Richard Dawkins: : I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

vodafoneproblem

It's not just that his memetics have been discredited, it's also what I said in bold!

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

^I got his pettily-argued tgd out of the library. (I refused to pay for it but couldn't resist seeing what the fuss was about.)

My comment above was, I thought, obvious, but just to simplify: it seems his scientific reasoning isn't much better than his religious reasoning. I don't think I'd even bother read any of his other books after seeing his really schoolground-like arguments in tgd. I'll stick to more rational science authors, I think!

iUseVi

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

It's not just that his memetics have been discredited, it's also what I said in bold!

Well now that's not really fair. Biology is his specialty and he's definitely better at that (IMO).

Fanny Cradock

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

It's not just that his memetics have been discredited, it's also what I said in bold!

*Tangent*
Has it? I would have thought that it is still to early to consign it to the rubbish dump.

I've often been opposed to the idea of memes. Other than some serious misgivings about the hypothesis, I guess my reaction is probably explained in no small part to how I usually see it used around here - a reason to explain away God.
*Tangent*

youcrazyjesus!

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

It's not just that his memetics have been discredited, it's also what I said in bold!

As I've explained to you many biologists agree with him and many others disagree. Dawkins doesn't discredit biologists who oppose him by disagreeing with them, or vice versa. You aren't in a position to make a judgement on the subject. Even if he is wrong it doesn't alter every argument he's made. Arguments are independent of the person making them.

A lot of what's in the God Delusion is quite basic but it's a popular book. Parts of the book are aimed at people who need things explained to them simply so the ideas are sometimes very basic. There are some complex philosophical issues dealt with in the book too though and Dawkins kicked lumps out of theologians who challenged him on issues raised in the book, in my opinion.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

*Tangent*
Has it? I would have thought that it is still to early to consign it to the rubbish dump.

I've often been opposed to the idea of memes. Other than some serious misgivings about the hypothesis, I guess my reaction is probably explained in no small part to how I usually see it used around here - a reason to explain away God.
*Tangent*

The problem with it is that it's really hard to formulate experiments that prove or disprove it, which is kind of why it fails as a hypothesis (in my view). I think we need to understand the brain a bit better before that is possible (if ever). I mean look at how many theories of mind there are currently, and this is kind of meta to those even.

And if memes do exist "in the wild" as it were, their environment is so complex, and involves so many factors, that to generate a computer model would be impossible.

That's my take on it anyway.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

The problem with it is that it's really hard to formulate experiments that prove or disprove it, which is kind of why it fails as a hypothesis (in my view). I think we need to understand the brain a bit better before that is possible (if ever). I mean look at how many theories of mind there are currently, and this is kind of meta to those even.

And if memes do exist "in the wild" as it were, their environment is so complex, and involves so many factors, that to generate a computer model would be impossible.

That's my take on it anyway.

An aside: I don't think it accurate to say that you can formulate experiments that prove or disprove anything. That's not what science is about.

Anyway, one of the problems I have with the hypothesis (and I assume this is the correct term) is that it explains nothing that can't already be explained either partially or totally by other things we have known about since we showed up on the scene. Also, I don't like the way it relies on an an established concept - the gene - to explain itself. Not that it consigns it to the dump I was talking about earlier, but that it uses an analogy to justify itself I think is a weakness. But hey, perhaps the world of memetics has moved on since I last dipped my toe.

youcrazyjesus!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

An aside: I don't think it accurate to say that you can formulate experiments that prove or disprove anything. That's not what science is about.

Explain?

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

An aside: I don't think it accurate to say that you can formulate experiments that prove or disprove anything. That's not what science is about.

How do you mean? Experiments can definitely disprove things, although I'll except they can't prove 100%.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anyway, one of the problems I have with the hypothesis (and I assume this is the correct term) is that it explains nothing that can't already be explained either partially or totally by other things we have known about since we showed up on the scene. Also, I don't like the way it relies on an an established concept - the gene - to explain itself. Not that it consigns it to the dump I was talking about earlier, but that it uses an analogy to justify itself I think is a weakness. But hey, perhaps the world of memetics has moved on since I last dipped my toe.

Well then we are agreed then that it's not shown to be sound. Although I don't see why it can't rely on "an established concept - the gene - to explain itself.", I would expect a hypothesis to rely on previous scientific work, else we would be reinventing the wheel the whole time.

youcrazyjesus!

iUseVi wrote: »

How do you mean? Experiments can definitely disprove things, although I'll except they can't prove 100%.

In a very real mathematical and literal sense of course it can. What do you mean?

iUseVi

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

In a very real mathematical and literal sense of course it can. What do you mean?

Experiments can only show something logically given current knowledge. If new data comes in anything can change. If data was collected (and verified) showing apples flying into space rather than falling to the ground then the theory of gravity is wrong (assuming no other new forces). Of course the confidence value that gravity is correct is extremely high. It's never been seen to go wrong and it "fits" with so much other stuff.

As Einstein sums up nicely: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.".

iUseVi

Oh dear! Tangent is taking off, blame Fanny!

/end tangent

youcrazyjesus!

iUseVi wrote: »

Experiments can only show something logically given current knowledge. If new data comes in anything can change. If data was collected (and verified) showing apples flying into space rather than falling to the ground then the theory of gravity is wrong (assuming no other new forces). Of course the confidence value that gravity is correct is extremely high. It's never been seen to go wrong and it "fits" with so much other stuff.

As Einstein sums up nicely: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.".

That's a truism really.

iUseVi

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

That's a truism really.

Then you do agree with me? Perhaps I am being to pedantic for your taste.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

How do you mean? Experiments can definitely disprove things, although I'll except they can't prove 100%.

No, they aren't disproved. Functionally they may be considered bunk, but science can't ever correctly say that something is 100% incorrect. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you want to move into proofs you have to go to mathematics.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

Then you do agree with me? Perhaps I am being to pedantic for your taste.

Can I self-infract?

.
.
.
.
.

No

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, they aren't disproved. Functionally they may be considered bunk, but science can't ever correctly say that something is 100% incorrect. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you want to move into proofs you have to go to mathematics.

Ok last tangential post. Yes they can be. If I have a hypothesis that gravity only acts on apples you only have to show it works on oranges to prove this wrong. Or to use the famous example if I say "All men are immortal" you must find just one dead man to disprove this. These things are 100% false (at time of disproving).

Fanny Cradock

Yes, but you assume that what you have is absolute proof and you then use this to disprove something. We can take this to the science forum if you like.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, but you assume that what you have is absolute proof and you then use this to disprove something. We can take this to the science forum if you like.

If you wish. Delete or move my posts if you want, clogged this thread a bit sorry. :P

vodafoneproblem

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You aren't in a position to make a judgement on the subject. Even if he is wrong it doesn't alter every argument he's made. Arguments are independent of the person making them.

A lot of what's in the God Delusion is quite basic but it's a popular book. Parts of the book are aimed at people who need things explained to them simply so the ideas are sometimes very basic. There are some complex philosophical issues dealt with in the book too though and Dawkins kicked lumps out of theologians who challenged him on issues raised in the book, in my opinion.

Funnily enough, I've had more than one occasion in the past to read about meme theory. Just not Dawkins' books on it, and, given his failure to argue properly in tgd, or to prove his case at all, imo, I've no wish to punish myself further by doing so. It's not exactly rocket science, anyway! It's all very airy-fairy stuff. It would remind me of those gurus who come up with crazy theories like thetans living in our bodies and such, to try to get us to part with our hard-earned cash. 'Pseudoscience' seems like a very valid description to me, as mentioned on the last page, and in the linked article. It seems to me Dawkins thrives on over-simplistic, and, more often than not, incorrect, ways of seeing everything. There may have been complex philosophical ideas mentioned in his books but his retorts were anything but complicated and often just amounted to childish ridicule. I'm not convinced he's capable of making complex arguments for or against anything. It's hard to disagree with Mr. Bribiesca when he says "Memetics seems more like a children's fable or a virtual game, where meme's are obnoxious, autonomous entities floating all over trying to control our minds".

youcrazyjesus!

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Funnily enough, I've had more than one occasion in the past to read about meme theory. Just not Dawkins' books on it, and, given his failure to argue properly in tgd, or to prove his case at all, imo, I've no wish to punish myself further by doing so. It's not exactly rocket science, anyway! It's all very airy-fairy stuff. It would remind me of those gurus who come up with crazy theories like thetans living in our bodies and such, to try to get us to part with our hard-earned cash. 'Pseudoscience' seems like a very valid description to me

So really what you're saying is it's intellectualism that you have a problem with. Not Dawkins.

You're equating the teachings of Scientology and "Thetans" with the theory of memes? You do know that many other academics have come up with something similar to Dawkins independently and that even the many who disagree with him take his theory seriously? It seems to me like you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what Dawkins is talking about so you dismiss it as "airy-fairy".

It seems to me Dawkins thrives on over-simplistic, and, more often than not, incorrect, ways of seeing everything. There may have been complex philosophical ideas mentioned in his books but his retorts were anything but complicated and often just amounted to childish ridicule.

I disagree. I've followed these debates and his opponents ultimately reduce their position to a very simplistic "you can't disprove God" position more often than not. Dawkins is an excellent debater when he puts his mind to it.

I'm not convinced he's capable of making complex arguments for or against anything. It's hard to disagree with Mr. Bribiesca when he says "Memetics seems more like a children's fable or a virtual game, where meme's are obnoxious, autonomous entities floating all over trying to control our minds".

That ridiculous "children's fable" statement makes me suspect his motives. He could be just another religious nut who hides it well. A lot of these people who criticise him are. I'm not sure what type of child would develop a theory of memes or what type of person would think it was something that a child would even barely understand and enjoy. I presume he's trying to assign to Dawkins a failure Dawkins' assigns to religion, when he calls it childish, for point scoring, which I think is silly. This guy also makes another extremely silly claim, that the idea of memetics poses a serious study of consciousness and cultural evolution. Sensationalise much?

There are plenty of excellent critiques of memetics, Dawkins writes about them, I don't think this is one of them.

vodafoneproblem

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

So really what you're saying is it's intellectualism that you have a problem with. Not Dawkins.

Eh, no. I'm saying Dawkins is a poor writer and arguer, in my experience. So, quite the opposite.

You're equating the teachings of Scientology and "Thetans" with the theory of memes? You do know that many other academics have come up with something similar to Dawkins independently and that even the many who disagree with him take his theory seriously? It seems to me like you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what Dawkins is talking about so you dismiss it as "airy-fairy".

There's not much to understand. I don't know how you can think it's a complicated idea...

I disagree. I've followed these debates and his opponents ultimately reduce their position to a very simplistic "you can't disprove God" position more often than not. Dawkins is an excellent debater when he puts his mind to it.

Guess he didn't put his mind to it in tgd. I look forward to seeing him make proper arguments some day!

That ridiculous "children's fable" statement makes me suspect his motives. He could be just another religious nut who hides it well. A lot of these people who criticise him are. I'm not sure what type of child would develop a theory of memes or what type of person would think it was something that a child would even barely understand and enjoy. I presume he's trying to assign to Dawkins a failure Dawkins' assigns to religion, when he calls it childish, for point scoring, which I think is silly. This guy also makes another extremely silly claim, that the idea of memetics poses a serious study of consciousness and cultural evolution. Sensationalise much?

There are plenty of excellent critiques of memetics, Dawkins writes about them, I don't think this is one of them.

I think you believe this meme theory is more complicated than it is. Mr. Bribiesca is making perfectly reasonable criticisms of Dawkins' simplistic wishy-washyness. I don't see any ulterior motive there at all. And obviously if all research money is spent on Mr. Celebrity's airy-fairy theories, then there will be less to spend on more realistic ones.

ISAW

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Scientism is a pejorative invented by people

LOL "scientism" is invented and "memetics" isn't!

to equate belief or respect for science with religion

A rather shallow comment. There is abundant literature on beliefs in science and beliefs about science.

One of those beliefs is that science is a consistent holistic logical coherent system. There is much to show that this is idealistic and in practice science is riddled with personal belief and all sorts of politics. Only a minor part of the material on science is "pure" in this sense e.g. the idea of a basic particle or state or a universe. Even then the science isn't comprehensive enough to embrace all these in one explanation. there is no theory of everything and "the hardest" sciences such as quantum Physics or Cosmology have still have gaps and inconsistencies. In short science isn't sufficient for society and may not be sufficient for itself. To base society on science alone is a gross error. It is scientism.

so they can say "well it's merely another belief system, just like ours". Which is bollox.

It isn't only religious people who believe in scientism just as there are atheists who believe in "natural law" and it is bollox to suggest that "scientism" was invented by religious people for this reason.

Luckily there are many people who have explained clearly why it's bollox.

Really can yu provide a cite from five people (excluding Dawkings and Hittchens) who show that scientism was invented by religous people to attack science on the basis of it being a belief system?

Stalinists wanted to destroy anything which didn't fit in with their doctrine.

As do other militant atheists. That would be happy with the death of all religions and to assist in their downfall.

It wasn't a philosophical position, it was a political position. Religion had to be wiped
out because they were implementing their doctrine and enforcing their rule ruthlessly.

and atheists or scientists who like Christians tolerate other peoples beliefs are different to christians atheists or people who believe in scientism and don't tolerate other peoples beliefs.

Stalin attacked Ukrainians, military officers, Polish middle class because in
his mind they were a threat, in the same way Pol Pot killed anyone who wore glasses and anyone who gave the appearance of being educated. Religion was attacked
for the same reasons, none of it was caused by any deeply rooted atheistic belief.

"atheistic belief"? LOL who is arguing for what now?
They (atheistic communists) believed they has a system for running society which was superiour
Some people believe scuience is such a system. it isn't!

Stalin, a former seminarian, actually revived the Orthodox Church during the Nazi invasion in order to rally support for the war. This proves it was
a question of power and doctrine and not absolute belief in atheism which caused Stalin to persecute the Church in the first place.

there you go again! - "belief in atheism" AS a superiour way?

Somebody comes up with a theory. Somebody else comes up with a criticism. What does this prove exactly? Why should Dawkins start or stop believing in a theory or hypothesis
because another scientist believes something else?

this is central to the issue. Positivistic scientism suggests something e.g. gravity is true whether or not Dawkins believes it is. To them it isn't a question of belief it is a question of science having a "true" (or at least the best possible for the time) picture and everyone else having to abide with what science says. This ins no better than other forms of totalism. Scientism and the apostles of it like Dawkins embrace that view.

One does not disprove the other or vice versa. That's completely illogical. That's the beauty of academia, somebody will always
come along who disagrees with you. This results in progress.

What journal are you on about?

Where? To what comment do you refer?

when it comes to philosophy of science as it applies to education there are many journals in the EU but in the US they have a different system and orginisation. Scientists are more involved in teaching organisations. Funding patterns also fit with their model. As such you will find a wide view of science and theory and practice and teaching in the American Journal of Physics. Although I wasn't "on" about that one.

youcrazyjesus!

There's not much to understand. I don't know how you can think it's a complicated idea...

I don't. I'm saying you do. You're saying it doesn't make sense to you.

I think you believe this meme theory is more complicated than it is. Mr. Bribiesca is making perfectly reasonable criticisms of Dawkins' simplistic wishy-washyness. I don't see any ulterior motive there at all. And obviously if all research money is spent on Mr. Celebrity's airy-fairy theories, then there will be less to spend on more realistic ones.

I really think it's intellectualism you have a problem with and not Dawkins. Memetics is quite a simple concept. It's hardly "airy fairy" and I think you've revealed a lot about your prejudices against science using that term. A medical doctor is not in a position to make an absolute judgement on memetics and neither are you. There are many academics who take memetics seriously even when they oppose it. None that I've read have called it "airy fairy" or "pseudoscientific dogma". I've never known Dawkins to be dogmatic about anything, he almost always details the opposite opinion to his and examines it.

I'm out. Religious believers become true experts in denial and finding spurious logic to avoid getting to the core of any issue to do with religion. I don't agree with memetics at all, I think it falls down on a number of grounds but I dismiss for the right reasons, you dismiss it because you're psychologically programmed to deny and find fault using spurious logic.

youcrazyjesus!

ISAW wrote: »

LOL "scientism" is invented and "memetics" isn't!

Who said it was any different? Memetics is invented to describe a new theory. Scientism was invented to slander those who take a scientific approach to problems. It's used to say "they're believe in scientism, it's another belief system just like ours".

A rather shallow comment. There is abundant literature on beliefs in science and beliefs about science.

They seem to be all written by theologians and "parapsychologists" from what I can see. Comparing and differentiating between those who believe in something which is patently untrue and those who understand the scientific method and what it can prove is pointless.

It isn't only religious people who believe in scientism just as there are atheists who believe in "natural law" and it is bollox to suggest that "scientism" was invented by religious people for this reason.

Scientism is a loaded phrase designed to slander people.

Really can yu provide a cite from five people (excluding Dawkings and Hittchens) who show that scientism was invented by religous people to attack science on the basis of it being a belief system?

I said there is plenty of literature that explains how equating a "belief" in science with a belief in religion is basically thick.

As do other militant atheists. That would be happy with the death of all religions and to assist in their downfall.

Even Richard Dawkins said he wouldn't want to destroy religion. It would cause more immediate harm than good.

ISAW

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Who said it was any different? Memetics is invented to describe a new theory. Scientism was invented to slander those who take a scientific approach to problems.
It's used to say "they're believe in scientism, it's another belief system just like ours".

You are quite clearly wrong with respect to this baseless and shallow comment.

Even a cursory search on "scientism" will yield the wikipedia entry which states:

"The term is used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[2] or philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists, whereby the study and methods of natural science have risen to the level of ideology"

Now if you really think Hayek and Popper were motivated by religious beliefs and their arguments were all about defending religion by attacking science using the idea that " it's another belief system just like ours" then I think you should read some of Popper and Hayek and then come back to me.

Ill take another quote about scientism from tyhe4 abiove wiki to further illustrate my point:
"For sociologists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural "rationalization" of the modern West."

Ther is abundant literature on the subject. scientism was not invented by religious "to slander those who take a scientific approach to problems." You are clearly wrong about that!

They seem to be all written by theologians and "parapsychologists" from what I can see.

Again I submit you are quite wrong. It prompts the suggestion that maybe you don't "see" very far because you have (forgive the paraphrase but I just couldn't help it) sunk in the footprints of giants?

Comparing and differentiating between those who believe in something which is patently untrue

And your evidence (according to the "scientific method") that it is patently untrue is???

and those who understand the scientific method and what it can prove is pointless.

What "scientific method"? By the way all the above having been said Im not in favour of "fashionable nonsense" by which I mean I have great affinity for sokal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense

Scientism is a loaded phrase designed to slander people.

The term scientism describes the position that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life. Sorell, Tom. Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science. Routledge, 1994, p. 1ff.

I said there is plenty of literature that explains how equating a "belief" in science with a belief in religion is basically thick.

Thats what you said is it? and where is the literature explaining how it is "thick"?

Do you have a habit of just dumping what doesen't fit as not science like dawkins?
I mean is memetics science or not? If not then Dawkins was also wrong like you were.

Even Richard Dawkins said he wouldn't want to destroy religion. It would cause more immediate harm than good.

Where did he say that?

By the way immediately removing all clergy from the world might well cause a lot of chaos but that isn't an agrument against their removal as a problem to society no more than immediately removing all jews or gypsies is for the eventual quick "solution" of gradual removal of them as a "problem" .

ISAW

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You're equating the teachings of Scientology and "Thetans" with the theory of memes?

Is that a statement or a question?

You do know that many other academics have come up with something similar to Dawkins independently and that even the many who disagree with him take his theory seriously?

Let us assume this question is also a statement. Can you list five of the "many academics" who originated or were protagonists in memetics?

It seems to me like you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what Dawkins is talking about so you dismiss it as "airy-fairy".

It seems you wax lyrical on the "scientific method" but havent produced any eaqriler work or evidence yet.

I disagree. I've followed these debates and his opponents ultimately reduce their position to a very simplistic "you can't disprove God" position more often than not.

Which debates? any references?

Dawkins is an excellent debater when he puts his mind to it.

so is George Bush. so what? what is your point?

That ridiculous "children's fable" statement makes me suspect his motives. He could be just another religious nut who hides it well.

Like Karl Popper and the otherrs i mentioned ?

A lot of these people who criticise him are. I'm not sure what type of child would develop a theory of memes or what type of person would think it was something that a child would even barely understand and enjoy.

I think you missed the purpose of the metaphor.

vodafoneproblem

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I don't. I'm saying you do. You're saying it doesn't make sense to you.

Lol no. I understand it fine. A schoolkid could understand it and probably come up with it. Like much of Dawkins' arguments that I've seen.

I really think it's intellectualism you have a problem with and not Dawkins. Memetics is quite a simple concept. It's hardly "airy fairy" and I think you've revealed a lot about your prejudices against science using that term. A medical doctor is not in a position to make an absolute judgement on memetics and neither are you. There are many academics who take memetics seriously even when they oppose it. None that I've read have called it "airy fairy" or "pseudoscientific dogma". I've never known Dawkins to be dogmatic about anything, he almost always details the opposite opinion to his and examines it.

I'm out. Religious believers become true experts in denial and finding spurious logic to avoid getting to the core of any issue to do with religion. I don't agree with memetics at all, I think it falls down on a number of grounds but I dismiss for the right reasons, you dismiss it because you're psychologically programmed to deny and find fault using spurious logic.

Hmm, he didn't do a very good job of detailing the opinions opposite to his in tgd! It's airy-fairy in that, as iUseVi said "it's really hard to formulate experiments that prove or disprove it, which is kind of why it fails as a hypothesis" and doesn't make sense in the sense ISAW mentions "the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process chaotic"

So, it's just another example of wooly-headed arguing and thinking from Dawkins, just like in tgd. Why, anyone would think wooly-headedness was what he did his doctorate in. Richard Dawkins, WhD!

ISAW

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

So, it's just another example of wooly-headed arguing and thinking from Dawkins, just like in tgd. Why, anyone would think wooly-headedness was what he did his doctorate in. Richard Dawkins, WhD!

at the risk of being pedantic (and also wrong) might I suggest coining :

dortoris lanea capitis

ISAW

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Thanks for that, ISAW. I knew I'd come across somewhere recently that his memetics theory had been discredited but couldn't remember where

You may be interested in the following then:
http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~rclewley/jom.html
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/concepts.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6566/is_1_30/ai_n28910381/?tag=content;col1
which ends:
This is a much more humble approach for an academic discipline that purportedly helps us explain the very origin of culture and mind. However, it is also an approach that may yield real results--as opposed to the creation of memetic myths that have no basis in e mpirical fact and tell us nothing truthful or helpful about the origin, replication, and descent of language, mind, and culture.


You see what gets me is when a scientist uses the word "evolution" in reference to biological evolution of a species ther is a specific meaning attached to that. Social "evolution" isn't the same thing at all! Now a biologist should go to pains to point that out instead of inventing a whole new field to justify it!