mechanisms like natural selection.[1]

The main metaphorical treatment is of a geographical landscape upon which evolution can ascend only gradually and cannot climb cliffs (that is known as an adaptive landscape). In the book, Dawkins gives ideas about a seemingly-complex mechanism coming about from many gradual steps that were previously unseen.
I have never agreed with Dawkins and Harris totally and I find their views fall short and lack depths to the proximate causes.
Where Dawkins and Harris made presentations outside their professional duty and into the philosophical arena, they are doing us, humanity a favor.
What I see is Dawkins and Harris asking questions along the fringes and edges of the known into the unknown-possible. [in contrast note the unknown-impossible i.e. God]

From a philosophical perspective, I do not want Dawkins and Harris to provide every answers but rather I welcome their proposition and hypothesis that enable me to raise more questions. Note Russell's
[b]Bertrand Russell[/b] wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Phenomexistentialist
New Trial Member
Posts: 17
Joined: May 12th, 2017, 6:26 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Phenomexistentialist »

Fan of Science wrote:Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins that makes no sense to me: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." How could he know such a thing? He may have come to the conclusion that there is no evil, despite the existence of such notables as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, but how does he know evil does not exist? He may have concluded that there is no good, despite the numerous acts of kindness that people express daily, but how could he know for sure goodness does not exist? He claims there is no designer, but we can computer model a great deal, including evolution, so how does he know that no designer exists? And how could any observation anyone could make cause one to conclude that there is no purpose at all to the universe?

What so-called "precise properties" is he even referring to? Conservation of energy? What physical laws should we observe in order for the universe to have a purpose as opposed to what we presently observe?

Dawkins seems to be making a claim that science, or at least direct empirical observations, have left us with no other conclusion than those he describes. How so? I doubt see how he makes this amazing leap from observations of the universe to his conclusions.
I think the most charitable version of the claim is that some of these things may exist, but they do not exist "objectively, out there, in the universe." Rather, they are the products of the human intellect. Hitler is evil because we consider his actions evil. Gandhi was good because we consider his actions good. Human beings have purposes, but rocks and trees and rivers don't seem to have any purposes.

Hey may not have any kind of knockdown argument to that effect. However,

1. Science works pretty well pragmatically while holding such assumptions AND
2. There doesn't seem to be any real empirical evidence that such things do objectively exist in the universe. And if there's no real positive evidence for them, there's no real basis for thinking that such phenomena are real.

Hope that helps.
Chriswl
Posts: 21
Joined: May 28th, 2009, 9:10 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Chriswl »

Togo1 wrote:Well it's very emotive, but it's also nonsense. Why on earth would the amount of suffering in the world tell us whether genes are selfish or physics is blind? Why would it tell us whether there is either rhyme or reason in the universe? And what on earth is the connection between no design and no purpose and the existance of suffering?

Unless of course he's leaning on an exessively simplistic straw man arguement, in the way Sam Harris does?

I don't mind if he thinks that the universe is undesigned, or that he wants to characterise the universe as full of suffering. But he's writing about these opinions as if they form an argument, and they don't.
He describes the pervasiveness of suffering in the universe and says that this should not surprise us given that nature is basically a big machine and that nowhere in the workings of this machine will we find human values of kindness and compassion or any kind of grand plan that would in some way make it all worthwhile. The mechanisms just grind on remorselessly and we sentient being just suffer what we must. Nature red in tooth and claw being the prime illustration of this.

Like I said, what's wrong with that? I'm not sure what you are looking for in his writings, mathematical proofs? Why would you bother reading his books if you are so disapproving of the kind of writing he is attempting?
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Togo1 »

Chriswl wrote:
Togo1 wrote:Well it's very emotive, but it's also nonsense. Why on earth would the amount of suffering in the world tell us whether genes are selfish or physics is blind? Why would it tell us whether there is either rhyme or reason in the universe? And what on earth is the connection between no design and no purpose and the existance of suffering?

Unless of course he's leaning on an exessively simplistic straw man arguement, in the way Sam Harris does?

I don't mind if he thinks that the universe is undesigned, or that he wants to characterise the universe as full of suffering. But he's writing about these opinions as if they form an argument, and they don't.
He describes the pervasiveness of suffering in the universe and says that this should not surprise us given that nature is basically a big machine
No, again that's a very charitable reading. Maybe that's what he meant. What he actually says however is that the existance of suffering means that we won't find any justice, rhyme or reason to the universe.
Chriswl wrote:Like I said, what's wrong with that?
As polemic, nothing. As serious philosophy, it would have been nice to reference any of the various theories that have suggested how suffering and justice, rhyme or reason could coexist. This is a very popular topic that's been written about extensively. It's hard to take someone's position seriously when he doesn't consider any of the alternatives to his own opinion.
Chriswl wrote:I'm not sure what you are looking for in his writings, mathematical proofs?
No, just reasoning. Specifically, a reason to agree with him. Something more than 'it feels right'. You were asking why his critics don't take this writing seriously - this may be why.
Chriswl wrote:Why would you bother reading his books if you are so disapproving of the kind of writing he is attempting?
Well, he gets cited a lot, and so I was curious. And I make it a point to try and seek out points of view that people with whom I disagree are relying on, hence wading through rather a lot of Sam Harris videos and writings And since he was in a position of authority over me at the university, I wanted to be clear what his views actually were.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -0+ »

Fooloso4 wrote:
Accepting that it could have a low level design is a step towards accepting that the universe could have a designer, and this designer could be called God …

One might infer a designer from a design but it is this inference that Dawkins is questioning.
Where is the question in his quote? It looks like he is asserting that we "should expect" a universe with no design to have precisely the properties that we observe in the universe. If not totally inferring that the universe has no design, it appears he is inferring that the universe looks like it has no design. Without having had any experience of a universe that is known to have no design, what might any assertions, inferences, and expectations along these lines be based on?
Fooloso4 wrote:If we can show that a natural process can occur without recourse to a designer then why make take the step toward a designer unless one wishes to defend the claim that there is a designer?
How can anyone show that a natural process can occur without recourse to a designer unless it is already known that nature has no designer? The best anyone can do is show something that is not known to have a designer; something that is not known to have any input from any entity that might qualify as a designer. This can be a step towards accepting the universe could have no designer.

Note that the stated step was not "toward a designer" - accepting the universe does have a designer - but accepting the universe could have a designer. This and accepting the universe could have no designer is essentially a step towards the same position of open possibility with regards to a designer - the universe may or may not have a designer. If there is no experience of other universes that are known to have a designer. or no designer, then there is no statistical probability. Neither possibility is more probable than the other, and it is unknown if the universe has a designer, or no designer.

Anyone with an aversion to the unknown may feel inclined to take a step away from the unknown towards accepting the universe has a designer, or no designer. These are polar opposite positions but they have the same absolute value of faith, requiring the rejection one possibility in favour of another without evidence to support this.
Fooloso4 wrote:It does matter whether the laws are descriptive or prescriptive if we are discussing such things as the origin of the universe.
Perhaps this is tied to the question of whether the universe has a designer or not, but if behaviour of the universe can be predicted from the laws, what significant difference does it make if the laws are descriptive or prescriptive? If God says, "you are free to do whatever you like but these laws allow me to tell exactly what you will do with 100% certainty" then where is the freedom or possibility to act outside these laws? What difference does it make if God's laws are descriptive or prescriptive?
Fooloso4 wrote:
Most definitions of 'design' suggest there is some orderly action behind the design that would normally be performed by a designer, but "a coherent or purposeful pattern, as opposed to chaos" is less suggestive of this.

I am not clear on the distinction you are making between design and pattern or what “purposeful” means in this context.
The quoted text was from Collins English Dictionary. It seemed that this definition was the less suggestive of a designer than other definitions. This could allow patterns like those observed in Conway's Game of Life to qualify as design, even though these are not specified in the design by the designer. These patterns could be regarded as designer-less design. However, in this case it is understood the patterns are consequences of a lower-level design which has a designer. Also, the inclusion of 'purposeful' in the definition may suggest a designer to some extent
Fooloso4 wrote:Materialism or naturalism or whatever term one might use to exclude the supernatural from an explanation of natural phenomena, thinks of “orderly action” as the forces, behavior, and interaction of the “stuff” of the universe.
What is the origin of the forces and stuff of the universe? Whatever answer is given, we can ask what is the origin of that, and so on, until the answer is: "It doesn't have an origin. It has always existed and it is the origin of all other things. It seems like God in these respects. We may as well call this God"; or "We don't know. We don't have a satisfactory explanation for that yet" ...
Fooloso4 wrote:For materialism there is design without designer. As long as design can be explained in natural terms there is no need for a designer. Many materialists take a less polemical stance than Dawkins.
It appears that Dawkins went a step further and suggested that the universe has no design - at bottom - that any higher level design we may observe has arisen from no design at the lowest level.

It can be shown that higher level "design" (patterns) can arise from lower level design, but how to show that design can arise from absolutely no design?
Fooloso4 wrote:It is not for them a matter of excluding God but of not including God. If things can be explained without recourse to God there is no reason to add God in.
Science is the study of nature. Super-nature is beyond the domain of nature and therefore beyond the scope of science. Science can exclude God from the study without excluding God in the study. Science can aim to provide natural explanations for everything about the universe, but while such explanations are incomplete we can ask about gaps in the explanations. How best to deal with a gap?

Options include: filling the gap with something (eg, a scientific theory or a supernatural explanation); hiding the gap ("move along, there is nothing to question or explain here, we have all the answers you need to know"); acknowledge the gap and openly explore this.

While there are gaps, science can remain neutral and totally open to supernatural possibilities while continuing to focus on finding natural explanations to fill the gaps. Any rejection or acceptance of supernatural explanation would be unscientific. It can not be scientifically concluded that everything has a natural explanation.

Science can be like focusing on trying to reverse engineer the laws of nature without being distracted by questions of supernatural input and origins. The universe may or may not have supernatural input and origins in addition to laws of nature but such questions are beyond the scope of science. Such questions can be explored by philosophy and other disciplines.

One way to explore supernatural possibilities is to look at sub-universes. A sub-universe can be regarded as sub-natural relative to this universe, natural relative to itself, and this universe can be regarded as supernatural relative to the sub-universe. If it is accepted that a sub-universe can exist within this universe, then it can be accepted that this universe could potentially exist within a super-universe.

A sub-universe could be powered by its super-universe, via a device like a computer, with software that governs the nature of the sub-universe, and an interface that allows an exchange of input and output between the two.

The beauty of a sub-universe is that we can observe both the sub-universe (via an interface) and its super-universe (this universe) and have some understanding about the relationship between the two.

An instance of Conway's Game of Life (CGOL) can be viewed as a simple sub-universe. (Anyone who is unfamiliar with CGOL can look this up. Basically, the "universe" of CGOL is a 2 dimensional array of square cells. Each cell can either be live or dead and has 8 neighbours (orthogonal and diagonal). An initial pattern of live cells is set up at the start. Then at each step in time, the following rules are applied: (1) any live cell with 2 or 3 live neighbours stays alive; (2) any live cell with less than 2 or greater than 3 live neighbours dies; (3) any dead cell with exactly 3 live neighbours becomes live.)

In many instances, complex patterns can be observed.

Let's imagine that one instance is somehow able to produce patterns that are complex enough to explore their universe and think scientifically and philosophically, without any additional access to this universe beyond their universe ... What could they potentially understand about the nature of their universe? What could they potentially understand about this universe (their super-universe), including whether it exists or not?

What could they reasonably infer regarding the origins, design, purpose, designer, creator, etc, of their universe, or lack thereof?

We can tell from our "superior" position in this universe that their universe has a design; a designer, one or more creators, and an initiator (they may or may not be the same person - who best fits "God"?); some purpose (although exactly what this purpose is may be harder to tell); a super-universe; and supernatural origins - but no supernatural input (divine intervention) after it starts - it is deterministic - except, perhaps, a premature end ...

It there anything about their universe that could allow them to correctly infer any of this that is lacking from this universe?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Fooloso4 »

-0+:
Where is the question in his quote?
It is not in the quote, but Dawkins is well known for his arguments against intelligent design.
If not totally inferring that the universe has no design, it appears he is inferring that the universe looks like it has no design.
I take this to mean intelligent design. The universe is not designed. Whatever design or pattern or structure we see is the result of natural forces.
How can anyone show that a natural process can occur without recourse to a designer unless it is already known that nature has no designer?
I am not aware of any explanation in any of the natural sciences that include a designer and yet there are many natural processes that are explained.
Note that the stated step was not "toward a designer" - accepting the universe does have a designer - but accepting the universe could have a designer.
There are a countless number of things that could be, but unless it can be shown that what could be plays a role in explaining how the universe came to be as it is that something could be is not sufficient reason to include it any everything else that could be in the explanation.
Perhaps this is tied to the question of whether the universe has a designer or not, but if behaviour of the universe can be predicted from the laws, what significant difference does it make if the laws are descriptive or prescriptive?
It does not make a difference with regard to prediction, but, as I said, it does if we are discussing such things as origins and organization.
It appears that Dawkins went a step further and suggested that the universe has no design - at bottom - that any higher level design we may observe has arisen from no design at the lowest level.
That is not what he is saying.
It can be shown that higher level "design" (patterns) can arise from lower level design, but how to show that design can arise from absolutely no design?
We have been through this. You are confusing different uses of the term ‘design’. No design at bottom means that the universe is not as it is because it was designed to be this way.

How best to deal with a gap?

We do not have an adequate explanation of self-structuring, self-organizing matter, but that does not mean we should insert God to fill in the gaps.
While there are gaps, science can remain neutral and totally open to supernatural possibilities while continuing to focus on finding natural explanations to fill the gaps.
Science cannot be open to supernatural possibilities. If you are dealing with the supernatural you are no longer doing science. Science is about natural processes not supernatural processes or supernatural occurrences.
One way to explore supernatural possibilities is to look at sub-universes.
You have gone way off topic. If you wish to discuss such things start a new topic.
Supine
Posts: 1017
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Supine »

Fan of Science wrote:Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins that makes no sense to me: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." How could he know such a thing? He may have come to the conclusion that there is no evil, despite the existence of such notables as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, but how does he know evil does not exist? He may have concluded that there is no good, despite the numerous acts of kindness that people express daily, but how could he know for sure goodness does not exist? He claims there is no designer, but we can computer model a great deal, including evolution, so how does he know that no designer exists? And how could any observation anyone could make cause one to conclude that there is no purpose at all to the universe?

What so-called "precise properties" is he even referring to? Conservation of energy? What physical laws should we observe in order for the universe to have a purpose as opposed to what we presently observe?

Dawkins seems to be making a claim that science, or at least direct empirical observations, have left us with no other conclusion than those he describes. How so? I doubt see how he makes this amazing leap from observations of the universe to his conclusions.
Some scientists--like Dawkins--think being a scientists makes one qualified to speak like an authority on everything be it moral philosophy, being a homicide detective, being a porn star or whatever.

Jordan Peterson who is a psychologist and professor and very much influenced by science thinks (I've heard him state it) some scientists fail to grasp evil exists because they have not had to deal with evil up close and personal, multiple times, as he has.

Jordan Peterson likes to use works of literature to help understand evil as a psychologist too. I find that interesting. But then great works of literature have often delved into the complex experience of being human.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -1- »

Supine wrote:
Some scientists--like Dawkins--think being a scientists makes one qualified to speak like an authority on everything be it moral philosophy, being a homicide detective, being a porn star or whatever.

Jordan Peterson who is a psychologist and professor and very much influenced by science thinks (I've heard him state it) some scientists fail to grasp evil exists because they have not had to deal with evil up close and personal, multiple times, as he has.

Jordan Peterson likes to use works of literature to help understand evil as a psychologist too. I find that interesting. But then great works of literature have often delved into the complex experience of being human.
1. Anything can make anyone speak like an authority. Pope, Stalin, you, I, the preacher in your local church, anyone can claim authority on any subject for any reason. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A RULE AGAINST APPEAL TO AUTHORITY in logic-based debates.
2. Because scientists declare that evil is an anthropomorphic paradigm, it does not mean that they fail to grasp the concept. That is a gross underestimation of scientists as humans, as thinkers, as rational and emotive beings. Your claim (Jordan Peterson's claim) is ridiculous.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Ranvier »

Togo1 wrote:
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

What's wrong with that?
All are human emotional opinions. I wish that I could give him a hug because he certainly needs one. However, he definitely oversteps purview of science that doesn't deal with emotion or opinion but facts. He definitely uses his scientific standing as someone to be taken seriously but each time he speaks it diminishes that standing, as well as pathologically deforms public perception of science.
Supine
Posts: 1017
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by Supine »

-1- wrote: 1. Anything can make anyone speak like an authority. Pope, Stalin, you, I, the preacher in your local church, anyone can claim authority on any subject for any reason. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A RULE AGAINST APPEAL TO AUTHORITY in logic-based debates.
But then I did argue that appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy. You created a strawman.

What I stated was this. Bold underlined my emphasis: "an authority on everything..."

If appeal to authority is a logical fallacy then it logically stands to reason anyone (any scientist) that thinks they are an authority of everything is guilty of illogical thinking.

2. Because scientists declare that evil is an anthropomorphic paradigm, it does not mean that they fail to grasp the concept. That is a gross underestimation of scientists as humans, as thinkers, as rational and emotive beings. Your claim (Jordan Peterson's claim) is ridiculous.
No, not really. It is one thing to be a virgin confined to a lab and desk with zero field experience pontificating about sexual intercourse between a man and woman. It is another thing to actually have not just a little but a lot of field experience in the subject matter.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Richard Dawkins Abusing Science?

Post by -1- »

Supine, being an authority or claiming to be an authority is not part of the fallacy of appealing to authority.

Supine, you wrote: "But then I did argue that appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy." Enough said.

You are pretending to own the knowledge on evil. It is a human concept, it can't be felt or known by anyone more than by any other. Your claiming that scientists are ignorant to a large degree on the concept of evil is -- like I said, or similarly how I said it -- ludicrous. Evil is a concept that is not hard to grasp or understand. Do you think evil is a tough concept, one of the toughest ones extant, that takes years of practice or theoretical study to understand? Did YOU personally experience evil in a study setting, or have you got a degree with honours in Evil?

-- Updated 2017 July 29th, 10:28 am to add the following --

Okay, I get it. You read Jordan Peterson's book on evil and you accept that he is an authority on the subject. He knows more about Evil than most scientists.

I may accept that. That is, I accept that Jordan Peterson has encountered more physical and experiential examples of Evil in his readings than most other people, incl. scientists.

But what I don't accept is your -- pardon my expression -- naive claim that scientists are so removed from Evil that they can't identify it as an anthropomorphical paradigm and therefore it is inappropriate for them refuse to apply it to natural (not man-made or related to man) phenomena. This I can't accept, and I say this is ridiculous.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021