I recently read a paper: The Rationality of Science and the Rationality of Faith, Theodore J. Everett, Journal of Philosophy Vol. 98, No. 1. (Jan., 2001), pp. 19-42.
It made for interesting reading. The main points were:
1) That the prevailing orthodoxy that traditional 'non-scientific' beliefs derive from non rational causes is mistaken.
2)most scientists ought not to believe their own theories.
Everett draws a distinction between 'objective rationality' and 'subjective rationality'. He then argues that it is subjectively rational in most cases for people to believe in their local traditions since for a given individual, the probability that they know better than most other people around them is small. By a similar argument, scientists or intellectuals putting forward new theories ought to realise that the likelihood of them being correct in contradiction to what most of their peers think is also small.
There are some atheists that seem to me to have a simplified view of the nature of, and reasons for belief and faith which is counter productive and hampers dialogue. Some theists also evince a stereotyped view of atheists as being amoral and smug. people like Everett, Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained) and Michael Frayn (The Human Touch) are a few of the voices that might serve to counter this polarization.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
265 comments:
1 – 200 of 265 Newer› Newest»By happy coincidence I have just the thing for your discussion!
What do you make of each of the speakers in the following video? Objective rationalists or subjective rationalists?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8463171013501945812&q=%22rupert+sheldrake%22
Good to see that your page clock is working a little better, incidentally.
Yes, funnily enough I thought the very same thing when I watched this from the other link.
I think Sheldrake ought, in a rational sense, not to believe his own theory wheres it is rational for his detractors in the programme to hold their views. Their reported reactions at a personal level is another matter.
"I think Sheldrake ought, in a rational sense, not to believe his own theory wheres it is rational for his detractors in the programme to hold their views.
Don't you feel that such an approach would lead to scientific stagnation over the long term?
"Their reported reactions at a personal level is another matter."
I am not sure that those opposing Sheldrake in the video do so rationally. At 13 minutes and 17 seconds Maddox offers his personally felt offence as justification for his opposition, even likening his opposition favourably to that of the Roman Catholic Church against Galileo. This isn't argument likely to convince anyone of the rationality of Maddox's position.
I suppose that there is some overlap between Dawkins' stalking memes and Sheldrake's application of formative causation to the cognitive. While Sheldrake has legitimately inferred from his original hypothesis our friend Dawkins has instead jumped off the deep end with his metaphor and encouraged the acceptance of memes as dynamic, causal entities.
I think that Dawkins is less objectively rational than Sheldrake.
Don't you feel that such an approach would lead to scientific stagnation over the long term?
No because I think individual scientists are irrational and prone to arrogance and so will champion their pet theories anyway. A few of them will turn out to be enhancements. So i suppose whilst in a rational sense they ought not to believe their own theories, for the sake of science as a whole it is good that they do anyway, because science sifts over the long run.
On the opponents of Sheldrake in the film there were the usual egotistical spats in evidence but I thought Zoltan Deines was measured calm and telling in his criticism.
I think that Dawkins is less objectively rational than Sheldrake.
Difficult to quantify but I disagree. You might have to go a long way before you encounter a more moribund branch of thought than memetics but I suspect morphogenetic field science might actually fit the bill.
"So i suppose whilst in a rational sense they ought not to believe their own theories, for the sake of science as a whole it is good that they do anyway, because science sifts over the long run."
To argue for the preservation of science is to argue for a nonsense; science isn't finished.
People who are susceptible to peer pressure are consequently conservative. This isn't news and it's not an unusual state of affairs. What is unusual is the amount of bullying that's about at the moment among those scientists and pundits who make money directly from the public. Those who would close down conversation simply because they cannot understand it, resent it or covet the treasures of others are the enemies of open society.
I have a feeling that Everett was bored when he wrote this piece, or wanted us to be bored. At whom was he aiming this?
To argue for the preservation of science is to argue for a nonsense; science isn't finished.
Good job I didn't do that then.
People who are susceptible to peer pressure are consequently conservative. This isn't news and it's not an unusual state of affairs. What is unusual is the amount of bullying that's about at the moment among those scientists and pundits who make money directly from the public. Those who would close down conversation simply because they cannot understand it, resent it or covet the treasures of others are the enemies of open society.
I'm not sure whether it is usual or not. Have you read the Popper book? I haven't I'm afraid.
I have a feeling that Everett was bored when he wrote this piece, or wanted us to be bored. At whom was he aiming this?
I assume you have read it then. I don't know whether the aim is relevant. I wouldn't take your own boredom as an indication of intrinsic merit.
"I thought Zoltan Deines was measured calm and telling in his criticism."
Yes. Not old enough to have lost his curiosity.
"Difficult to quantify but I disagree. You might have to go a long way before you encounter a more moribund branch of thought than memetics but I suspect morphogenetic field science might actually fit the bill."
I think that formative causation is a brave attempt at explaining a genuine problem and that it is now more philosophical than physical does not mean that it is necessarily wrong. You and I both have our favourite ontologies which may not yet be demonstrated but which for us are true. So with fans of branes and strings. If knowledge is to increase then we need to ask the odd apparently daft questions about the world. Most of these will be wrong but some will be demonstrated as fact and these will carry us forward to new understandings.
Memes? Only a pedestal from which Dawkins may throw rocks at the "mind virus" of religion. McGrath nicely kills meme theory in that video I recommended to you.
Judging from the video and Sheldrake's claims it seems that as well as subjective rationality and objective rationality there is also continental rationality.
That business about melting points is interesting.
"Good job I didn't do that then."
You argued "for the sake of science as a whole". There's a necessary implication there.
"I'm not sure whether it is usual or not."
As usual as raindrops from a raincloud, I think.
"Have you read the Popper book? I haven't I'm afraid."
I'm familiar with the ideas, but no. I'm with Bergson:
http://www.archive.org/details/
twosourcesofmora033499mbp
"I assume you have read it then."
Yup. It's a bit long for what it is. Perhaps I was bored because it did not say anything novel.
"I wouldn't take your own boredom as an indication of intrinsic merit."
I like the works of Pieter Brueghel the Elder but I would not go so far as to say they had any intrinsic merit. If Everett's essay had any intrinsic merit then our judgement of it would be identical. We have had this particular conversation.
I think that formative causation is a brave attempt at explaining a genuine problem and that it is now more philosophical than physical does not mean that it is necessarily wrong.
Not necessarily, no. Certainly it seems more metaphysical than physical.
You and I both have our favourite ontologies which may not yet be demonstrated but which for us are true. So with fans of branes and strings.
I'm a fan of sound reasoning and good evidence. And also, as you know, trinkets from Currys.
As it stands, for the punters, their appraisal of the latest theories in physics is a bit like how music fans regard different bands/artists. Some are seduced by style, others think that they engage with the content but actually have no idea what the process of producing music involves. With the passage of time a canon develops. With the passage of time perhaps the fans of string theory will be vindicated when they can go to Currys and by a special kind of yoyo or something.
If knowledge is to increase then we need to ask the odd apparently daft questions about the world. Most of these will be wrong but some will be demonstrated as fact and these will carry us forward to new understandings.
I agree.
You argued "for the sake of science as a whole". There's a necessary implication there.
Well, I meant for the sake of science as an ongoing process that avoids stagnation, so I don't think the necessary implication that you are thinking of is there.
As usual as raindrops from a raincloud, I think.
Ah, so it was ever thus.
I'm with Bergson:
Interesting. You will remember that I'm a slow reader so you could give me a synopsis or I'll be right back to you in a couple of weeks.
Yup. It's a bit long for what it is. Perhaps I was bored because it did not say anything novel.
You are probably more up to speed than I am. I'm just a guitar player.
I like the works of Pieter Brueghel the Elder but I would not go so far as to say they had any intrinsic merit.
Did he do 'The Triumph of Death'? You know, the one with all the skeletal corpses running amok?
I'm a fan of that but I confess I don't believe in intrinsic merit really.
If Everett's essay had any intrinsic merit then our judgement of it would be identical. We have had this particular conversation.
Ah, the return of the son of the ghost of the Bleeding Obvious?
I've just noticed the 'listen' feature. Good to practice scales to perhaps.
Right. Just noticed entertaining schlock horror on 4. That's me for the night. Have a good one.
"Certainly it seems more metaphysical than physical."
Yes. The metaphysical is never more than a paradigm. We cannot expect evidence of strings or branes anymore than a mural could provide evidence that it was a painting on a wall.
"With the passage of time perhaps the fans of string theory will be vindicated when they can go to Currys and by a special kind of yoyo or something."
I like the idea but I don't see it happening. Anyway, who would want a yo-yo when they could have a power ball?
True, though I can never get much above 7500 rpm on those strenghth balls.
"Well, I meant for the sake of science as an ongoing process that avoids stagnation, so I don't think the necessary implication that you are thinking of is there."
Would you describe that process in more detail for me? Process implies plan and plan implies agenda which itself implies organisation and supervision.
"Ah, so it was ever thus."
I may become too satisfied with my ontology and retire to a Jesuit community somewhere.
"You will remember that I'm a slow reader so you could give me a synopsis or I'll be right back to you in a couple of weeks."
I think you would benefit from reading it, as Bergson anticipated many of your own questions in this blog around faith and rationality.
Bergson argues that closed societies, hierarchical and dogmatic tyrannies, are humanity's instinctive response to large populations and existential pressures, the path of least resistance. Closed borders, Luddite, xenophobic. Open societies are pretty much the reverse, embracing, transparent, enabling.
Bergson's ideas are more to the nature of man than to the nature of politics. The advancement towards open society is accompanied by the advancement of religion towards mysticism. which is altogether a more tolerant conviction than the literal forms of religion. Those who insist upon the dogmatism of religion, atheist or believer, are the enemies of open society. Dawkins is one such, Harris also, insisting that "moderate" religionists enable fanatics and so should be opposed as strongly as the fanatics
"You are probably more up to speed than I am. I'm just a guitar player."
Inasmuch as anyone is a single thing then I expect that is true.
"Did he do 'The Triumph of Death'? You know, the one with all the skeletal corpses running amok?"
Yes. Yes, a fabulous work, overlooked by so many. So pessimistic, and so many years before Goya.
"Ah, the return of the son of the ghost of the Bleeding Obvious?"
That's the one.
Would you describe that process in more detail for me? Process implies plan and plan implies agenda which itself implies organisation and supervision.
I think you are also up to speed on how science works. The point is that each scientist has what Everett called 'epistemic altruism' so that rationally, they ought not to believe their own theory, but they will anyway and this avoids stagnation in the process in the long run because a small percentage actually turn out to be good theories.
I may become too satisfied with my ontology and retire to a Jesuit community somewhere.
You would be missed.
I think you would benefit from reading it, as Bergson anticipated many of your own questions in this blog around faith and rationality.
Let's hope the 'listen' feature works then.
Inasmuch as anyone is a single thing then I expect that is true.
Well I'm also a bad chess player.
I had a hardback book of colour plates when I was a boy that included that painting. I agree, an excellent work.
"I think you are also up to speed on how science works."
I did not mean to be disingenuous, it is only that Everett seems to regard science as some kind of marching army.
"The point is that each scientist has what Everett called 'epistemic altruism' so that rationally, they ought not to believe their own theory, but they will anyway and this avoids stagnation in the process in the long run because a small percentage actually turn out to be good theories."
I am unsure as to where belief might come into an idea which may be demonstrated as a matter of fact. I think science is driven more by intellectual curiosity than anything else. That and the opportunity to make a nice living.
You will find belief in scientists where an idea is purely a matter of reason. The Gaia Hypothesis, for example.
I do not think that it is the case that scientists necessarily "ought" to regard their ideas in any single way providing they follow method.
"You would be missed."
Thank you. I don't think that I could stand being a Dominican. I would want to punch the hecklers. Still, they have produced some very important figures; Aquinas, Eckhart, Bruno, Torquemada.
"Let's hope the 'listen' feature works then."
You are too busy obsessing over trivialities like eating and sleeping, that's your problem.
"Well I'm also a bad chess player."
I expect only relatively. Chess is fun but not as tricky as society. The advantage chess has over society is that when the game is over and you have won you get to be smug.
"I had a hardback book of colour plates when I was a boy that included that painting. I agree, an excellent work."
Children today miss out on a lot, what with the internet and game consoles and hard drugs.
I did not mean to be disingenuous, it is only that Everett seems to regard science as some kind of marching army.
I think we'll have to agree to differ on that.
I am unsure as to where belief might come into an idea which may be demonstrated as a matter of fact.
Belief comes to motivate the walk down the long road which may lead to demonstration and acceptance but more often goes the way of cold fusion (though seldom so spectacularly).
I do not think that it is the case that scientists necessarily "ought" to regard their ideas in any single way providing they follow method.
Why bother to follow method and use all those thousands of researcher-hours unless you think you are onto something? That is what the ways have in common.
You are too busy obsessing over trivialities like eating and sleeping, that's your problem.
That's fair.
I expect only relatively. Chess is fun but not as tricky as society.
Depends where you fall on the spectrum. Of course I can beat most people I meet but then, they are bass players or accountants or something or other, they are not chess players. I did once hold a county player to a 2 all draw. Sadly it transpired that he played for the county of Rutland. I also held an International Master to a draw. The detail there was that I was one of 20 other people he was playing and one of two who drew, the rest lost. Needless to say they gave the cheque to the other guy.
Children today miss out on a lot, what with the internet and game consoles and hard drugs.
Yeah, they have a hard life...
"I think we'll have to agree to differ on that."
You differ and I shall be right.
"Belief comes to motivate the walk down the long road which may lead to demonstration and acceptance"
There's some blue grass in there somewhere. I think your account applies to Sheldrake and his like but most people who work in science are simply investigators who abide by the evidence rather than their own belief. Darwin was reticent about his own conclusions but published anyway. Einstein did not persist in his adherence to a static universe model when shown to be wrong.
Earlier in this blog you asked why people of religion reason only as far as their beliefs and now you suppose that scientists believe in their ideas, albeit by way of a negative argument. Do you suppose that there is any value in viewing religion and science as a dichotomy?
"Why bother to follow method and use all those thousands of researcher-hours unless you think you are onto something?"
Curiosity and the chance to earn a good living, really, but anticipation of results is not belief.
"That is what the ways have in common."
See above.
"Depends where you fall on the spectrum."
Very arch, but I mean what I say. A chess game is over when the board closes and the analysis ends. Society isn't, which is why religion was such a good idea in the first place.
"I did once hold a county player to a 2 all draw. Sadly it transpired that he played for the county of Rutland."
Unlucky.
"Michael Frayn (The Human Touch)"
I have not read this book but I doubt that I would be impressed if this is anything to go by:
http://tv.royalsoc.ac.uk/dpx_v12/dpx.php?cmd=autoplay&type=autofocus&
pres=104&media=wm&dpxuser=dpx_v12
He must have run out of stories. I don't know what Jardine's playing at.
Here is an MP3 of the above which allows you to track back and forth:
http://odeo.com/audio/3220343/view
You would think that the Royal Society could get its mitts on some decent technology.
You differ and I shall be right.
It is only proper that you should assume so.
There's some blue grass in there somewhere. I think your account applies to Sheldrake and his like but most people who work in science are simply investigators who abide by the evidence rather than their own belief.
I think that scientists ought not to believe their own new and controversial theories. In the end, whether they do or not is irrelevant because it is a matter of evidence. However I think they are unlikely as humans to be as dispassionate and objective as you propose. Motivation is seperate from process in this regard.
Do you suppose that there is any value in viewing religion and science as a dichotomy?
I think they are human activities. I suspect there is no dichotomy but there is a tension between reason and faith.
Curiosity and the chance to earn a good living, really, but anticipation of results is not belief.
At the publication stage the results are in. What is required then is replication. Are you saying that scientists don't believe their own theories at this stage? Some might be agnostic and belief is not necessary, I agree but it seems unlikely that people do not ever believe their pet theories.
Very arch, but I mean what I say. A chess game is over when the board closes and the analysis ends. Society isn't, which is why religion was such a good idea in the first place.
I do not share your meta-belief in religion.
I have not read this book but I doubt that I would be impressed if this is anything to go by:
Thanks for the link. I watched it. I don't know how it would have seemed if I had not read the book. I recommend the book but I realise our taste in books is rather different.
He must have run out of stories. I don't know what Jardine's playing at.
Good to see you return to your dismissive best.
"It is only proper that you should assume so."
Catch.
"However I think they are unlikely as humans to be as dispassionate and objective as you propose."
I have made no such proposal. It is possible for investigators to be enthusiastic to discover results without wishing for one or another. You have the ground or arts yet you do not believe that you will receive any particular result from any particular operation.
"Motivation is seperate from process in this regard."
The motivation is curiosity.
"I suspect there is no dichotomy but there is a tension between reason and faith."
Some people seem to think so but they assume that reason and faith are massed camps. No one person is any one single thing. Why do you think this way? How does it serve you?
"Some might be agnostic and belief is not necessary, I agree but it seems unlikely that people do not ever believe their pet theories."
People trust to results scientifically obtained. Only those who reach paradigm-breaking conclusions by reason alone believe in pet theories.
"I do not share your meta-belief in religion."
Yet you possess a measure of antipathy towards it. You clearly have a meta-belief about religion. Whose is more useful?
"I don't know how it would have seemed if I had not read the book."
As though Frayn had a very good editor.
His arguments are paradoxical. The eight planets, for example, where he argues that eight planets would not exist were there nobody around to count them.
"I recommend the book but I realise our taste in books is rather different."
If I see a reasonably-priced copy in a second-hand book shop I may buy it. Did he give a fair summary of the ideas in the book?
"Good to see you return to your dismissive best."
Cursory, you felt? I'll try again.
I am not convinced that Frayn's "philosophy" is anything of the sort. It stinks of cod which has swam through the heads of millions. He is hung up on this observer-primacy idea, a simple playwright dazzled by big shiney concepts and applying them inappropriately. He is a bored arts student, by the look of things. He was very ad hominem on Wittgenstein which is why, incidentally, I am happy to return the compliment. If you are going to have artists speaking at the Royal Society then at least get some with a little wit and humility:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/
page.asp?tip=1&id=5638
Jardine, I thought, was terribly patronising to the mathematician. She clearly didn't understand that his question was to the heart of Frayn's farrago. Fawning from the very start, she really hammed it up. I am surprised that it was ultimately suitable for public viewing. I should not be too down on her, I suppose, considering my earlier comments. She did some reasonable stuff at the Warburg but I felt she was appallingly sycophantic in this interview. Out of her intellectual depth, frankly.
The American Psycho chat was fun, I thought.
.
"The American Psycho chat was fun, I thought."
Helps if I post the thing, doesn't it? Frayn interview in the first segment:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=1035674629008995892&q=%
22charlie+rose%22+%22michael+frayn%
22
.
After reading the reviews on Amazon I doubt the book will be any better than the Royal Society interview. The review from the Canadian Haines reads like a publisher's intervention while the opera fan's review echoes my judgement of the interview. The list of review titles is commentary itself:
COBBLERS?
Disappointing
Underwhelmed
Awful
I had to abandon this book
Here's the link:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/
customer-reviews/0571232175/sr=1-
5/qid=1180354698/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/0
26-7968430-9956406?
ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%
5Fby=-
SubmissionDate&n=266239&qid=1180354
698&sr=1-5
.
Correction:
"I don't know how it would have seemed if I had not read the book."
Having read the book it must seem as though Frayn had a very good editor.
.
Catch.
Well it is only proper is it not?
I have made no such proposal. It is possible for investigators to be enthusiastic to discover results without wishing for one or another. You have the ground or arts yet you do not believe that you will receive any particular result from any particular operation.
In order not to infer such a proposal I would have to swallow this portrait of the typical investigator. I am not convinced.
The motivation is curiosity.
Another extremely broad brush stroke for your portrait.
No one person is any one single thing. Why do you think this way? How does it serve you?
I doubt that I do think 'this way' since I agree no one person is any one single thing and nor do I see these as massed ranks.
People trust to results scientifically obtained. Only those who reach paradigm-breaking conclusions by reason alone believe in pet theories.
But I have spelled out that it is new and controversial theories to which this most applies since the rationality of believing your own theory is inversely proportional to its divergence from orthodoxy.
Yet you possess a measure of antipathy towards it. You clearly have a meta-belief about religion. Whose is more useful?
I think you over-estimate my antipathy. If we are to decide whose meta-belief is the more useful then I suppose that would be a meta-meta-belief.
Cursory, you felt? I'll try again.
I considered your detailed response to the Frayn interview and your trawl of reviews. We will not agree on this matter. For example, I understood Frayn's response to the mathematician probably in the light of having read the book. The interview cannot do such a book justice and there is no cod there in my view. I don't know what I would have thought about the 8 planet example had I not read the book but it is worth considering that most practicing mathematicians are Platonists with regard to mathematical entities. Your error earlier that it is safe to assume that all phenomena are representations of discrete properties of the noumenal possibly sheds light on why you might have sympathy for a Platonist philosophy of mathematics.
Correction:
I did wonder about that but I assumed this is what you meant. I think he did but this is no surprise. Can you think of anybody who has put their ideas across more effectively in interview than in their book?
"Well it is only proper is it not?"
As much for you as for I.
"In order not to infer such a proposal I would have to swallow this portrait of the typical investigator."
I am not convinced there are any successul scientific investogators who place credulity above scepticism.
"I am not convinced."
'Twas ever thus.
"Another extremely broad brush stroke for your portrait."
Didn't I mention earlier the opportunity to make a nice living? Why do you feel people get into science?
"I doubt that I do think 'this way' since I agree no one person is any one single thing and nor do I see these as massed ranks."
Then I am at a loss as to what to make of your identification of a tension between "reason and faith".
"But I have spelled out that it is new and controversial theories to which this most applies"
Assuming you will provide examples of successful scientific investigators who place credulity above scepticism then where is the problem? What is to prevent us from looking more closely and seeing intuition where you now place faith?
"since the rationality of believing your own theory is inversely proportional to its divergence from orthodoxy."
It's a nice line, I'll grant you, but it's hyperbole, really. Give me some examples, please.
"I think you over-estimate my antipathy."
I have only identified it and not quantified it. You have not denied it so there it is.
"If we are to decide whose meta-belief is the more useful then I suppose that would be a meta-meta-belief."
One more won't hurt. Discussions consist of these.
"I considered your detailed response to the Frayn interview and your trawl of reviews. We will not agree on this matter."
I look to Amazon reviews every now and again, to see if I am on the mark. It seems that I am in this case. Foxton's review is generous, I think, in supposing that Frayn deliberately adopted the vernacular in an effort to be comprehensible yet it doesn't seem to have worked at all, for Klingsor obviously considers the whole thing a bottle of buzz. Some arguments cannot be reduced and Frayn clearly doesn't get the arguments if he thinks that they may. You do not read reviews?
"For example, I understood Frayn's response to the mathematician probably in the light of having read the book."
If you can make sense of Frayn's response for me then please do so. It sounded to me no more than a mash of pseudish analytic aphorism, which makes sense, really, considering his contempt for Wittgenstein.
"it is worth considering that most practicing mathematicians are Platonists with regard to mathematical entities."
Hang on a bit, your assertion assumes that there are such things as mathematical entities so it's a bit unfair to criticise others for doing likewise. You shall have to support your assertion with some kind a reference. I do not buy it. I noted during the interview Frayn kept coming out with variations on "Many cosmologists today think..."; I am legitimately suspicious of such general appeals to authority, as anyone should be. Secondly, the young lad's question did not imply Platonism. You have ten toes even when you cannot see them inside your shoes; is that Platonism?
"Your error earlier that it is safe to assume that all phenomena are representations of discrete properties of the noumenal possibly sheds light on why you might have sympathy for a Platonist philosophy of mathematics."
No error there, no Platonism nor Pythagoreanism. Later for that.
"I did wonder about that but I assumed this is what you meant."
I suspected you would because you have shown yourself to be a good bloke but the untidyness struck me as soon as I poured some sugar into my blood.
"Can you think of anybody who has put their ideas across more effectively in interview than in their book?"
Why should I give it a moment's thought? I feel certain that Frayn put across his ideas as effectively as he was able. Did the interview take place at the Royal Society or at a branch of Waterstones?
Do you know, when it is said that Frayn immersed himself in science I have a feeling that means he immersed himself in popular science books, which is really not the same thing at all. Having read the book as well as seen the interview do you have any points of agreement with my criticism of Frayn's position and those criticisms expressed on Amazon?
.
Oh, if you haven't heard Thursday's Mitchell and Webb yet then I recommend you do so at the first possible opportunity. There is some marvellous pedant humour between a movie buff and a football fan.
.
As much for you as for I.
Quite so.
I am not convinced there are any successul scientific investogators who place credulity above scepticism.
Neither am I. Suppose you are a scientist and you come up with a theory which is at odds with the orthodoxy of the time. Rationally you ought not to believe it but that is not at all the same as saying that rationally you ought not to pursue it. Scepticism is essential in the process but by the time publication is appropriate there is enough local evidence to justify invocation of the next stage, which is peer review and possibly attempts at replication. Now, your contention is that these scientists are playing the percentage, engaging in a rational bet, they don't believe their theory until the evidence is in. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps my view of human nature is at fault. The point is they ought not to believe their own theory and some will be vindicated anyway whilst some will not but belief or not will make no difference except insofar as it plays a part in motivation. Now, 'successful scientific investigator' is only an award given when the jury returns. Einstein had to wait for an eclipse, Jaques Benveniste waited and then James Randi showed up. Now, we can speculate about whether or not incidence of belief-in-one's-own-theory is more prevalent in the successful group or the non successful group but I can see a number of methodological headaches ahead.
'Twas ever thus.
How true. Or is it?
Didn't I mention earlier the opportunity to make a nice living? Why do you feel people get into science?
Interesting question. Still, no one person is one thing so I speculate multiple causes.
Then I am at a loss as to what to make of your identification of a tension between "reason and faith".
Really? I'm genuinely surprised by that. Most people I have talked to about it seem to recognise a tension even if they think they have resolved it.
Assuming you will provide examples of successful scientific investigators who place credulity above scepticism then where is the problem?
See above.
It's a nice line, I'll grant you, but it's hyperbole, really. Give me some examples, please.
Thank you, off the cuff too. I'm really not sure that individual examples would exemplify the principle unless you already accepted the principle as sound. Can you see the difficulty?
I have only identified it and not quantified it. You have not denied it so there it is.
Yet the phrase you used was 'Yet you possess a measure of antipathy towards it'. What measure? If my level of antipathy is zero then you have certainly over estimated it don't you think?
I look to Amazon reviews every now and again, to see if I am on the mark.
And if each and every one was diametrically opposed to your view, would you change your opinion or would you question whether or not Amazon had a valid sampling method?
You do not read reviews?
Sometimes I do, particularly if I think I am struggling to get the point of something.
If you can make sense of Frayn's response for me then please do so. It sounded to me no more than a mash of pseudish analytic aphorism, which makes sense, really, considering his contempt for Wittgenstein.
Truth is a function of language. There, that wasn't too difficult was it?
Hang on a bit, your assertion assumes that there are such things as mathematical entities so it's a bit unfair to criticise others for doing likewise.
Hang on yourself, if mathematicians are Platonists with regard to mathematical entities then that means that they have a particular view about the ontological status of mathematical objects. Just because I refer to such objects does not mean that I share their view.
You shall have to support your assertion with some kind a reference. I do not buy it.
You don't buy that most practising mathematicians are Platonists? But a taxi driver told me it was true only the other day.
No error there
Well I think it is a whopper. Celebrated even. But I could be wrong. Tell you what, I'll make you this promise. If I genuinely come to think I am wrong about this I will roll over and admit it without fuss or ceremony.
Why should I give it a moment's thought?
Well it might have given some substance to the criticism that Frayn was not as eloquent in real time as he was in his book. Unless you were not making that criticism in which case, fair enough. I wish I had an editor in real time for all my utterances.
Do you know, when it is said that Frayn immersed himself in science I have a feeling that means he immersed himself in popular science books,
Funny, I must be confabulating that he said that he read a lot of the original source material when preparing to write 'Copenhagen' during the Rose interview then.
Having read the book as well as seen the interview do you have any points of agreement with my criticism of Frayn's position and those criticisms expressed on Amazon?
As far as your criticisms go, not so far, regarding the Amazon reviews I noted your citation of them but saw no point in reading them. The extracts of reviews that you posted did not seem especially insightful.
Oh, if you haven't heard Thursday's Mitchell and Webb yet then I recommend you do so at the first possible opportunity.
Thanks for the tip, I will.
"The point is they ought not to believe their own theory and some will be vindicated anyway whilst some will not but belief or not will make no difference except insofar as it plays a part in motivation."
Do you think we can just cut the rest and agree that the vast majority of scientists would rather stick pins in their eyes than believe in an undemonstrated principle?
"Now, we can speculate about whether or not incidence of belief-in-one's-own-theory is more prevalent in the successful group or the non successful group but I can see a number of methodological headaches ahead."
So, then; no successful scientific investigators who place credulity above scepticism.
"Still, no one person is one thing so I speculate multiple causes."
Curiosity and the opportunity to earn a good living are multiple causes.
"Most people I have talked to about it seem to recognise a tension even if they think they have resolved it."
You don't surprise me. You don't convince me, either. Can I have something more than anecdote and generalities, please?
"See above."
Yes, see above.
"I'm really not sure that individual examples would exemplify the principle unless you already accepted the principle as sound."
Are you serious trying to pull that one on me? This is precisely what I am arguing against.
"Can you see the difficulty?"
I feel it, brother, I feel it.
"What measure?"
Oh, a measure does not necessarily imply an enumeration. Good one, though.
"If my level of antipathy is zero then you have certainly over estimated it don't you think?"
Were it so then yes. As it isn't so I ain't.
"And if each and every one was diametrically opposed to your view, would you change your opinion or would you question whether or not Amazon had a valid sampling method?"
Well, when considering a book's value should I take the word of one person, you, or the words of five people over on Amazon?
"Sometimes I do, particularly if I think I am struggling to get the point of something."
Which is what I did. I know you are clever but after viewing the RS interview I was confused, so over I popped to Amazon. Had I found reviews in accord with your judgement then I would have doubted my own judgement. As things turned out I found reviews in accord with my judgement.
"Truth is a function of language."
I do not think that he is saying that at all. His meaning seems to be that nothing has a name if you take language away. It's some kind of 9-stone, face-full-of-sand, anthropicic principle.
"Hang on yourself, if mathematicians are Platonists with regard to mathematical entities then that means that they have a particular view about the ontological status of mathematical objects."
Some mathematicians may be Platonists in the same way that some biologists are Young-Earth-Creationists, but "most practicing mathematicians"? Give over.
"Just because I refer to such objects does not mean that I share their view."
Yes, right, even if there were such huge numbers of mathematicians, which you have yet to demonstrate and won't, they have nothing to do with the number of rocks meeting certain criteria in orbit around the Sun.
"You don't buy that most practising mathematicians are Platonists? But a taxi driver told me it was true only the other day."
I should believe that they are because a man who snobs on taxi drivers tells me so?
"Well I think it is a whopper. Celebrated even. But I could be wrong."
Hold that thought.
"Tell you what, I'll make you this promise. If I genuinely come to think I am wrong about this I will roll over and admit it without fuss or ceremony."
That would make a change.
"Well it might have given some substance to the criticism that Frayn was not as eloquent in real time as he was in his book."
Eloquence is no substitute for knowing your stuff, and I don't think he knew his stuff. I am sure that he tried a liitle harder for the RS than he would have done for the WI but he didn't pull it off. He's a playwright, first and last.
"Funny, I must be confabulating that he said that he read a lot of the original source material when preparing to write 'Copenhagen' during the Rose interview then."
That source material being... what? This man is a former philosophy student who writes biographical and historical fiction. He is not a mathematician. Considering the story of the play, and the fact that it is, essentially, made-up, what kind of original source material do you suppose Frayn read in preparation?
"As far as your criticisms go, not so far, regarding the Amazon reviews I noted your citation of them but saw no point in reading them."
Oh, go on; give them a go. Won't take you two minutes. This is one of those struggling times you spoke of above when it is useful to read reviews. Read them and you will see that I am not being idiosyncratically contrary. I know you read it and enjoyed it but look at what others are saying. You may benefit.
"The extracts of reviews that you posted did not seem especially insightful."
Yes, well, you would say that wouldn't you?
"Thanks for the tip, I will."
Hope you enjoyed it. Along with Milton Jones, one of the funniest pieces of broadcast comedy around.
.
Amazon are selling "The Human Touch" with "The God Delusion" >flush< as "Perfect Partners". I wonder why, especially considering the "Also Boughts" include "The Goldilocks Enigma". Mind you, they also include "Breaking The Spell", "Imperium" and "The Mission Song". Bit of a marketing nightmare, I would imagine.
"Religion Explained" seems to be doing much better, however, with a "Perfect Partner" of Scott Atran no less. Boyer's "Also Boughts" show much more consistency, with not a Dawkins-authored title in sight, although Grafen and Ridley's book marketing Dawkins does appear.
That Canadian Haines gets about a bit. I smell a rat.
How do Frayn and Boyer help to counter the polarisation you spoke if in your opening post?
.
Do you think we can just cut the rest and agree that the vast majority of scientists would rather stick pins in their eyes than believe in an undemonstrated principle?
Except that they might well, at the publication stage, think that it has been demonstrated and replication will just be a formality. Or perhaps scientists do not include egotistical or arrogant individuals at all. Perhaps they all withhold judgement as rationality dictates and none of them get swept along by the idea that they really are onto something.
So, then; no successful scientific investigators who place credulity above scepticism.
Nope, I already agreed that.
Curiosity and the opportunity to earn a good living are multiple causes.
True, but the reasons that people get into a profession are not necessarily the same as those that maintain their involvement.
You don't surprise me. You don't convince me, either. Can I have something more than anecdote and generalities, please?
After all the closely argued threads on the nature of the tension between faith and reason that I've started, you say this...(sob). Ok, maybe there is no tension between the two, is that what you think? If so why do you think that?
Yes, see above.
So, you saw above?
Are you serious trying to pull that one on me? This is precisely what I am arguing against.
I'm not pulling anything. The probability of being right in the face of orthodoxy is a priori objectively low, what good would it do for me to list all the radical ideas that turned out to be bonkers and the few that didn't?
Were it so then yes. As it isn't so I ain't.
Isn't it? Is a single measure meaningful? Perhaps whatever aspects of religion that I find irksome are cancelled out by my positive feelings about what I regard as beneficial effects.
Do you have no qualms about religion whatsoever?
Well, when considering a book's value should I take the word of one person, you, or the words of five people over on Amazon?
Well, all other things being equal you should take theirs. It is up to you to decide whether all other things are equal.
"Truth is a function of language."
I do not think that he is saying that at all. His meaning seems to be that nothing has a name if you take language away. It's some kind of 9-stone, face-full-of-sand, anthropicic principle.
Well I've read the book, you haven't.
but "most practicing mathematicians"? Give over.
Come off it.
I should believe that they are because a man who snobs on taxi drivers tells me so?
But she had a PhD in the philosophy of mathematics. Good driver too.
Hold that thought.
It is always with me.
That would make a change.
Perhaps you are projecting? Remind me the last time you rolled over? Hmmm let me see...oh wait, silly me, nobody has actually found any flaws in your arguments, my apologies.
That source material being... what? This man is a former philosophy student who writes biographical and historical fiction. He is not a mathematician. Considering the story of the play, and the fact that it is, essentially, made-up, what kind of original source material do you suppose Frayn read in preparation?
You are right there, he is a playwright not a mathematician. You were wrong to imply that his preparation consisted in reading popular science books as he states that he read the original transcriptions of what the team said when they were bugged by the British and also the original writings of the scientists themselves.
Oh, go on; give them a go. Won't take you two minutes.
For me, probably three.
This is one of those struggling times you spoke of above when it is useful to read reviews.
I'm not struggling.
Hope you enjoyed it.
I did, it was hilarious thanks again.
ok, ok I made up the taxi driver, the real source was a mathematician on a tv programme at least a decade ago who was being interviewed in a school in New York I think, it was an academy of some kind for maths prodigies. When I was typing the assertion I was thinking, 'will he buy this or will I have to dive off for loads of references?...Oh sod it, it seems credible, the guy in the programmme did have a grey beard'.
If I were only able to recommend one of the books, it would be the Boyer one.
How do Frayn and Boyer help to counter the polarisation you spoke if in your opening post?
They do it by eloquently arguing that the polarized views are misconstrued.
"Except that they might well, at the publication stage, think that it has been demonstrated and replication will just be a formality. Or perhaps scientists do not include egotistical or arrogant individuals at all. Perhaps they all withhold judgement as rationality dictates and none of them get swept along by the idea that they really are onto something."
Well, I think it's daft to use terms like belief in this context. I note you didn't use it there.
"Nope, I already agreed that."
So no problem then, despite Everett's essay.
"True, but the reasons that people get into a profession are not necessarily the same as those that maintain their involvement."
I would agree. And not just because I am bored, either.
"If so why do you think that?"
I do not see any. It's in the financial interests of some people to pretend that there are tensions.
"So, you saw above?"
Yes, see above.
"The probability of being right in the face of orthodoxy is a priori objectively low"
Eloquent but not so. Please qualify.
"what good would it do for me to list all the radical ideas that turned out to be bonkers and the few that didn't?"
Are we talking about hard-nosed scientific investigations here or the E&F board?
"what good would it do for me to list all the radical ideas that turned out to be bonkers and the few that didn't?"
Yes. the enumeration is less important than the substance and the context.
"Perhaps whatever aspects of religion that I find irksome are cancelled out by my positive feelings about what I regard as beneficial effects."
I do not think it is the case. You appear to have taken the side of the anti-religionists although you are practically enigmatic compared to some.
"Do you have no qualms about religion whatsoever?"
None. I have qualms about people.
"It is up to you to decide whether all other things are equal."
They might well be but how could I tell? What I know is that these reviews map pretty much perfectly onto my own criticism. Would you like to offer some counter reviews?
"Come off it."
Pull the other one.
"But she had a PhD in the philosophy of mathematics. Good driver too."
Will she go South of the river at this time of night? If so at what speed given that she will be driving at the maximum speed limit for the duration of the journey into a South-West wind of 8mph with a boot containing 3 2-litre cans of purple paint which she will be using to redecorate the house she shares with her bull-dyke partner, Simon, on the last day of February 2008?
"Perhaps you are projecting? Remind me the last time you rolled over?"
That would be the last time I had occasion, I am sure.
"Hmmm let me see...oh wait, silly me, nobody has actually found any flaws in your arguments, my apologies."
People see alien spacecraft, you know.
"You were wrong to imply that his preparation consisted in reading popular science books as he states that he read the original transcriptions of what the team said when they were bugged by the British and also the original writings of the scientists themselves."
Which does not imply that he knows the science. I reckon, with a nod to Mitchell and Webb, that in researching the scientific aspects of "The Human Touch" he stuck to popular science books. Did you notice any hard science in his book? If so, would you give me an example? Hard stuff, you know, none of this metaphor rot laden with adjectives and comparisons to Islamic female clothing.
"For me, probably three."
You can spare it.
"I'm not struggling."
I think you have difficulty understanding my view in this.
"ok, ok I made up the taxi driver, the real source was a mathematician on a tv programme at least a decade ago"
Right. Do you recall my attack on self evidently flawed over her Newtonian sources?
"I think, it was an academy of some kind for maths prodigies."
The last thing you want to do with a group of maths prodigies is stick them in a room together.
"When I was typing the assertion I was thinking, 'will he buy this or will I have to dive off for loads of references?...Oh sod it, it seems credible, the guy in the programmme did have a grey beard'."
I bet you're crap at cards.
"If I were only able to recommend one of the books, it would be the Boyer one."
Why? A coherent theme? Tighter arguments? Better researched?
"They do it by eloquently arguing that the polarized views are misconstrued."
Do they convince you?
I don't see what was wrong with NoMa, personally. No money in it, probably.
.
Well, I think it's daft to use terms like belief in this context. I note you didn't use it there.
I'm not so sure. What terms would you use?
I do not see any. It's in the financial interests of some people to pretend that there are tensions.
It isn't in my financial interests but I see a tension, although by that I don't mean to imply anything other than the problem of how faith and reason fit together. If you see no problem then maybe it is because for you, there is none. How do you reconcile faith and reason or if you would say no reconciliation is necessary because there is no tension, how does that work?
Eloquent but not so. Please qualify.
I should qualify that scientists ought subjectively not to believe their own theories but that this fact is a priori objectively true.
Everett put the reason why this is true quite well I thought:
" ...few people are in a total epistemic situation from within which they can reasonably contradict their neighbours."
I do not think it is the case. You appear to have taken the side of the anti-religionists although you are practically enigmatic compared to some.
The side of the anti-religionists? Don't you mean I have argued against some rather woolly arguments? Couldn't I say, I'm not against religion just some religious people who think they can argue out of a paper bag? Or are you on the side of the Magnetist and Clair5? So the qualms about people argument goes both ways.
Which does not imply that he knows the science.
True. I think to truly know the science you would have to do the science. That Mitchell and Webb 'email us' sketch had me giggling though.
and comparisons to Islamic female clothing.
Is that a giant burkha Dawkins reference?
You can spare it.
Next Thursday is looking good.
I think you have difficulty understanding my view in this
No, difficulty agreeing.
Right. Do you recall my attack on self evidently flawed over her Newtonian sources?
That was you? I thought that was Forbin...wait, did the man with the beard say most of them were Platonists or weren't? He was definitely talking about mathematicians though. Or was it fashion designers?
I bet you're crap at cards.
Yep.
Why? A coherent theme? Tighter arguments? Better researched?
All of the above. Your time looking there was well spent.
Do they convince you?
So far, yes.
I don't see what was wrong with NoMa, personally.
I think the guy at Beyond Belief nailed that one when he pointed out that neither are magisteria.
"I'm not so sure. What terms would you use?"
I would not even attempt the argument. I honestly feel that Everett had nothing signicant to say.
"It isn't in my financial interests but I see a tension"
You've been caught in their head-trap, that's all. This tension-talk is in the air.
"the problem of how faith and reason fit together."
Why should they have to?
"If you see no problem then maybe it is because for you, there is none."
So why do you have this problem?
"How do you reconcile faith and reason or if you would say no reconciliation is necessary because there is no tension, how does that work?"
They are two different activities. They don't require reconcilliation.
"I should qualify that scientists ought subjectively not to believe their own theories but that this fact is a priori objectively true."
Has he written any pieces on why people wearing polyester trousers should not stand near naked flames?
" ...few people are in a total epistemic situation from within which they can reasonably contradict their neighbours."
That's a very general statement. What's it to him?
"The side of the anti-religionists? Don't you mean I have argued against some rather woolly arguments?"
To what end? Do you oppose all woolly arguments you read?
"Couldn't I say, I'm not against religion just some religious people who think they can argue out of a paper bag?"
What about religious people who can argue their way out of paper bags?
"Or are you on the side of the Magnetist and Clair5? So the qualms about people argument goes both ways."
I have not read the Magnetist but I do not see what harm Clare5 is doing.
"So the qualms about people argument goes both ways."
My qualms are about what people do rather than what they believe.
"Is that a giant burkha Dawkins reference?"
Yes. I'm currently listening to a video of the nut promote militant atheistm at TED this April gone. There's not a lot of science in popular science. I remember reading Tipler's "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" 20-odd years ago; things have really dumbed down since then.
"No, difficulty agreeing."
If you understand my view and the reasons I hold it then why do you oppose it?
"That was you? I thought that was Forbin..."
That was me. Forbin was there. Seems decent enough.
"All of the above. Your time looking there was well spent."
I don't follow you.
"So far, yes."
Of precisely what do they convince you?
"I think the guy at Beyond Belief nailed that one when he pointed out that neither are magisteria."
Yet people think, act and talk as though they are. What's all that about?
The nut has just said that he is "not usually very proud of being British". The rest is the same old crap he will likely be spouting for the next five years before he sinks into obscurity.
.
He's begging for money, now. God, it's sickening.
.
He's doing it again. With one breath he ridicules it for its design and with the next he's chasing it. I'm rather ashamed that he's British.
.
I would not even attempt the argument. I honestly feel that Everett had nothing signicant to say.
Like I said, you are probably more up to speed with such things.
You've been caught in their head-trap, that's all. This tension-talk is in the air.
I respectfully disagree and put it to you that it is my direct cognizance of the nature of faith and of reason that leads me to think that they are in tension.
Why should they have to?
So why do you have this problem?
They are two different activities. They don't require reconcilliation.
If the activities are understood as truly seperate, truly non-overlapping then to ask for reconcilliation is as absurd as to ask how Jones reconciles playing football in the park on Saturday with his job as a mortgage broker Mon to Fri. The trouble is, this view of the activities of faith and reason is implausible. Not for Anglican Bishops or competent theologians or those with a fine facility for compartmentalisation, granted. But they reach detente at the cost of either an evisceration of faith or the abandonment of any claim to knowledge about the world.
Has he written any pieces on why people wearing polyester trousers should not stand near naked flames?
You can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is' you know. So such a paper might be a bit more fiddly than it might first appear, but I did laugh out loud when I read this comment.
To what end? Do you oppose all woolly arguments you read?
No. Just ones that I recognise as woolly and to which I think I could have a coherent opposing view. This is by no means confined to religion. But perhaps you have done a coding and meta-analysis of my arguments and found that, yes it is statistically more likely for me to argue against a religious woolly argument than a secular one. Or you could just be making it up. On the other hand, perhaps woolly religious arguments are more prevailent than woolly non-religious ones (I speculate on that with no prejudice, it's just something to control for). Mind you, I don't believe in a god or gods and tend not to argue from a position that I oppose as an exercise so that might skew the results as well. I think you should give it up myself, I'm not one of the braying Dawkinsian footsoldiers eager to oppose religion at every turn.
What about religious people who can argue their way out of paper bags?
Yes I argue with them too. Also with the non religious who can argue well. An example would be a long argument with Wwatcher on the Today board about the foundation of ethics. Ok, I argue, what of it?
I have not read the Magnetist but I do not see what harm Clare5 is doing.
This is just argument not torture or massacre. It is not about harm. You ducked the question though, are you on Claire5's side or not?
The Magnetist is worth a look:
magnetist
My qualms are about what people do rather than what they believe.
Me too. What they do is type nonsense, otherwise I would have not the slightest idea what they believe.
"All of the above. Your time looking there was well spent."
I don't follow you.
See above.
Of precisely what do they convince you?
That there are some naive atheists about who argue with naive theists.
Yet people think, act and talk as though they are. What's all that about?
I'm not sure.
He's begging for money, now. God, it's sickening.
Sounds ugly.
Oh, I just read the first page of reviews on Amazon. I will respond in more detail in a subsequent post, Haines was interesting, what hint of rodent did you detect? The last review on the page was favourable.
On reading the Amazon reviews in more detail I come to the conclusion that they are not as insightful as their authoritative tone would have us believe.
Here, for example, is a section of the review from 'jugglepete':
"making errors such as the claim on p 41 where he states with forceful amazement that there are two square roots of negative numbers as if this is a surprise to the likely readership. "
Yet here is the relevant passage from p41:
"An unobserved particle turned out to be able to follow more than one different trajectory simultaneously, and its behaviour could be accommodated only by interpreting it not as a particle, a thing, but as a wave function, a mathematical abstraction representing the relative likelihood of its being in any particular place at any particular time, where its ambiguity is given expression in purely mathematical form, rather as some numbers (such as the square root of a negative number) can be understood to have two definite but different values simultaneously."
Sorry, but where is the error? Where is the 'forceful amazement'?
jugglepete goes on to say:
"What he really means is there are two square roots for any number, but he misses this obvious fact and repeats the schoolboy mistake later in the book."
So jugglepete has privileged access to what Frayn 'really means'? Singling out roots of negative numbers does not negate the fact that there are two square roots for any number (except zero, but jugglepete missed that, unless he wants to argue for +0 and -0). What it does though, is hint at imaginary numbers which are important in the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
I'm afraid this is typical of the standard of review in this little collection, but if you want to swallow it, go right ahead.
"Haines was interesting, what hint of rodent did you detect?"
He's a marketing department. On average he posts a review per day, frequently two.
"The last review on the page was favourable."
A naive review, I thought, considering its recommendation to "every young theorist".
.
"they are not as insightful as their authoritative tone would have us believe."
Great titles, though.
"Sorry, but where is the error?"
Read it again. I think he's talking about Frayn's inability to anticipate the learning of his readers.
"I'm afraid this is typical of the standard of review in this little collection"
It isn't, actually. Jugglepete is the only review to pick particular fault, and we cannot dismiss their judgements anymore than I can dismiss yours. I am, really, judging his Royal Society interview but I am reassured that the majority of the Amazon reviewers judge his book as I judged his interview. I did force myself to listen to the end, actually, and I am glad that I did else I would not have heard his response to the mathematician's question which, I suspect, carries the philosophical flavour of his book.
.
Read it again. I think he's talking about Frayn's inability to anticipate the learning of his readers
No, that won't wash. He uses the square root example in brackets as an illustrative aside, which if anything shows that he has anticipated the learning of his readers, if not jugglepete's over literal interpretation.
It isn't, actually. Jugglepete is the only review to pick particular fault, and we cannot dismiss their judgements anymore than I can dismiss yours.
In that case how can you dismiss the last review? You can't have it both ways. Jugglepete was the only one to give a page number but that does not mean that we cannot assess whether what the other reviewers thought seems to hang together.
"He uses the square root example in brackets as an illustrative aside, which if anything shows that he has anticipated the learning of his readers, if not jugglepete's over literal interpretation."
Oh, I have not argued that Frayn did not anticipate his readers' learning, but it is my belief that Jugglepete thinks this was Frayn's sin.
"In that case how can you dismiss the last review?"
I have already said.
"we cannot assess whether what the other reviewers thought seems to hang together."
I think it's likely that they do. You and I have agreed that Frayn likely had a good editor, and you have intimated towards some disappointment at his interview. I am still unclear about what is said in this book which has benefited you. Could you be particular?
I see Hirst's gone all plonker again.
.
"Like I said, you are probably more up to speed with such things."
Safe at any speed.
"I respectfully disagree and put it to you that it is my direct cognizance of the nature of faith and of reason that leads me to think that they are in tension."
I think you do not get either. I think it's just sudoku for you. Diverts attenion, achieves nothing, burns time.
"The trouble is, this view of the activities of faith and reason is implausible."
Would you do us both a favour and give a reason when you make this sort of pronouncement?
"Not for Anglican Bishops or competent theologians or those with a fine facility for compartmentalisation, granted."
As above. You are assuming compartmentalisation happens.
"But they reach detente at the cost of either an evisceration of faith or the abandonment of any claim to knowledge about the world."
I don't think they do and in defence I would cite Vatican astronomers, clerical scientists, and individuals such as Alister McGrath and Simon Conway Morris. Darwin. Newton. Perhaps little thinkers tidy every thought away into display drawers, pinning them for speculation after drawing them from a killing jar.
See, I can do purple as well as you.
"I did laugh out loud when I read this comment."
Good. Then you see the truth in it.
"tend not to argue from a position that I oppose as an exercise"
Are you certain about this now?
"I think you should give it up myself"
Give what up?
"I'm not one of the braying Dawkinsian footsoldiers eager to oppose religion at every turn."
No, you see yourself more as a Knight Errant, I think.
"An example would be a long argument with Wwatcher on the Today board about the foundation of ethics."
Are we thinking on the same Wwatcher?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtoday/F5
963509?
thread=4198662&skip=0&show=20#p4912
4871
"This is just argument not torture or massacre."
And that is precisely why I have no qualms about what Claire5 posts.
"You ducked the question though, are you on Claire5's side or not?"
Am I on her side? Is that a serious question? First, I haven't a clue what side she is on. Second, I haven't a clue what side you are on. Third, I haven't played Japs and Americans for years and don't intend to start again now.
"Me too. What they do is type nonsense, otherwise I would have not the slightest idea what they believe."
Not everyone. I do not think that I have seen you argue against The Eagle.
"See above."
I don't follow you.
"That there are some naive atheists about who argue with naive theists."
Aren't there.
"Sounds ugly."
It's hideous. Listening to Robert Winston and Dawkins at the Hay, currently.
This post was brought to you by the arbitrary string "ichoy".
.
Oh, I have not argued that Frayn did not anticipate his readers' learning, but it is my belief that Jugglepete thinks this was Frayn's sin.
And he thinks this as well as thinking Frayn made a 'schoolboy error'. I have explained why this view is not credible.
I have already said.
So, you only want to dismiss the favourable review? I see.
I think it's likely that they do. You and I have agreed that Frayn likely had a good editor, and you have intimated towards some disappointment at his interview.
I do agree, although I don't know whether Frayn was his own editor, but I would not say that the interview was disappointing just that it was not as good as the book. I can't think of an interview that was as good as a book that I have liked, so it would be a bit odd to be disappointed.
I am still unclear about what is said in this book which has benefited you. Could you be particular?
I would not narrow it down to the particular. I enjoyed reading the book. Satisfaction, what more could I want?
I think you do not get either. I think it's just sudoku for you. Diverts attenion, achieves nothing, burns time.
Rather harsh. I don't get reason or faith? I am achieving nothing you think? Tell me, what are you achieving?
Would you do us both a favour and give a reason when you make this sort of pronouncement?
But it is obvious. People have faith in things that if true, would have observable effects. The power of prayer for example. The only way for the 'magisteria' to be made not to overlap is for the faith side not to espouse things that could possibly affect physical reality. In which case either it makes no difference whether or not they are true or they relate to another realm (perhaps after death?) which cannot affect the phenomenal world, in which case why is there a good reason to have faith in them?
As above. You are assuming compartmentalisation happens.
No.
I don't think they do and in defence I would cite Vatican astronomers, clerical scientists, and individuals such as Alister McGrath and Simon Conway Morris.
Well, I think that is a good defence and to the list I would add Polkinghorne. I don't think it is a NOMA defence though as I think these people have integrated reason, evidence and faith.
See, I can do purple as well as you.
Positively puce.
Good. Then you see the truth in it.
I wouldn't go that far.
Are you certain about this now?
Er...
Give what up?
The idea that I have taken the 'side' of the anti-religionists. I no more play 'knight errant' than you do japs and americans. That was my point about Clair5, it is as absurd to talk about being on her 'side' as it is to say I am on the 'side' of, well any collection of posters really.
Are we thinking on the same Wwatcher?
We are.
Who is 'The Eagle'?
"See above."
I don't follow you.
Sorry lame joke. You said a string of things I agreed with so I said 'all of the above' and since I had said 'see above' to you a couple of times I said your time spent looking there was well spent. I'll get me coat...
"And he thinks this as well as thinking Frayn made a 'schoolboy error'. I have explained why this view is not credible."
That a person is wrong on one point does not mean that he is necessarily wrong on all other points. If that were so then we wouldn't be having these chats.
"So, you only want to dismiss the favourable review?"
Yes, because the author of that review doesn't seem to be particularly well read.
"I can't think of an interview that was as good as a book that I have liked, so it would be a bit odd to be disappointed."
When you look at your books on your shelves can you recall seeing an interview with the author of each? I doubt it, which is why my criticism is particular.
"I enjoyed reading the book. Satisfaction, what more could I want?"
I am flattered, of course, but I sincerely wish to know the answer to my question. Surely you may identify some themes or arguments you found particularly interesting. Perhaps the book taught you something.
On a lighter note I recommend to you a film, "The Prestige". It's so good that I plan to waste some time reading the Christopher Priest novel upon which it was based.
.
"Rather harsh. I don't get reason or faith? I am achieving nothing you think? Tell me, what are you achieving?"
Yes, it was harsh but not inaccurate, I feel. In my experience when people ask the same question repeatedly they are either stuck over a genuine problem or they are determined to distract themselves with a faux problem. When did this apparent problem occur to you and why?
"The only way for the 'magisteria' to be made not to overlap is for the faith side not to espouse things that could possibly affect physical reality."
Shift. Science has been encroaching on the magisterium of religion for many years now, and in ontology has no better answers nor realistic hope to achieve any.
"No."
You jolly well were, you know. Your argument assumed the "faulty of compartmentalisation". It's such an ugly word. Can we have an alternative, please? How about shelving?
"Well, I think that is a good defence and to the list I would add Polkinghorne. I don't think it is a NOMA defence though as I think these people have integrated reason, evidence and faith."
If you accept that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive then you have no problem.
"I wouldn't go that far."
If the analogy did not strike you then why else did you laugh?
"Er..."
Yes, "Er...".
"The idea that I have taken the 'side' of the anti-religionists."
Well, you know, that is how it appears.
"I no more play 'knight errant' than you do japs and americans."
Fair do's, Squire.
"That was my point about Clair5, it is as absurd to talk about being on her 'side' as it is to say I am on the 'side' of, well any collection of posters really."
Is Clair5 pro-religion or anti-religion? Careful now, the Devil is in the detail.
Does a set of disparate individuals count as a collection?
"We are."
I hope you wash your hands afterwards.
"Who is 'The Eagle'?"
A religious poster on the BBC who can argue his way out of paper bags, but not as you and I argue. A nice guy. Speaking of religious people who can argue their way out of paper bags:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,
1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-
McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-
Interviews
"Sorry lame joke... I'll get me coat..."
That's alright; my joke was funny. Now pull your knickers on and make's a cup of tea.
.
"Your argument assumed the "faulty of compartmentalisation"."
Talk about your parapraxis.
.
That a person is wrong on one point does not mean that he is necessarily wrong on all other points. If that were so then we wouldn't be having these chats.
True.
Yes, because the author of that review doesn't seem to be particularly well read.
That is a remarkable facility you have. From seven sentences. Amazing.
When you look at your books on your shelves can you recall seeing an interview with the author of each? I doubt it, which is why my criticism is particular.
With the author of each, no, but with some yes. Tell me, what proportion of my bookshelf should I allow to be indicative in its unanimous under-performance in live interview? Don't forget, you have supplied the locations of quite a few interviews with authors I have read.
I am flattered, of course, but I sincerely wish to know the answer to my question. Surely you may identify some themes or arguments you found particularly interesting. Perhaps the book taught you something.
I think this is an effective tactic on your part: you request that I detail the interesting things so you can have a go at demolishing my second-hand-and-not-as-good-account, or, if I refuse to do so, you can conclude that there is nothing of value in the book because I can't tell you anything.
On a lighter note I recommend to you a film, "The Prestige". It's so good that I plan to waste some time reading the Christopher Priest novel upon which it was based.
Thank you.
Yes, it was harsh but not inaccurate, I feel.
Feelings can be unreliable. Are you sure you really 'get' faith or reason?
In my experience when people ask the same question repeatedly they are either stuck over a genuine problem or they are determined to distract themselves with a faux problem. When did this apparent problem occur to you and why?
Answer A Chris, I am stuck over a genuine problem. One you have not been able to effectively communicate a solution to. Nor apprehend, it seems. I think this occurred to me incrementally since I was about knee high but attained its present form through dialog over the last few years.
Shift. Science has been encroaching on the magisterium of religion for many years now, and in ontology has no better answers nor realistic hope to achieve any.
Well, it's not Camelot it's just a model.
You jolly well were, you know.
It could be an empty set. The argument is still valid.
It's such an ugly word. Can we have an alternative, please? How about shelving?
I'd prefer 'fishpaste'.
If you accept that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive then you have no problem.
Of course they aren't mutually exclusive. Some people I know are really clever and they have faith in god. It isn't a problem for them. That's why I want to know how they get their faith to interface with their reason. I feel I might learn something. I know, unreliable as feelings are I want to look into it further.
If the analogy did not strike you then why else did you laugh?
It did. Like I said, it's a speed thing perhaps.
"Er..."
Yes, "Er...".
Ah, agreement, lovely.
Well, you know, that is how it appears.
To you, clearly.
Is Clair5 pro-religion or anti-religion? Careful now, the Devil is in the detail.
I think Clair5 is pro-Clair5's agenda. Religion is a theme.
Does a set of disparate individuals count as a collection?
Why, have you got some locked in the cellar?
I hope you wash your hands afterwards.
So, a guy admits he has a hairy anus, geez.
A religious poster on the BBC who can argue his way out of paper bags, but not as you and I argue.
Interesting. Have you a link? I'll check out the uncut Dawkins ta.
Talk about your parapraxis.
That was funny. "Basil? Basil!"
"Amazing."
Amazing? Why, it's fantastic!
"Don't forget, you have supplied the locations of quite a few interviews with authors I have read."
Did I tell you about this fantastic facility of mine? It's amazing!
"I think this is an effective tactic on your part"
It didn't cross my mind once, although I have certainly witnessed such discussions. Usually, and this may be your own experience, I know more about the subject a person propounds that they do themselves and so have no need for such a tactic. Not necessarily directly, of course.
I was going to edit that last paragraph but the arrogance is just sublime.
"Thank you."
Right up there with Jacob's Ladder.
.
"Feelings can be unreliable."
Not these. I got them from Currys; extended warranty and everything.
"Are you sure you really 'get' faith or reason?"
Yes, I am. I get them in the same way that I get humour and sobriety.
"Nor apprehend, it seems."
I thought I might ask you some questions. What do you think? Might work?
"I am stuck over a genuine problem."
Right. You have told me what bothers you. Why does it bother you?
"Well, it's not Camelot it's just a model."
Makes you wonder why people take it so seriously.
"The argument is still valid."
Only if we assume shelving.
"I'd prefer 'fishpaste'."
Not a valid argument, then.
"That's why I want to know how they get their faith to interface with their reason."
They do not need to interface because they are the same thing; thought.
"I know, unreliable as feelings are I want to look into it further."
Feelings are perfectly reliable, it's thought that deceives.
"To you, clearly."
I suspect it's quiet astonishment that you honestly think there is a problem here.
"I think Clair5 is pro-Clair5's agenda. Religion is a theme."
The same could be said of others with science as their theme. People are driven by feelings and not by thought. Religion and science are only thought and as such not incompatible.
"Why, have you got some locked in the cellar?"
Gosh, no.
"Have you a link?"
You'll love this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion
/F2213235?thread=1168865
But try his other posts, please:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion
/MP1723019
.
Yes, I am. I get them in the same way that I get humour and sobriety.
I see. I get those too. I remain unconvinced that your conception of faith and reason is more accurate than my own.
I thought I might ask you some questions. What do you think? Might work?
Fancy yourself as Socrates eh? Worth a try perhaps.
Right. You have told me what bothers you. Why does it bother you?
I don't think it bothers me. I am curious about it.
Not a valid argument, then.
You have not demonstrated that it is not valid.
They do not need to interface because they are the same thing; thought.
I don't think this follows. It presupposes that thought is undifferentiated or homogeneous.
Feelings are perfectly reliable, it's thought that deceives.
Feelings are thought as well though.
The same could be said of others with science as their theme. People are driven by feelings and not by thought. Religion and science are only thought and as such not incompatible.
I don't think religion and science are incompatible either. Mind you, one would not want to confuse the two.
You'll love this:
Good one.
But try his other posts, please:
I did. Seems capable enough, I notice s/he did a few rounds with Stephen who I have argued against on the quantum thread in ethics and free thought.
I am most of the way through the Dawkins/McGrath conversation. I think the programme would have benefited from its inclusion.
"I see. I get those too. I remain unconvinced that your conception of faith and reason is more accurate than my own."
Are you curious as to how people reconcile humour and sobriety?
"Fancy yourself as Socrates eh? Worth a try perhaps."
You're no fun at all.
"I don't think it bothers me. I am curious about it."
Come on now, don't get all pedantic here.
"You have not demonstrated that it is not valid."
"Fishpaste" isn't normally taken as a ringing endorsement.
"I don't think this follows. It presupposes that thought is undifferentiated or homogeneous."
It is, so far as I can tell. I never catch myself not thinking.
"Feelings are thought as well though."
Both are causes experienced from within, as all behaviour.
"I don't think religion and science are incompatible either."
Then why be curious about others who feel the same way?
"Mind you, one would not want to confuse the two."
Could be fun.
"Good one."
I thought it would appeal to you.
"I did. Seems capable enough, I notice s/he did a few rounds with Stephen who I have argued against on the quantum thread in ethics and free thought."
I believe The Eagle is a gentleman. He isn't one to shy away from protracted discussion. Very sane, I think, with a dash of wonder in his heart.
"I am most of the way through the Dawkins/McGrath conversation. I think the programme would have benefited from its inclusion."
Me too, actually. First I heard of this interview was from a McGrath talk on the Internet. He seems to think it was not included because Dawkins did not get to make him look like a violent, prejudiced fool.
Dawkins really loves his bronzer, doesn't he.
.
I've just worked it out; we're in an Umberto Eco novel.
.
Are you curious as to how people reconcile humour and sobriety?
I like that analogy. Do you assign faith to one of the analogues there? I am curious about it yes. It has practical implications like, how bad are the jokes allowed to be at funerals? Having said that, you are right that I'm not as curious. I think that this is because if one tackles something like important questions about life in a humorous way or a sober one it does not necessarily change what one thinks about the world or our final appraisal. Faith seems to be different in that regard.
You're no fun at all.
Sob....sniff...
"Fishpaste" isn't normally taken as a ringing endorsement.
I reject the premise that my argument rests on the existence of shelving. The reference to 'fishpaste' is from Monty Python I think, where somebody says: "Blackmail is such an ugly word, let's use 'fishpaste' instead."
Then why be curious about others who feel the same way?
I'm curious as to whether, for example, a Christian's mode of thought is really akin to belief when they talk about, say, believing that Jesus died for our sins. If it is, how do they manage to believe this? If it isn't, do they realise? If so, why do they proceed as if it is like belief? If not, how did it get past their powers of introspection and reason?
I know, I'm like a child saying 'Why am I me and not you..'. Hmm that reminds me of the film 'Wings of Desire'. Magical realism of sorts if not exactly Eco.
He seems to think it was not included because Dawkins did not get to make him look like a violent, prejudiced fool.
How cynical of him to think that.
"Do you assign faith to one of the analogues there?"
No.
"if one tackles something like important questions about life in a humorous way or a sober one it does not necessarily change what one thinks about the world or our final appraisal."
So you are perfectly willing to have your world view changed, then?
"The reference to 'fishpaste' is from Monty Python I think, where somebody says: "Blackmail is such an ugly word, let's use 'fishpaste' instead.""
It rings a bell in the vague distance but I think that the latest edition of Mitchell and Webb pushed it out of my head. Last week's, once again, was really, very funny. If it makes me laugh think what it will do for you.
"I'm curious as to whether, for example, a Christian's mode of thought is really akin to belief when they talk about, say, believing that Jesus died for our sins."
Once a person has accepted a particular idea then they no longer need to think about it. Belief isn't an something we do, it's somewhere we do things.
You are not religious. Do you spend all day quietly talking to yourself,rehearsing the arguments against religion?
Once religion is there it is there. It's architecture.
"If not, how did it get past their powers of introspection and reason?"
Perhaps their powers of introspection and reason are responsible for their religion.
"I know, I'm like a child saying 'Why am I me and not you..'."
Yes. You could have got stuck over any number of things.
"Hmm that reminds me of the film 'Wings of Desire'. Magical realism of sorts if not exactly Eco."
I have that knocking around somewhere. I played it once and stayed awake for the first thirty minutes. If it is magical realism you are after then see Jacob's Ladder.
Speaking of magic, what do you make of all these alleged atheist rationalists who dig into esotericism? That chap shaker, for example.
"How cynical of him to think that."
He did very well, I thought. Dawkins looked terrified for the first thirty minutes until he realised that McGrath wasn't going to hit him.
.
So you are perfectly willing to have your world view changed, then?
Yes.
If it makes me laugh think what it will do for you.
I'd better check that out soon.
Once a person has accepted a particular idea then they no longer need to think about it. Belief isn't an something we do, it's somewhere we do things.
Sometimes a change of setting is in order.
Once religion is there it is there. It's architecture.
And sometimes a rebuild is warranted.
Perhaps their powers of introspection and reason are responsible for their religion.
In which case, since I am not religious, it is reasonable for me to try to find out how that works.
Yes. You could have got stuck over any number of things
And yet, I am not alone and your attempts at a solution have been found wanting so far.
Speaking of magic, what do you make of all these alleged atheist rationalists who dig into esotericism? That chap shaker, for example.
Was he a Pagan? He said it was a matter of praxis didn't he? I'm not sure what to make of that.
"Yes."
Why don't you try practicing a religion?
"I'd better check that out soon."
It will be available to listen to online until the new edition tomorrow evening. My robot told me so.
"Sometimes a change of setting is in order."
Who died and put you in charge of social services?
"And sometimes a rebuild is warranted."
What? Town-planning too?
"In which case, since I am not religious, it is reasonable for me to try to find out how that works."
Good for you. Give it a go, the old experential method. Get religion.
"And yet, I am not alone and your attempts at a solution have been found wanting so far."
I am not confident that I have been presented with the entire problem yet. I would not presume to think I could solve anything for you but I may enjoy poking you with a stick from time to time.
Go on; give religion a go.
"Was he a Pagan?"
Not a Pagan but he is an Aleister Crowley fan, and is very open about it on the Dawkins Youth forum. Strangely, nobody there seems to call him on it. Here is his current home page:
http://www.spayne.co.uk/welcome.html
Little original content, as with his posts. He declares his cache of quotes as a map of his mind. I think it should be an easy map to colour although not as much fun as those maps you find at the front of The Hobbit and the Narnia books.
"He said it was a matter of praxis didn't he?"
I believe you are thinking of "Cursus", formerly "Cursus Walker", U1847971. Regards himself as a big name Pagan, writes and publicly recites crap poetry, shaves his head and wears camouflage trousers. Thinks religion is solely about practice and has recently signed up to the Dawkins Youth and been rather verbal about it over on the BBC.
"I'm not sure what to make of that."
That some atheists don't understand the implications of their arguments, or are insincere. That some Pagans wouldn't know a religion if it hit them in the face with a three-day old trout.
.
Why don't you try practicing a religion?
I suppose I am not persuaded that participant research is likely to yield anything that would warrant me feeling that silly.
Who died and put you in charge of social services?
What? Town-planning too?
You think I'd do a worse job?
Good for you. Give it a go, the old experential method. Get religion.
I'm not convinced that going native is a fruitful avenue. Don't get me wrong, I've gone to church and tried to engage but my inability to suppress the sense of the absurd has prevented meaningful participation so far.
I would not presume to think I could solve anything for you but I may enjoy poking you with a stick from time to time.
Glad to hear it.
Go on; give religion a go.
Any thoughts on which one?
I believe you are thinking of "Cursus",
I don't remember a 'Cursus' but I do remember a 'shaker(someinteger?)' on the ethics and freethought board who, if I recall, did use the praxis defence and now you come to mention it Aleister does ring a bell. I think he claimed that interest in a subject was not the same as buying into the truth claims (I'm paraphrasing because I have a memory like a goldfish, although I note you were going to get back to me on the consciousness of rocks, or something like that, on the Derbyshire thread, but you never did.)
"I suppose I am not persuaded that participant research is likely to yield anything that would warrant me feeling that silly."
Silly? Why do you suppose you would feel silly? Even were you to attend religious gatherings nobody would be pointing and laughing. Think nudist colony.
"You think I'd do a worse job?"
I am not certain that well-meaning rationalists are quite the best sort of people for those particular jobs.
"I've gone to church and tried to engage but my inability to suppress the sense of the absurd has prevented meaningful participation so far."
Yes. All that kneeling and singing. I think you would enjoy The Screwtape Letters very much, if you have not done so already. There is much talk of the everyday reality of religion.
"Any thoughts on which one?"
Likely that to which you were exposed as a child but if you feel otherwise then go with Roman Catholicism. Excellent literature, exciting history, scholarly studies and world-class art in which to immerse yourself. I would not chase you off to the sacraments, only commit to reading a little each day, that you understand how people then and now live their religion.
"I don't remember a 'Cursus' but I do remember a 'shaker(someinteger?)' on the ethics and freethought board who, if I recall, did use the praxis defence"
It could have been shaker, yes, but it seems a little sophisticated for him. My discussion with him on this point only resulted in a rather tedious set of denials in the face of the evidence:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
viewtopic.php?
p=121716&highlight=#121716
Ugly brute, what. And a Daily Mail fan.
"I'm paraphrasing because I have a memory like a goldfish"
Excellent! Your first project; Saint Augustine.
"I note you were going to get back to me on the consciousness of rocks, or something like that, on the Derbyshire thread, but you never did."
I have not returned to that discussion. I rather felt you let yourself down with that remark, or misunderstood my argument entirely.
.
Silly? Why do you suppose you would feel silly? Even were you to attend religious gatherings nobody would be pointing and laughing. Think nudist colony.
One can attend without feeling silly. What would be the point of attending but not engaging?
I think you would enjoy The Screwtape Letters very much,
I'll put them on my reading list.
then go with Roman Catholicism.
I have an affection for Roman Catholicism. In fact, I regularly contribute financially.
Excellent! Your first project; Saint Augustine.
Er, any more to go on or will this comment self destruct in 5 seconds?
I rather felt you let yourself down with that remark, or misunderstood my argument entirely.
Actually, neither. It was on the money.
"One can attend without feeling silly. What would be the point of attending but not engaging?"
I have not said you should not engage, that is not the point of my nudist analogy. When everyone is undressed then there is no silliness.
"I have an affection for Roman Catholicism. In fact, I regularly contribute financially."
How so?
"Er, any more to go on or will this comment self destruct in 5 seconds?"
Books. Books, books, books. Books.
"Actually, neither. It was on the money."
No.
.
I have not said you should not engage, that is not the point of my nudist analogy. When everyone is undressed then there is no silliness.
I know but my implication was that I would feel silly if I did engage, and that is the case.
How so?
In the little envelopes.
Books. Books, books, books. Books.
And with that, there was a puff of white smoke.
No.
Yes.
"I know but my implication was that I would feel silly if I did engage, and that is the case."
Yeeeeees. Anyway; going to give it a go?
"In the little envelopes."
You attend already or you give them to someone else?
"And with that, there was a puff of white smoke."
Does that mean there's a new Pope, then? I can never recall how that signal works.
"Yes."
No.
.
Yeeeeees. Anyway; going to give it a go?
No, I'd feel silly.
You attend already or you give them to someone else?
I attend occasionally but I usually give them to somebody else.
Does that mean there's a new Pope, then? I can never recall how that signal works.
Do you have other problems with polarity? For example, do you have a special way of remembering which way is left?
No.
No?
Let me see if I have this right: you give money to the Roman Catholic Church but you do not attend their Mass?
"Do you have other problems with polarity?"
No, but I don't pay as much attention to the workings of the Roman Catholic Church as you do.
"For example, do you have a special way of remembering which way is left?"
Yes. If it's not on the right-hand side then it must be on the left-hand side.
.
Let me see if I have this right: you give money to the Roman Catholic Church but you do not attend their Mass?
Well, not often. It's a family thing.
"Well, not often. It's a family thing."
I wonder why you reason so far, to agnosticism, but then decide to give money to the Roman Catholic Church. You subscribe to their services, then, the benefits of membership, and not to their ideas? Something like this, surely, otherwise your gift of charity must be an entirely arbitrary decision.
Anyway, how's June with you?
.
Tangential:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/
saturday_play.shtml
.
I wonder why you reason so far, to agnosticism, but then decide to give money to the Roman Catholic Church. You subscribe to their services, then, the benefits of membership, and not to their ideas? Something like this, surely, otherwise your gift of charity must be an entirely arbitrary decision.
Well, moving on...
Anyway, how's June with you?
Quite good thanks, and you?
Tangential:
Did you mean the Poliakoff?
"Well, moving on..."
Do you take communion?
"Quite good thanks, and you?"
Good, thanks. Garden's doing well.
"Did you mean the Poliakoff?"
The Johnson, although I am looking forward to the Poliakoff.
.
Do you take communion?
I do not, I am not eligible. How about you?
Good, thanks. Garden's doing well.
Glad to hear it.
The Johnson, although I am looking forward to the Poliakoff.
Ah. Could be good. I remember the film.
"How about you?"
I think my philosophy is vastly adverse to Christianity.
"I remember the film."
My favourite Poliakoff is Shooting The Past.
.
Jeremy Hardy was on top form in this week's News Quiz. Have a laugh.
.
I think my philosophy is vastly adverse to Christianity.
Really? Have you been getting in touch with your Nietzschian side?
I find it easier to sketch what I think you might be averse to than things you might be in favour of.
"Really? Have you been getting in touch with your Nietzschian side?"
Gosh, no. Romanticism is no compass by which to live.
"I find it easier to sketch what I think you might be averse to than things you might be in favour of."
Well, yes, I know you can read.
Tell me why it is, do you think, that fans of Dawkins and his position assume that I am a Christian? Simple idiocy? Lack of imagination? Inability to compose original arguments? Inability to adapt to novel schemata? Self-delusion? Lack of vocabulary?
.
Gosh, no. Romanticism is no compass by which to live.
That's a relief.
Tell me why it is, do you think, that fans of Dawkins and his position assume that I am a Christian? Simple idiocy? Lack of imagination? Inability to compose original arguments? Inability to adapt to novel schemata? Self-delusion? Lack of vocabulary?
I assume it is the propensity to wrongly infer your position due to your animosity to their simplistic atheism coupled with a default bipolar view of the argument.
I have enjoyed Jeremy's contributions to The News Quiz a lot, I will click 'listen again'.
"I assume it is the propensity to wrongly infer your position due to your animosity to their simplistic atheism coupled with a default bipolar view of the argument."
That's a nice summary. Do you get this sort over at ML?
"I have enjoyed Jeremy's contributions to The News Quiz a lot, I will click 'listen again'."
Laugh out loud, friend. Just getting on with the Moral Maze at the moment; it's strong stuff.
.
That's a nice summary. Do you get this sort over at ML?
You get all kinds but I think the distribution of types is different on the three boards. (ML, E&F and Today). I think ML is less prone to this sort though.
Laugh out loud, friend. Just getting on with the Moral Maze at the moment; it's strong stuff.
Just finished listening to it. Rather grim.
Here is a spectacle for your ears. As it were.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/
listenagain/
(08:19:20)
Additional material:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=459427&in_page_id=1787&in_a_source
(The link shows entire in view rather than reply mode.)
.
Ah, I heard Hitchens vs Hitchens live. A spectacle indeed.
An interesting review from Peter, thanks.
Question Time this evening. Pete and Chris appear together.
.
Just watching it on the web, since I was watching Keith Allen following in Louis Theroux's footsteps in pursuit of the Phelps family when it was broadcast.
Apart from the issue of the 'supernatural' they seem to be two peas in a pod.
A pity they didn't get round to a knockabout god debate.
Here you are, mate. Listen to the rationalist try to palm off his irrationality:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1
265,Interview-with-Richard-
Dawkins,BBC-Science-Extra-Richard-
Dawkins
Shiftless and his Moral Zeitgeist. Senility kicking in, perhaps.
.
Shiftless and his Moral Zeitgeist. Senility kicking in, perhaps.
A little harsh. The origins and nature of morality have not been adequately described by science. Dawkins concedes this whilst making the point that there is nothing known in principle that will stop a scientific account becoming ever more accurate about it.
"The origins and nature of morality have not been adequately described by science."
I disagree. Only a rabid, evangelical positivist whose madness works against him would suggest an immaterial red herring like a zeitgeist in order to deny religion any oxygen. The origins and nature of morality are adequately explained by sociology. Dawkins' position is indefensible. Sheldrake's ideas looks quite reasonable here, because at least he has no ulterior agenda.
Zeitgeists are what you get when burnt-out scientists do bad philosophy.
.
I disagree. Only a rabid, evangelical positivist whose madness works against him would suggest an immaterial red herring like a zeitgeist in order to deny religion any oxygen.
'Zeitgeist' is as immaterial as 'culture' or 'ethos' or 'fashion'. You would ban such words?
The origins and nature of morality are adequately explained by sociology.
I think it is a bit more complicated than that. I do not deny that science can offer a plausible account of morality. Whether or not it is presently adequate depends on what your purposes are. I think there is still work to be done in this area. I see nothing in principle that prevents an adequate scientific account of morality.
Dawkins' position is indefensible.
I don't think it was his finest hour admittedly. However, I think I got the sense of what he meant.
Sheldrake's ideas looks quite reasonable here, because at least he has no ulterior agenda.
How do you know? I find this unlikely.
Zeitgeists are what you get when burnt-out scientists do bad philosophy.
Or shorthand in an area beset with difficulties of terminology, have a look here for example.
"'Zeitgeist' is as immaterial as 'culture' or 'ethos' or 'fashion'. You would ban such words?"
Zeitgeist refers to a cause. The others do not. I would not ban any of these words but i reserve the right to laugh when Dawkins attempts to kill belief in God by beating it with belief in a different God.
"Whether or not it is presently adequate depends on what your purposes are."
Yes. If you are an evangelical atheist attempting to convince a bucketful of morons that nobody has ever approached these ideas before you, legs akimbo and roaring your iconoclasm, then it's very likely that you will not find current accounts adequate. However, you and I know better than to suppose that the origins of morality are a brave new world, a wild frontier. Dennett and Dawkins are disingenuous in pretending this is so.
"I see nothing in principle that prevents an adequate scientific account of morality."
Involving zeitgeists?
Tell me, please; do you think Dawkins has a leg to stand on with his Shifting Moral Zeitgeist? You heard that BBC interview. He didn't enjoy the hard questions on this issue at all.
"I don't think it was his finest hour admittedly. However, I think I got the sense of what he meant."
So did I. He was speaking nonsense.
"How do you know? I find this unlikely."
Do tell.
"Or shorthand in an area beset with difficulties of terminology"
You suppose Dawkins did not mean zeitgeist when he used the term zeitgeist? Can you imagine what would happen if he posted this idea on E&F? He would be eaten alive, and you would have a place at the high table, I suspect.
You are very generous but Dawkins really doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here. He's up philosophical crap creek without a paddle.
"have a look here for example."
There is free enquiry and then there are websites upon which people publish their unsorted notes.
.
Zeitgeist refers to a cause. The others do not.
If the 'zeitgeist' can be a cause then so can an 'ethos'.
Involving zeitgeists?
I have to admit I would be surprised if zeitgeists were a prominent feature. Full and detailed descriptions tend not to need such shorthand.
Tell me, please; do you think Dawkins has a leg to stand on with his Shifting Moral Zeitgeist?
I think he was tactically unwise, as your criticism demonstrates.
Do tell.
What, Shelldrake's agenda? Well, whilst I cannot know for sure I can think of a plausible evidence based description of his self appointed role as champion underdog and maverick, seeking by the back door to reintroduce mysticism and magical thinking into science in order to bolster his Christian world view. That's not the point though, the point is your blithe assumption that he has no agenda. Care to back that up?
You are very generous but Dawkins really doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here. He's up philosophical crap creek without a paddle.
I certainly think he left himself open to attack by the way he described the origin of morality.
There is free enquiry and then there are websites upon which people publish their unsorted notes.
I think that criticism is unfair, mind you, have you noticed that some peoples unsorted notes are more cogent than others free enquiry? I think Fyfe is on to something.
"If the 'zeitgeist' can be a cause then so can an 'ethos'."
"If"? Heard of a bloke called Hegel, then?
"I have to admit I would be surprised if zeitgeists were a prominent feature."
Thank you.
"Full and detailed descriptions tend not to need such shorthand."
Dawkins may think he is using some kind of shorthand but that's not the case. He is attempting philosophy using philosophical terms. He's making a very bad job of it, too.
"I think he was tactically unwise, as your criticism demonstrates."
Yes, in stepping away from his worms and thinking to himself "Philosophy; I can do that". I suspect he thought he knew what he was saying when all he has really done is demonstrated that he is no polymath.
" in order to bolster his Christian world view. That's not the point though, the point is your blithe assumption that he has no agenda. Care to back that up?"
If he is about the promotion of Christianity then he's a good few years out of date using Platonism.
"I think that criticism is unfair"
The problem with you is that you do not agree with me.
"mind you, have you noticed that some peoples unsorted notes are more cogent than others free enquiry?"
I feel that Fyfe's account is lousy with categories. I know that we cannot get away from words but the further we remove discussion from actual concrete facts into discussing multi-layered meanings and contextual significance the more quickly we end up at a taxonomy or a theology.
I don't think adults do much good free enquiry these days, except in the sciences, the real sciences not the mass of Dawkinsian metaphors which some regard as science, and in mathematics. Children are much better at intellectual free enquiry than adults. Children imagine; adults slice.
"I think Fyfe is on to something."
Sounds familiar.
.
"If"? Heard of a bloke called Hegel, then?
I have. I'm not a fan.
Dawkins may think he is using some kind of shorthand but that's not the case. He is attempting philosophy using philosophical terms. He's making a very bad job of it, too.
I think I am ready to concede that I am not so far from your view on this.
If he is about the promotion of Christianity then he's a good few years out of date using Platonism.
Oh he is Christian, and if the trojan of Platonism is at hand...
Besides, it isn't as if Christianity was reluctant to harmonise with the philosophy of antiquity (Thomism).
The problem with you is that you do not agree with me.
I agree.
I feel that Fyfe's account is lousy with categories.
Let me see how it goes with Iain Walker in E&F and get back to you. Or you could join in.
I don't think adults do much good free enquiry these days, except in the sciences,
In that case I think your view of free enquiry is rather narrow. There is music.
Sounds familiar.
Well, he is.
"I have. I'm not a fan."
Crazy kid with a crazy Cause.
"I think I am ready to concede that I am not so far from your view on this."
Spoilsport.
"Oh he is Christian, and if the trojan of Platonism is at hand..."
It's a shame, isn't it. All those innocents merrily pursuing Platonism before falling into the trap of Christanity. As if.
"Besides, it isn't as if Christianity was reluctant to harmonise with the philosophy of antiquity (Thomism)."
But then, what is?
Can you show that Sheldrake's ideas have a Christian interpretation? I would love to have something in his own words but a good argument will do for me.
"I agree."
Told you so.
"Let me see how it goes with Iain Walker in E&F and get back to you. Or you could join in."
I shall look but I probably won't join in. It's all slicing, which works well with material objects but with ideas it never ends.
"In that case I think your view of free enquiry is rather narrow. There is music."
Not narrow but sufficient.
Funny you should mention music, actually. When I looked at Fyfe's page I wondered if I might feel differently about it if I could read music. Not think differently, mark you.
This sounds like it may be fun today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/
saturday_play.shtml
There is an intriguing snippet of it at the beginning of the latest Material World:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science
/thematerialworld.shtml
Rather a fun discussion.
.
It's a shame, isn't it. All those innocents merrily pursuing Platonism before falling into the trap of Christanity. As if.
If Christianity were antithetical to a Platonist world view then my case would collapse.
Can you show that Sheldrake's ideas have a Christian interpretation? I would love to have something in his own words but a good argument will do for me.
The most I could make a case for is probably that his antipathy to the Neo Darwinist model is both partly motivated by and enabled by his Christian faith. If you can swallow the triune godhead then morphogenetic fields are a breeze to believe in.
I shall look but I probably won't join in.
Spoilsport.
Not narrow but sufficient.
Perhaps narrow and sufficient for your purposes.
This sounds like it may be fun today:
Yes I might catch that.
There is an intriguing snippet of it at the beginning of the latest Material World:
Ha ha the equation of a rose-the origin of my user name.
Do you have a detailed criticism of Fyfe? Or better can I copy your essay so I can win against Iain? What do you mean 'shallow'?
"If Christianity were antithetical to a Platonist world view then my case would collapse."
What about sticky toffee pudding? Or aphids? Are these antithetical to a Platonist world view?
How often do you go to church and find yourself sitting through a sermon Platonism? How many others in the congregation would know what you were talking about?
"The most I could make a case for is probably that his antipathy to the Neo Darwinist model is both partly motivated by and enabled by his Christian faith."
Is he entirely opposed to that model or simply certain representations of it by some people? That model does not answer the questions he asks. I think it is unfair to say that he is in any way motivated or enabled in his dissent by his Christian faith. I would like a fuller account of this, please.
"If you can swallow the triune godhead then morphogenetic fields are a breeze to believe in."
Bring on the Dancing String Theorists.
"Spoilsport."
Well, I could not resist responding to a little trivia.
"Perhaps narrow and sufficient for your purposes."
If an account is wider than necessary in order to be sufficient then you are going wrong.
"Ha ha the equation of a rose-the origin of my user name."
Really? I don't follow.
"Do you have a detailed criticism of Fyfe?"
Not terribly detailed. He strikes me as a man who tries to eat jelly from a bowl by picking it up with jelly. The strawberry jelly isn't firm enough, nor the raspberry. The grape doesn't work nor the orange. Eventually he goes away and tries to mix new flavours; coconut, banana, potatoe, turnip, tulip, bluebell, cactus and whelk. None of these jellies will enable him to pick up the jelly in his bowl and lift it to his mouth and to hide his disappointment and embarrassment from onlookers he points to all these weird flavours of jelly he has cncocted now littering the kitchen floor which nobody will ever eat and which he refuses to clean up because the fact that he couldn't pick jelly up with jelly was everyone else's fault and not his. Wouldn't it have been less mess and more satsfying if he simply fetched a spoon and ate the jelly in his bowl? Jelly, life and the opportunity to make decisions for the benefit of his family, community and society are passing him by while he pretends that other people have a problem making decisions. I have not read past that initial page but I bet he has a politicla agenda and he thinks that his idea-slicing supports this.
The problem is he is treating words as though they were numbers, which we both know they aren't. Words describe, numbers determine. Fyfe is in the redefinition game and it's a waste of time to play along when he reserves the right to change the rules without notice. Of course, you may play the same game but why not simply play Calvinball the traditional way? It's much more fun:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Nook/
2990/cb_rules.htm
Mornington Crescent!
In the end we do what we feel is right. We can think about what we feel ought to be the case but we do what we feel is right. We are all feelers.
"Or better can I copy your essay so I can win against Iain?"
Which essay?
"What do you mean 'shallow'?"
It's not the depth of the pool that matters but how long the sun shines.
.
What about sticky toffee pudding? Or aphids? Are these antithetical to a Platonist world view?
Absolutely not.
Is he entirely opposed to that model or simply certain representations of it by some people?
His views are fundamentally at odds with it.
I think it is unfair to say that he is in any way motivated or enabled in his dissent by his Christian faith.
It might be unfair. To find out I would have to do a detailed examination of the evidence. I am not saying that these things are the case, rather, the point I am making is that considerations of this sort might sound superficially plausible but ultimately they are irrelevant. Sheldrake's ideas will stand or fall on their merits in the end. Nor does it matter one jot if Dawkins' sole motivation is the destruction of religion. It is the argument rather than the motivation that should be judged.
Bring on the Dancing String Theorists.
It would be interesting if there really were godhead theorists. Instead we just have theologians. I suspect you are attempting to draw an equivalence between the two.
If an account is wider than necessary in order to be sufficient then you are going wrong.
I agree.
Not terribly detailed.
But very entertaining. Very amusing jelly images are in my head now. Calvinball is a hoot.
In the end we do what we feel is right. We can think about what we feel ought to be the case but we do what we feel is right. We are all feelers.
I have to agree with you there.
Which essay?
I was rather hoping to take a peek at the one entitled 'Three Bulletproof Arguments Against Iain Walker's Analysis of Fyfe'.
Oh, I forgot, my name is from 'the psiomniac equation' which featured in a science fiction short story I read a long time ago. When plotted it formed the picture very like a rose. The villain of the piece was called Martha Jaques I think.
I can't recall what it is called or who wrote the story.
"Absolutely not."
Then why Christianity? I know the histpry but where is the modern relevance?
"His views are fundamentally at odds with it."
Please refer me to a document.
"It might be unfair. To find out I would have to do a detailed examination of the evidence. I am not saying that these things are the case, rather, the point I am making is that considerations of this sort might sound superficially plausible but ultimately they are irrelevant. Sheldrake's ideas will stand or fall on their merits in the end."
Then why did you bother suggesting he had a Christian agenda in the first place?
"I suspect you are attempting to draw an equivalence between the two."
If it's good enough for you then it's good enough for me.
"I agree."
Then my account is sufficient, not narrow.
"But very entertaining. Very amusing jelly images are in my head now."
Entertaining and it works.
"Calvinball is a hoot."
Pick up a Calvin and Hobbes collection. You'll laugh all week.
"I was rather hoping to take a peek at the one entitled 'Three Bulletproof Arguments Against Iain Walker's Analysis of Fyfe'."
What do you think Iain is saying and what do you think Iain thinks that he is saying? Are either of these what Fyfe is saying?
Personally, I would go straight for the cutlery drawer but if you are already engaged in mixing other flavours you may find you slip on some of the discarded jelly on the floor.
.
"Oh, I forgot, my name is from 'the psiomniac equation' which featured in a science fiction short story I read a long time ago. When plotted it formed the picture very like a rose. The villain of the piece was called Martha Jaques I think.
I can't recall what it is called or who wrote the story."
I shall have a look, thank You.
This message was brought to you by the arbitrary verification string "rcypt", which is rather funny.
.
Then why did you bother suggesting he had a Christian agenda in the first place?
If you recall (or inspect) the context it will be clear to you that I did so in order to make the point that I subsequently spelled out, namely that the arguments must stand or fall on their merits. I did this in the context of your assumption that Sheldrake's ideas are more plausible because he has no ulterior agenda. I think that they would be no more plausible if this were true but the fact that I can sketch a superficially plausible account of a possible agenda for Sheldrake indicates that your assumption of his butter-wouldn't-melt status needs substantiating.
Then my account is sufficient, not narrow.
It can be sufficient for you and appear narrow to me.
What do you think Iain is saying
He is critical of Fyfe, he doesn't buy it at all but I don't know whether this is on similar grounds to your own objections.
"If you recall (or inspect) the context it will be clear to you that I did so in order to make the point that I subsequently spelled out, namely that the arguments must stand or fall on their merits."
Right, so you don't actually think that Sheldrake has an agenda but you object to me agreeing with you on that. Almost makes sense.
"I think that they would be no more plausible if this were true but the fact that I can sketch a superficially plausible account of a possible agenda for Sheldrake indicates that your assumption of his butter-wouldn't-melt status needs substantiating."
You may argue against the assumption if you wish but a man ia never convicted on suspicion alone. Unless you can show an agenda then I am happy not to assume an agenda purely because I may imagine one.
Incidentally, speaking of suspicion, bought a dvd of Kafka's Trial the other day, with that Welsh ham. I can't decide whether to watch that tomorrow or a couple of episodes of Spaced. What do you think? Paranoia or Comedy?
"It can be sufficient for you and appear narrow to me."
Only because you hate giving an inch and so are used to narrow spaces.
"He is critical of Fyfe, he doesn't buy it at all but I don't know whether this is on similar grounds to your own objections."
My objection is the radical criticism that Fyfe’s arguments are epistemological crap. He’s trying to build a cathedral out of dandelion seeds and cobwebs. Iain’s criticism, and I don’t disagree with it, is the same often made against the Categorical Imperative, that the desires described are not those of rational agents operating within predictable, closed systems. We can’t talk about desires as though they were logical values. Desires are wet and squidgey and brittle and combustible and volatile. What’s the purpose of Fyfe’s speculation? To predict people? He’s not the only thinker in history who’s uncomfortable with the idea of opaque people but he’s certainly not going to be one of the most successful in rendering them readable or, and I think this is the futile aim of many moral philosophers, writeable. Psychodynamics was very successful at both, within discrete areas.
This attempt to describe people logically, and that’s what it is, reminds me of something from the old DC comic books, something called the Anti-Life Equation. There was this deep, organising power, a Nemesis within the DC Universe named Darkseid, who bent all his not inconsiderable resources to discovering the supposed logical expression, a more appropriate term than equation I think, of thought which would negate free will in others and allow him to rule the universe. Yes, it was only an arc from a comic book yet it makes as much sense as Fyfe’s work; the obsessive quest for a slavememe born from titanic anal retention.
Putting the 4-colour classics to one side let’s look at an example of Fyfe’s futile attempt to formalise messy humanity; desire aggregates. He’s talking about a mean desire here and while few people would disagree that in crowds some views are more prevalent than others it still shows the sophistical nature of his thinking that he gives no method by which to calculate these means. Presumably he does not see this as a problem, doubtless imagining that these means are to be estimated, still perhaps too tight a word - assessed? - assessed by logician-kings. So Fyfe proposes a logical ground for ethics but no means of working that ground except by intuition.
And Fyfe introduces irrelevancies rather unsubtly equating his ideas to physical theories. That business about the speed of light, for example. Does he think people are stupid enough not to see through that rubbish? Early in his account he asserts that “values are facts” and this dumb gambit is meant to reinforce that assertion and hypnotise us into accepting his equation of the physical with the notional and so accept that the second may be subjected to the same analyses as the first. That rot about carbon compounds in his finger, for example. Of course thoughts and desires are facts, what they aren’t is quantifiable.
Can you tell I am riled by this? There are so many ways of attacking it. I think I shall have a lay down and listen to that Stoppard, but before I do I must ask you to consider how Fyfe’s little ditty rhymes with everything else you may have read on this subject beforehand.
.
"Oh, I forgot, my name is from 'the psiomniac equation' which featured in a science fiction short story I read a long time ago. When plotted it formed the picture very like a rose. The villain of the piece was called Martha Jaques I think.
I can't recall what it is called or who wrote the story."
I just found this. It's rather in keeping with a theme I introduced in my last post:
"The Rose (Charles R. Harness). One of the idiosynchratic classics of SF, in which the women really do get all the best parts. Psychiatrist/dancer/
composer--and mutant--Anna van Tyl is matched against scientist Martha
Jaques in a battle for the body and soul of Martha's husband Ruy and the future of the human race. Both Anna and Ruy are mutating into a higher form of humanity, but Martha is very close to solving the sciomnia equations, the definition of everything, which will exclude art, uncertainty and change."
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/womenb
io/1995-June/002712.html
There's the signpost up ahead...
.
You can say what you like about me but I certainly know how to use a search engine:
http://www.noreascon.org/hugos/retr
ostories/the-rose.html
.
Right, so you don't actually think that Sheldrake has an agenda but you object to me agreeing with you on that. Almost makes sense.
I don't know whether he has, but in the long run it is irrelevant.
What I object to is your assumption on the one hand that Dawkins' agenda is relevant and on the other your naive assumption that Sheldrake is agendaless.
You may argue against the assumption if you wish but a man ia never convicted on suspicion alone. Unless you can show an agenda then I am happy not to assume an agenda purely because I may imagine one.
Nor is a man under suspicion exonerated by fiat. I think it is clear that humans are agenda driven creatures. If Sheldrake had NO agenda then he would not publish. In fact he would probably be facing the window only because the nurses had turned his chair in that direction. Now, I don't think it implausible that his Christianity is implicated in his wish to show that Neo Darwinism is inadequate. If you were a detective assessing motive then that would be equivalent to Sheldrake being the sole beneficiary of the deceased's will. So we have motive, what about means? Well he knows his way around the labyrinthine house of mirrors that constitutes theology. Just the kind of thing he had to navigate to commit the crime. But enough. You know the point I am making. It suits your purpose to assume there is no agenda despite circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
Incidentally, speaking of suspicion, bought a dvd of Kafka's Trial the other day, with that Welsh ham. I can't decide whether to watch that tomorrow or a couple of episodes of Spaced. What do you think? Paranoia or Comedy?
I would go with Spaced. If you choose the episode you will get Paranoia and Comedy all in the same package. I like the Orson Welles version of The Trial though.
Only because you hate giving an inch and so are used to narrow spaces.
Claws in now. I may hate it but at least I do it occasionally.
On your criticism of Fyfe I would say that it is impressive. The only quibble I have is that it is from the WRONG ESSAY. I can't beat Iain over the head with any of that.
I must also commend your search engine skills. You found the story! So it was sciomnia, well the etymology is transparently apposite I suppose.
"What I object to is your assumption on the one hand that Dawkins' agenda is relevant and on the other your naive assumption that Sheldrake is agendaless."
Sheldrake is without agenda, at least of the religio-political type we see in Dawkins.
"Now, I don't think it implausible that his Christianity is implicated in his wish to show that Neo Darwinism is inadequate."
Why? Has Sheldrake ever predicated his biological work upon his religious beliefs? Show me.
"So we have motive, what about means? Well he knows his way around the labyrinthine house of mirrors that constitutes theology. Just the kind of thing he had to navigate to commit the crime. But enough."
Don't tell me, let me guess. You saw a programme on late-night television once and there was a man with a beard and he was very convincing about the taxi drivers, after all.
"You know the point I am making. It suits your purpose to assume there is no agenda despite circumstantial evidence to the contrary."
Well, your point is simply founded in your imagination as far as I can see. You have suspicion but no eveidence.
"I would go with Spaced. If you choose the episode you will get Paranoia and Comedy"
True. That painter character's rather funny. Good actor, you know the one. From Green Wing. Did some good drama on Radio 4.
"I may hate it but at least I do it occasionally."
It would be immodest otherwise.
"On your criticism of Fyfe I would say that it is impressive. The only quibble I have is that it is from the WRONG ESSAY. I can't beat Iain over the head with any of that."
Sorry, but if you want to know what I think it seems to me that you are rather taken with the notation rather than appreciating the idea in context.
I think Iain's on to something.
"I must also commend your search engine skills. You found the story! So it was sciomnia, well the etymology is transparently apposite I suppose."
Thank you. I shall try to read it soon. Seems to be similar to those PKD stories with noumenal scientific threats.
.
Just as an aside, The Eagle ignored my question but is now being ably debated by the very same Iain in the 'God Is The Truth' thread.
Sheldrake is without agenda, at least of the religio-political type we see in Dawkins.
You may say that but having heard him speak on R4 and seen the programme you linked to and read articles about his work, I remain unconvinced that he is agendaless, even in this sense. It is just your assumption that this is so. Unless you have some evidence of course.
Why? Has Sheldrake ever predicated his biological work upon his religious beliefs? Show me.
That is not a necessary condition for him to have an agenda. All I would have to show is that he attempts to subvert scientific paradigms with a common theme of magical thinking in a way not justified by the evidence. I think Zoltan was on to him there.
Don't tell me, let me guess. You saw a programme on late-night television once and there was a man with a beard and he was very convincing about the taxi drivers, after all.
I have seen some of the same evidence that you have.
Well, your point is simply founded in your imagination as far as I can see. You have suspicion but no eveidence.
No, on circumstantial evidence which is enough to cast doubt on your blind faith that he has no axe to grind.
Sorry, but if you want to know what I think it seems to me that you are rather taken with the notation rather than appreciating the idea in context.
Really? How so? Who's notation?
Is Iain on to something? Perhaps and perhaps you are too. I'll have to chew it over and see whether I just liked the Fyfe article because it was shiny.
Let's see if the Eagle bothers to respond this time.
"Just as an aside, The Eagle ignored my question but is now being ably debated by the very same Iain in the 'God Is The Truth' thread."
I think your question was subtle and subtle may often be mistaken for a blithe spanner to board veterans and Iain knows this, hence his overkill on the question marks.
I think The Eagle is putting up a damned good fight against Iain. The little yappy dogs there will get bored with him eventually.
"It is just your assumption that this is so. Unless you have some evidence of course."
Evidence for the absence of an agenda? Don't try to pull this one on me, now. You think there is an agende? Provide hard evidence rather than speculation.
"That is not a necessary condition for him to have an agenda."
It's a necessary condition for me to take your suspicions seriously.
"I have seen some of the same evidence that you have."
Evidence that Sheldrake is Christian, not that his faith dictates his science.
"No, on circumstantial evidence which is enough to cast doubt on your blind faith that he has no axe to grind."
Circumstantial evidence? That will get through peer review any day of the week. With an x in it.
"Really? How so? Who's notation?"
Fyfe's. He didn't use much but it gave the appearence of logic.
"I'll have to chew it over and see whether I just liked the Fyfe article because it was shiny."
You mean you didn't notice all that scientific allusion?
.
Evidence for the absence of an agenda? Don't try to pull this one on me, now.
Like I said, we are agenda driven creatures, Sheldrake would be extraordinary if he had none. The burden of evidence is with you I'm afraid.
It's a necessary condition for me to take your suspicions seriously.
Who is trying to pull one now? I have never claimed that his science is based on his Christianity. If you think that this means his Christianity does not fuel his anti-Darwinian paranormalist magical thinking agenda then you have lost your usually firm grasp of logic.
Evidence that Sheldrake is Christian, not that his faith dictates his science.
Plenty that it influences it though.
Circumstantial evidence? That will get through peer review any day of the week. With an x in it.
The same week that your anti Dawkins rants would get through then.
On Fyfe, I'm fighting my inertia at looking at it all again to see whether I can come back to Walker. We'll see. On The Eagle, its not you is it? If not, time will tell as to whether he will deign to reply.
On second thoughts, looking at The Eagle's latest replies to Iain, I am rather glad he has ignored me:
Iain vs The Eagle
"Like I said, we are agenda driven creatures, Sheldrake would be extraordinary if he had none. The burden of evidence is with you I'm afraid."
The burden is with you to show that he has an agenda to further the Christian worldview through his science. He's an evolutionist, dude.
"I have never claimed that his science is based on his Christianity. If you think that this means his Christianity does not fuel his anti-Darwinian paranormalist magical thinking agenda then you have lost your usually firm grasp of logic."
No claims, then, just lots of vocal, noncommital suspicion.
"Plenty that it influences it though."
Show it, please.
"The same week that your anti Dawkins rants would get through then."
I don't claim circumtantial evidence. I provide documents.
"On Fyfe, I'm fighting my inertia at looking at it all again to see whether I can come back to Walker."
I am sure you can whip him if you try.
Look, were I were a sophist, which I'm not, mind you, I would recommend you go back to post 48, at which his argument hinges:
"But moral value judgements _don't_ refer to desires. If I think or say "Killing people is wrong", I'm not _referring_ to my desire for people not to be killed. I'm _expressing_ that desire, but expressing something isn't the same as referring to it."
Does that last sentence strike you as true? Forget desire aggregates.
None of this invalidates my criticism of Fyfe, of course.
"On The Eagle, its not you is it?"
I am not The Eagle, but I am curious as to why you think I may be. Not angry but surprised.
"time will tell as to whether he will deign to reply."
Good luck. Do you prefer the dispute over the argument?
Are you watching the excellent Rome on BBC2, by the way?
.
Actually, it's BBC1, isn't it.
.
The burden is with you to show that he has an agenda to further the Christian worldview through his science. He's an evolutionist, dude.
It would be if I claimed that he had this specific agenda. I remain unconvinced that you definitely know that he is agendaless.
No claims, then, just lots of vocal, noncommital suspicion.
That's right. You are the one who claims to know that these suspicions are unfounded. Since I think it irrelevant whether or not they are unfounded I'm happy to leave it at that.
Show it, please.
I refer you to the Heretics programme on Sheldrake.
I don't claim circumtantial evidence. I provide documents.
You often provide references to Dawkins in interview and in print. Unfortunately they do not demonstrate the assertions you make. There is nothing other than what could at best be deemed circumstantial in the interview with Dawkins that would directly link his Zeitgeist rambling to his wish to asphyxiate religion.
On Walker's critique of Fyfe, thanks for that, it confirms what I thought might be a vulnerability.
I was being flippant about you being The Eagle. He neither argues like you, nor does he espouse your views. He does not seem to be up to a coherent defense in the face of Walker's criticisms. You would have been, even in role.
I missed the Rome series I'm afraid. I did like I Claudius though.
"I remain unconvinced that you definitely know that he is agendaless."
It is fair to say that Sheldrake is without the agenda you suspect.
"That's right. You are the one who claims to know that these suspicions are unfounded."
I see no reason to suspect otherwise. Do you suspect all evolutionists who are Christian work to further the Christian worlview through their science?
"I refer you to the Heretics programme on Sheldrake."
Precisely, please.
"You often provide references to Dawkins in interview and in print. Unfortunately they do not demonstrate the assertions you make."
Feel free to dispute any you see.
"There is nothing other than what could at best be deemed circumstantial in the interview with Dawkins that would directly link his Zeitgeist rambling to his wish to asphyxiate religion."
Except that Dawkins devotes chapter 7 of The God Delusion to it.
"On Walker's critique of Fyfe, thanks for that, it confirms what I thought might be a vulnerability."
I look forward to your future posts there.
"I was being flippant about you being The Eagle."
He's not a bad sort. There're worse people to whom you may have likened me.
"He does not seem to be up to a coherent defense in the face of Walker's criticisms."
Actually, I would like to see The Eagle argue from contingency. He will be hit with the usual claims about TLE, of course, but that's very rare and has no where near the explanatory ubiquity that it proponents believe.
I Claudius was good, wasn't it. Rome is currently running through its second series. You can buy the first series on dvd. Very high realisation, great script which goes with the history and good acting.
.
It is fair to say that Sheldrake is without the agenda you suspect.
You may know that, I don't.
I see no reason to suspect otherwise. Do you suspect all evolutionists who are Christian work to further the Christian worlview through their science?
You think it unreasonable that only those Christians who oppose Christianity's old enemy, Darwinism, by attempting to smuggle magical thinking into science should be so suspected?
Except that Dawkins devotes chapter 7 of The God Delusion to it.
To what? Zeitgeists?
As for your request for more detailed evidence I don't see that as necessary given I'm not actually making a claim.
Actually, I would like to see The Eagle argue from contingency. He will be hit with the usual claims about TLE, of course, but that's very rare and has no where near the explanatory ubiquity that it proponents believe.
Could you explain how this would run? I am familiar with the argument from contingency and the main counters, but what is TLE?
"You may know that, I don't."
Evidence neither for nor against. Innocent until proven guilty
"Christianity's old enemy, Darwinism"
Christianity and Darwinism aren't enemies. Darwinism contradicts a particular story, nothing more.
"You think it unreasonable that only those Christians who oppose Christianity's old enemy, Darwinism, by attempting to smuggle magical thinking into science should be so suspected?"
I think it's a completely barking idea.
"To what? Zeitgeists?"
Yes.
"As for your request for more detailed evidence I don't see that as necessary given I'm not actually making a claim."
You don't really have an argument, then.
"Could you explain how this would run? I am familiar with the argument from contingency and the main counters, but what is TLE?"
Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Arguments made from it against religious experiences involve the old error of walking down a country lane, hearing hooves and thinking "Zebra".
See Ramachandran and Blakeslee. and Persinger.
.
Evidence neither for nor against. Innocent until proven guilty
There is as much evidence as for the veracity of your assertions about Dawkins.
Christianity and Darwinism aren't enemies. Darwinism contradicts a particular story, nothing more.
They have been enemies and in some quarters they still are. Even the Pope can't commit to the principle wholeheartedly. He had to leave wiggle room.
I think it's a completely barking idea.
Well, you watch Sheldrake's first exposition from The Heretics programme. Timecode 2.15 to 3.20: we see Sheldrake the committed Christian accuse science of being like a religion in its attempt to explain life in mechanistic terms. This demonstrates Sheldrake's thinking as being very much within a religious framework. He sees unsolved problems so he assumes that orthodox science is like a mistaken religious sect. Further evidence of his thinking in these terms can be found between 3.40-3.49.
At 5.59: "..this reductionistic analytical method will never get to the root of the problem." What a familiar refrain from those who are religious.
8.40-9.08-clear evidence of magical thinking.
Steven Rose 14.42-15.42 puts the questions about Sheldrake's agenda. It looks like I'm not the only suspicious one here. In fact, I would say that you are curiously unsuspicious on this matter.
19.40-19.45 sees Sheldrake attracting 'disciples' from the New Age movement.
At 20.57 we see him at a book signing about to attack a further set of scientific 'beliefs'.
21.20-21.35 we see a clear indication of Sheldrake's religious mindset. He finds it extraordinary that life could have no purpose, that it could be a result of 'blind chance' without 'creativity'.
Finally Nicholas Humphrey, Sheldrake's friend and collaborator virtually spells out his agenda between 26.40 and 27.40 after which we see Sheldrake 'inciting his lay readership to take up arms against the enemy'.
No agenda? Pull the other one.
You don't really have an argument, then.
You are the one without argument here. Your assertion that Sheldrake has no agenda does not stand up to scrutiny.
Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.
Ah. I'm unclear what that has to do with the class of Cosmological argument known as arguments from contingency.
"There is as much evidence as for the veracity of your assertions about Dawkins."
Who are you and why have you stolen Psiomniac's identity? Give it back, at once!
"They have been enemies and in some quarters they still are. Even the Pope can't commit to the principle wholeheartedly. He had to leave wiggle room."
The Pope is Christianity? What did he say?
"we see Sheldrake the committed Christian accuse science of being like a religion in its attempt to explain life in mechanistic terms. This demonstrates Sheldrake's thinking as being very much within a religious framework. He sees unsolved problems so he assumes that orthodox science is like a mistaken religious sect. Further evidence of his thinking in these terms can be found between 3.40-3.49."
Good work, Radar. Do we see Sheldrake propose a Christian alternative?
"At 5.59: "..this reductionistic analytical method will never get to the root of the problem." What a familiar refrain from those who are religious."
It's a perfectly scientific perspective. Reductionism won't solve the problem; epigenetics will.
"8.40-9.08-clear evidence of magical thinking."
I don't see that as magical thinking. Entanglement does occur.
"Steven Rose 14.42-15.42 puts the questions about Sheldrake's agenda. It looks like I'm not the only suspicious one here. In fact, I would say that you are curiously unsuspicious on this matter."
I see no reason to be suspicious. Dawkins and Sheldrake are actually quite similar in the way they approach arguments. Both go with awful curiosity and both tell foundation myths for their own thinking set in their respective childhoods. What is magical thinking if not a zeitgeist? Perhaps memes and zeitgeists may be related to Sheldrake's ideas. A strong argument may be made for it.
"19.40-19.45 sees Sheldrake attracting 'disciples' from the New Age movement."
As does Dawkins. Seen Cursus around lately? Shaker? And let's not forget his legion of disciples over at his forum who mount evangelical missions to the BBC. So Sheldrake's ideas have fans. Don't other ideas have fans?
"At 20.57 we see him at a book signing about to attack a further set of scientific 'beliefs'."
Narrative blah, but listening to Sheldrake he has a point. Evolution isn't a process that runs on chance once it has begun. Puddles and ditches, old boy, puddles and ditches!
"21.20-21.35 we see a clear indication of Sheldrake's religious mindset. He finds it extraordinary that life could have no purpose, that it could be a result of 'blind chance' without 'creativity'."
See above. Also, Sheldrake mentions nothing about "creativity". Care to retract?
"Finally Nicholas Humphrey, Sheldrake's friend and collaborator virtually spells out his agenda between 26.40 and 27.40"
Humphrey speaks of what he feels Sheldrake's agenda should be and also of the effect of Sheldrake's work but not of Sheldrake's own agenda.
"after which we see Sheldrake 'inciting his lay readership to take up arms against the enemy'."
That's an awfully dramatic way of putting it. Sheldrake says nothing about either "arms" or "enemies". Don't you think you are perhaps stretching a little?
"No agenda? Pull the other one."
You'll have to wash it first.
"You are the one without argument here. Your assertion that Sheldrake has no agenda does not stand up to scrutiny."
Sheldrake has no agenda which may be considered religio-political, nor have you shown any other.
"Ah. I'm unclear what that has to do with the class of Cosmological argument known as arguments from contingency."
Nothing. I spoke of the apparent contingency between particular thoughts, words and deeds of people such as The Eagle and their practically concomitant religious experiences.
You still working on your absolution, then? I enjoy my vicarious entertainments. Gave the chevalier a pasting the other day but he's hightailed it so I would like to watch another scrap.
.
Who are you and why have you stolen Psiomniac's identity? Give it back, at once!
No, 'tis me. I have pointed in detail to circumstantial evidence of Sheldrake's agenda.
The Pope is Christianity? What did he say?
Apart from John Paul II's 1996 'ensoulment' patch, Rizzo has given the Creationists a boost
I didn't say that the Pope was Christianity. He is a fairly influential figure within it though. There are many examples of Christianity's difficult relationship with Darwinism, ranging from discomfort to outright hostility. (Time for you to use your search engine talents if you don't believe this is so.)
Good work, Radar. Do we see Sheldrake propose a Christian alternative?
What has that got to do with it? I will not fall for your literalistic interpretation. Unless Sheldrake's views involve an Ark you will be blind to his religion inspired agenda?
It's a perfectly scientific perspective. Reductionism won't solve the problem; epigenetics will.
Oh, you think Sheldrake had in mind that emergent phenomena are not reductionist? I don't think so.
I don't see that as magical thinking. Entanglement does occur.
So it does. But it will not save Sheldrake's magical thinking. If you think that morphogenetic fields having a 'memory' for form or pattern transmitted by 'morphic resonance' to future organisms is not evidence of magical thinking merely because you think some cod quantum fairy dust will come to the rescue, then well...who stole the real RR?
Dawkins and Sheldrake are actually quite similar in the way they approach arguments.
Ah, now we begin to make progress. So you admit they both have an agenda?
Both go with awful curiosity and both tell foundation myths for their own thinking set in their respective childhoods. What is magical thinking if not a zeitgeist? Perhaps memes and zeitgeists may be related to Sheldrake's ideas. A strong argument may be made for it.
And now you admit Sheldrake is prone to magical thinking.
Evolution isn't a process that runs on chance once it has begun. Puddles and ditches, old boy, puddles and ditches!
But chance is an indispensable element and Sheldrake can't really cope with that.
See above. Also, Sheldrake mentions nothing about "creativity". Care to retract?
Care for a wager? The loser posts an apology here? Bear in mind I have the timecode of the point at which Sheldrake says "creativity". Or you could salvage some dignity by retracting now.
Sheldrake has no agenda which may be considered religio-political, nor have you shown any other.
I have produced clear evidence of his religio-political agenda, albeit one regarding the politics of science.
I know you never back down so I will leave this here, apart from the wager part. Let's see if you ever give an inch.
"No, 'tis me. I have pointed in detail to circumstantial evidence of Sheldrake's agenda."
Yes. Circumstantial.
"Rizzo has given the Creationists a boost"
He is the Pope. What did you expect him to do? Promote atheism?
"There are many examples of Christianity's difficult relationship with Darwinism, ranging from discomfort to outright hostility. (Time for you to use your search engine talents if you don't believe this is so.)"
Any Catholic of your personal acquaintance?
"What has that got to do with it? I will not fall for your literalistic interpretation."
Everything. You have not shown what you say. Besides, since when was literal a bad thing when in pursuit of facts?
"Oh, you think Sheldrake had in mind that emergent phenomena are not reductionist? I don't think so."
Yes; if they emerge then they are hardly going to fold themselves away now, are they? You can only slice things so thinly before you realise that there is no hidden quantum fairy dust. We cannot learn the method by which the pyramids were raised by grinding down their component blocks to finer and finer sand; so with life.
"If you think that morphogenetic fields having a 'memory' for form or pattern transmitted by 'morphic resonance' to future organisms is not evidence of magical thinking merely because you think some cod quantum fairy dust will come to the rescue, then well...who stole the real RR?"
I do not think that this is magical thinking. Isn't it possible to encode information into energy? It is not that I am sold on morphic resonance, only that I do not dismiss it out of hand. The world is in various particulars predictable, which means that it is patterned. If there are patterns in the world, and there are patterns in the world or mathematics wouldn't work, then these necessarily inform the possible shapes of adjacent patterns. Spiffy or what?
Wow. Lots of Jackdaws around tonight.
"who stole the real RR?"
You will likely think it funny but some paramecium over at the BBC thought I was The Knight Gerund, today. I thought it was funny.
"Ah, now we begin to make progress. So you admit they both have an agenda?"
They both have, but Sheldrake's bear no resemblance to Dawkins' religio-political wedgie.
"But chance is an indispensable element and Sheldrake can't really cope with that."
Apparent chance. I think Sheldrake can cope with it but he reckons he has a better idea. I expect that he's given it some thought. He's quite a clever bloke, you know.
"Care for a wager? The loser posts an apology here? Bear in mind I have the timecode of the point at which Sheldrake says "creativity". Or you could salvage some dignity by retracting now."
I shall allow those 5 seconds of victory. My dignity says hi.
"I know you never back down so I will leave this here, apart from the wager part. Let's see if you ever give an inch."
It's a trivial point. I retract my request for your retraction.
I do not think that Sheldrake is alluding to Creation. He does't strike me as at all mealy-mouthed. Had he intended to say it is all down to God then I am sure that he would have done so.
Now, don't go spending that inch all in one place now, mind.
.
Here you go, pally! Get yer crying gear round this:
http://assets.cambridge.org/9780521
8/27041/sample/9780521827041ws.pdf
.
Yes. Circumstantial.
I think the case I have made is plausible. By that I mean at least as plausible as those you have made against Dawkins.
He is the Pope. What did you expect him to do? Promote atheism
You don't have to be atheist to oppose creationism, ask Conway Morris.
Any Catholic of your personal acquaintance?
You might be surprised how many accept evolution only as far as is compatible with ensoulment. Which in order to be very far at all takes a huge dose of theological double-think.
Everything. You have not shown what you say. Besides, since when was literal a bad thing when in pursuit of facts?
No, I haven't shown what you claim I say. Why would I want to try to show a ridiculous caricature?
We cannot learn the method by which the pyramids were raised by grinding down their component blocks to finer and finer sand; so with life.
We agree about emergent phenomena and reductionism I suspect. My point was that Sheldrake was saying something a bit different to this.
I do not think that this is magical thinking. Isn't it possible to encode information into energy?
Yeah, that is about as convincing as saying a quantum swerve in the synapses saves free will and it isn't magical thinking at all because quantum phenomena are well documented.
I thought it was funny.
Funny 'ha-ha' or funny 'peculiar'?
They both have, but Sheldrake's bear no resemblance to Dawkins' religio-political wedgie.
You have not shown this to be so. I think the differences are swamped by the similarities.
Apparent chance. I think Sheldrake can cope with it but he reckons he has a better idea. I expect that he's given it some thought. He's quite a clever bloke, you know.
Very clever. And if he cannot cope emotionally with life being the result of a blind mechanistic process with chance as an essential ingredient, he might well use this formidable intelligence to try to concoct a more satisfying story. Oh look, he did!
I shall allow those 5 seconds of victory. My dignity says hi.
Your dignity is looking relieved. Smooth salvage operation there.
I do not think that Sheldrake is alluding to Creation. He does't strike me as at all mealy-mouthed. Had he intended to say it is all down to God then I am sure that he would have done so.
Truce.
Now, don't go spending that inch all in one place now, mind.
But I have such plans...
Here you go, pally!
Thanks.
"Truce."
I have satisfied your suspicions, then?
.
If you did not catch this series the first time around then you really must do so this time:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/
civilisation.shtml
Chris Addison's Civilisation, featuring celebrated polymath Professor Austin Herring, emeritus professor of history at Saint Dunstan's College, Cambridge, and author of many seminal works such as "The Naked Apiarist: elementary mistakes in beekeping".
.
I have satisfied your suspicions, then?
In a manner of speaking.
If you did not catch this series the first time around then you really must do so this time:
Thanks again.
"In a manner of speaking."
Say more. I want to know if I should keep throwing stuff.
.
Say more. I want to know if I should keep throwing stuff.
Well, you say Sheldrake is not mealy-mouthed and I agree. I think he is sincere in his view that form is not likely to be an emergent phenomenon resulting from complex interactions of proteins coded by DNA. Do I dismiss his ideas out of hand? No. Do I approve of the way he was treated by the establishment? No.
You say he is not alluding to Creation. I will concede this in return for a credible analysis from you of the following sentence from Sheldrake at timecode 21:24:
"Now, this is ..er..an extraordinary view, there's no purpose in evolution, there's no real creativity, anywhere, it's just blind chance, combined with natural selection...." He then waxes Lamarckian.
"I think he is sincere in his view that form is not likely to be an emergent phenomenon resulting from complex interactions of proteins coded by DNA."
I think he feels that morphogenesis will not be explained by reductionism.
"Do I approve of the way he was treated by the establishment? No."
I may understand the queer reactions of some people, the book burners, but I do not approve if them.
"You say he is not alluding to Creation."
As a single act by an agent, yes, he makes no allusion. He is an evolutionist.
"I will concede this in return for a credible analysis from you of the following sentence from Sheldrake at timecode 21:24:
"Now, this is ..er..an extraordinary view, there's no purpose in evolution, there's no real creativity, anywhere, it's just blind chance, combined with natural selection....""
"Creativity" here does not allude to the act of Creation nor to an ongoing process of Creation by a particular agent but rather is a token of his rejecion of those accounts which appeal to Chance as well as a token of a deeper explanation.
If life gets going then its further evolution is not a matter of chance but of the constraints of its environment, the adjacent patterns. Abiogenesis itself seems to be nothing more than a function of a particular environment. As for Sheldrake's use of the term creativity I see that as no more controversial than references to a blind watchmaker. Life will do what it can to overcome the constraints of its environment by utilising those materials available to it as well as previous solutions to different problems to circumvent the constraints of its environment. There is no intelligence behind this process, no awareness, but there is certainly creativity. Were there not a fortuitous, unconscious creativity within the process of biological evolution then the structures around us would not assume the stamp of design. We'd be nothing but mats of Archaea floating in 5,000,000,000 year old stagnant oceans if there were not a creative impulse within biological evolution which drives life on. Life started almost as soon as it could, it seems; why? Why should rock and water and gas stop being rock and water and gas?
Although I am a fan of Bergson I do not support the idea of an elan vital. I do think that the universe is so patterned that life must arise and must become increasingly complex within certain directions. The details of these complexities are open in the same way that you may travel to your local corner shop by foot, by bicycle, by hang glider or by rolling along the pavement but there are still only so many ways by which you may reach your destination.
Life is a bastard; it doesn't just lie there waiting for chance quantum events to get it out of a sand burrow into the open seas, swimming around, and from there to the shores where it may flop around until further chance quantum events grant it legs that it can go hungrily gallumphing off after other things which were whacked by the magic wand of the chance quantum event fairy before it was, hoping that it will win the lottery and that the CQEF will choose it to develop intelligence rather than anything which came before it or which came after it.
Life damn well gets up off its arse and makes the best of things. Life creates. This creativity is in evolution but we don't like the idea and so we throw ourselves prostate before Chance.
Extended pheotypes; why? Think about caddis fly larvae. Think about tool making. Think about termite mounds. Creativity. Think about our societies. Did our societies come about by chance? According to current thinking it must be so, because it is said that intelligence came about by chance. Or is intelligence a special gift from the CQEF, from God?
No Gods, no zeitgeists. Only contiguous patterns.
I interpret these as Sheldrake's unexpressed views. This is credible. He is certainly familiar with his subject, biology, and has shown himself a capable researcher. He has a familiarity with the formal ideas which support the idea of creativity within evolution. He makes no reference to Creation in that video nor have I ever read of him asserting that evolution is all down to God.
.
"we throw ourselves prostate before Chance."
This is one typographical error I really must correct. The above should read:
"we throw ourselves prostrate before Chance."
.
I wasn't going to say anything but it reminds me of an incident when a charity donor, in front of the head of a university medical school, related the tale of his hand problems, saying he had undergone 'carnal tunneling'.
The term analysis always makes me crack a smile.
.
Meanwhile...
I think he feels that morphogenesis will not be explained by reductionism.
But 'reductionism' is such a primitive concept in itself these days. Who buys it? Ever heard of the game of life?
On the rest of your analysis, I agree that Sheldrake is not pointing to Creation with a big 'C'. I never claimed that he was. I have consistently resisted this interpretation of my reservations about his position. I do not think his evolutionary theory is specifically Christian and have never argued this. However, he is not satisfied with a description that is devoid of 'purpose' and 'creativity'. You may persist in your view that this is independent of his Christian faith, but I remain unconvinced.
I liked your phrase 'life is a bastard', it sums things up rather well. My point is that I agree with you, not with Sheldrake, that creativity is evident, but it appears not to need the intervention or direction of anything.
"But 'reductionism' is such a primitive concept in itself these days."
Yet you presented it above as something which rejection practically implies a Creationist perspective:
"At 5.59: "..this reductionistic analytical method will never get to the root of the problem." What a familiar refrain from those who are religious."
I agree with your revised position, as you can see from my earlier comments.
"Ever heard of the game of life?"
Yes. I think I read of it first in Tipler, donkeys ago. You must read what I said above in light of that Game.
"On the rest of your analysis, I agree that Sheldrake is not pointing to Creation with a big 'C'. I never claimed that he was. I have consistently resisted this interpretation of my reservations about his position."
What is your intepretation of the phrase you highlighted:
"21.20-21.35 we see a clear indication of Sheldrake's religious mindset. He finds it extraordinary that life could have no purpose, that it could be a result of 'blind chance' without 'creativity'."
You suspect Sheldrake of pushing a religious agenda and cite his use of the word "creativity". What am I supposed to think?
"However, he is not satisfied with a description that is devoid of 'purpose' and 'creativity'. You may persist in your view that this is independent of his Christian faith, but I remain unconvinced."
I do not get this. You say that you have not held the position that Sheldrake sees creativity in evolution as a result of his religious beliefs but now you reject the idea that his views are independent of his Christianity because he referred to creativity? What exactly are you arguing here?
"I liked your phrase 'life is a bastard', it sums things up rather well. My point is that I agree with you, not with Sheldrake, that creativity is evident, but it appears not to need the intervention or direction of anything."
I honestly think that Sheldrake agrees with us. He bemoaned the fact that popular accounts decry "creativity" in evolution. His comments may be taken as favouring a religious account but I believe that's because we have been primed by a lot of propaganda against him over the years. There is a lot more to Sheldrake than hymns sung around the kitchen table; the man is dangerously bright and well-read, and his ideas are recognised as running parallel to some deeply radical philosophy. You can keep yer Plato.
Not once did Sheldrake blame everything on God and we both agree that he is not backward in coming forward. Had he felt it were the case then he would have taken the opportunity. The Heretics show was the perfect vehicle. I am afraid that he is not the religious nut many would like him to be. His ideas have merit.
Here is a site you may wish to browse through:
http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.
html
And life is a bastard.
.
Yet you presented it above as something which rejection practically implies a Creationist perspective:
That was not my intention. I'll try to clarify.
I agree with your revised position, as you can see from my earlier comments.
I don't think I have revised my position. Part of the cause of the miscommunication [I blame myself] is that I did not clarify the meaning of this remark of mine sufficiently:
"Oh, you think Sheldrake had in mind that emergent phenomena are not reductionist? I don't think so."
You seemed to take this to mean that my criticism of this passage:
"At 5.59: "..this reductionistic analytical method will never get to the root of the problem." What a familiar refrain from those who are religious."
implies my support for reductionism. It does not. My point is that naive reductionism is dead and Sheldrake knows full well that even the most die hard Darwinists are fully aware of emergent phenomena. He is therefore using a straw man tactic that in my experience, is often deployed by theists.
You suspect Sheldrake of pushing a religious agenda and cite his use of the word "creativity". What am I supposed to think?
But you say that you and I agree with Sheldrake that the evolution of life is redolent with creativity. I think I agree with you that creativity abounds but Sheldrake seems to be saying that it is incompatible with strict Darwinism, which I think is nonsense. Your explanation of this is that Sheldrake is in fact criticising popular accounts for decrying "creativity" in evolution. I don't think that is credible. Many popular accounts I have read do in fact talk about creativity. They are careful to point out that such things as 'design', 'creativity' and 'purpose' are to be understood in the context of blind algorithmic processes though. I put it to you that this is what Sheldrake cannot stomach and the reason is no doubt complex but I think it is influenced by his Christianity. More on that later.
I do not get this. You say that you have not held the position that Sheldrake sees creativity in evolution as a result of his religious beliefs but now you reject the idea that his views are independent of his Christianity because he referred to creativity? What exactly are you arguing here
It seems to me that there is a problem of a false dichotomy here. Sheldrake implies that he sees the orthodox account of evolution as being devoid of creativity or purpose with arbitrariness at its core. He expresses his difficulty with this. He provides an alternative which seems like magical thinking to me.
Now I can assert that Sheldrake's Christianity was an influence on this without asserting that the result is either specifically Christian or that the mechanism he proposes requires a meddling deity of any kind.
It could have been that Sheldrake were Hindu and this would have provided the motivation to say that the processes of evolution are intimately tied up with the transmission of pattern. Then, evolution loses its potentially dangerous Universal Acid status and fits snugly into a theist universe where god is the author of all the laws that give rise to patterns and they are transmitted in ways that elude that troublesome arbitrariness.
Not once did Sheldrake blame everything on God
No, he didn't have to because it is a given.
The issues that theists disagree on regarding evolution seem to be about how interventionist god has to be in the universe. Some Christians seem to think god set it all running and evolution, in accordance with strict Darwinian principles, produced us as well as the rest of life. Other Christians are on the continuum toward Creationism.
"My point is that naive reductionism is dead and Sheldrake knows full well that even the most die hard Darwinists are fully aware of emergent phenomena. He is therefore using a straw man tactic that in my experience, is often deployed by theists."
It's not impossible but I don't think the ideas we are discussing here are so widespread as we might wish. Many people do focus entirely upon genes without any thought to their status as cogs, as moving parts. Clocks tick; cogs don't.
.
"But you say that you and I agree with Sheldrake that the evolution of life is redolent with creativity. I think I agree with you that creativity abounds but Sheldrake seems to be saying that it is incompatible with strict Darwinism, which I think is nonsense."
Strict Darwinsim as laid down by Darwin. Certainly Darwin seemed to think it was.
"Your explanation of this is that Sheldrake is in fact criticising popular accounts for decrying "creativity" in evolution. I don't think that is credible. Many popular accounts I have read do in fact talk about creativity. They are careful to point out that such things as 'design', 'creativity' and 'purpose' are to be understood in the context of blind algorithmic processes though."
A little poetry thrown in to sweeten the positivism but the caveat you mention still worships at the altar of the CQEF, permitting readers to believe that mutation is unrestrained and that a fish is just as likely to develop wings as fins and that natural selection will favour the latter.
"I put it to you that this is what Sheldrake cannot stomach and the reason is no doubt complex but I think it is influenced by his Christianity."
I do not know but I suspect not. How does Christianity benefit from billions of years of purposeful evolution when its God could just set thngs up as He chooses, like chessmen on a board?
"Sheldrake implies that he sees the orthodox account of evolution as being devoid of creativity or purpose with arbitrariness at its core. He expresses his difficulty with this. He provides an alternative which seems like magical thinking to me."
I don't think so. He does not either propose a mechanism of creativity nor does he identify a purpose. I do not see the alternative you say that he provides therefore I see nothing which may be termed magical thinking.
"Now I can assert that Sheldrake's Christianity was an influence on this without asserting that the result is either specifically Christian or that the mechanism he proposes requires a meddling deity of any kind."
You may, but what's your argument? If it is that the magical thinking in Christianity has somehow compelled Sheldrake to propose an entirely unrelated piece of magical thinking within his scientific work then why Morphic Resonance and not Metempsychosis or Mermaids or Extradimensional Dragons or Harvey the Rabbit?
"It could have been that Sheldrake were Hindu and this would have provided the motivation to say that the processes of evolution are intimately tied up with the transmission of pattern."
Rather than other forms of magical thinking such as the identification of Flying Aspidistra, Borrowers or Cheshire Cats?
"Then, evolution loses its potentially dangerous Universal Acid status"
I hear this Universal Acid thing a lot. I think it's lazy and obstructive to promote evolution by natural selection asthe single idea may explain everything. I am not accusing you of these things. I know that you are simply making an economic argument and are aware that natural selection does not even come close to explaining everything.
"and fits snugly into a theist universe where god is the author of all the laws that give rise to patterns and they are transmitted in ways that elude that troublesome arbitrariness."
That arbitrariness is troubling but I think we have to put up with it or go with that barking multiverse idea. Or God.
.
"No, he didn't have to because it is a given."
This is beginning to look like a hopeless argument.
Does Sheldrake make scientific arguments which appeal to his Christian beliefs or not? If so then where?
"The issues that theists disagree on regarding evolution seem to be about how interventionist god has to be in the universe."
Yet Sheldrake's scientific works do not appeal to Christianity.
.
Let us not lose sight of how this particular part of the discussion started. It was because I expressed skepticism over your portrayal of Sheldrake as agendaless.
I think morphogenetic fields exhibit all the attributes of magical thinking and I would think so if Sheldrake were an atheist.
I do not think his theories about evolution are specifically Christian. I do think the fact that he has a religious world view is likely to have influenced his assessment that blind algorithmic processes with inherent arbitrary properties are unsatisfactory as an explanation of forms of life. I could be wrong about that of course but his words implied to me that the whole thing makes more sense to him if there is a 'purpose'. The mechanism he proposes seems to be more consonant with this notion from his point of view although we may not share that assessment. Your explanation of this passage about 'purpose', 'chance' and 'creativity' is also plausible but ironically it still supports my central thesis, which is that Sheldrake has an agenda.
I agree that we have to put up with the arbitrariness. I do not think my argument is hopeless, it is just misunderstood. Remember, for those who believe in a creator god, it is not a question of whether, but when they press the goddunnit button.
"Let us not lose sight of how this particular part of the discussion started. It was because I expressed skepticism over your portrayal of Sheldrake as agendaless."
Rings a bell.
"I think morphogenetic fields exhibit all the attributes of magical thinking and I would think so if Sheldrake were an atheist."
What are these attributes, please?
"I do think the fact that he has a religious world view is likely to have influenced his assessment that blind algorithmic processes with inherent arbitrary properties are unsatisfactory as an explanation of forms of life."
Why? Are the religious opposed to blind algorithmic processes? Further, what about Morphic Resonance denies the blindly algorithmic in morphogenesis? Lastly, for now, isn't it true that Sheldrake is simply proposing physical laws which would not interfere with those already described?
"I could be wrong about that of course but his words implied to me that the whole thing makes more sense to him if there is a 'purpose'."
I think that he belongs to the "Life's a Bastard" camp, where life is viewed as having a lot more get up and go than your average soap bubble or puddle of rain. I think life has a purpose but I don't see that as being conferred from outside.
"Your explanation of this passage about 'purpose', 'chance' and 'creativity' is also plausible but ironically it still supports my central thesis, which is that Sheldrake has an agenda."
All you asked of me was a credible account. I think plausible satisfies that criterion. My position is that Sheldrake does not have a religio-political agenda such as Dawkins'; you have not shown such. You clear the board away.
Sheldrake's agenda seems to be that of any other serious biologist; to answer questions about biology.
"I do not think my argument is hopeless, it is just misunderstood."
Or misconceived.
"Remember, for those who believe in a creator god, it is not a question of whether, but when they press the goddunnit button."
Doesn't look like Sheldrake is going to do it at the same time as his science, now, does it, which is where it would count. It's not like he hasn't had the opportunity. Remember that he has eminent opposition because he is an eminent scientist. Not even his opponents have accused him of appealing to God and I am sure that they would not miss the opportunity to say so were it the case.
Loved the Life animation, incidentally. Got any more cool stuff like that?
.
What are these attributes, please?
"One of the driving principles of magical thinking is the notion that things that resemble each other are causally connected in some way that defies scientific testing "--from this article.
And, according to Sheldrake, we have these forms that resemble prior forms which are transmitted in such a way (morphic resonance) that defies scientific testing.
Why? Are the religious opposed to blind algorithmic processes?
Sheldrake strongly implies that he is. He has this in common with those who view the world in terms of some grand plan or other. It is only a question of when they push that button.
Further, what about Morphic Resonance denies the blindly algorithmic in morphogenesis?
That is an interesting question. If Sheldrake had the remotest idea how morphic resonance might work in terms of what we already know about physics then he might be able to devise experiments that were more direct than the unsuccessful indirect ones he has tried so far. We might then be able to answer this question.
I think that he belongs to the "Life's a Bastard" camp, where life is viewed as having a lot more get up and go than your average soap bubble or puddle of rain. I think life has a purpose but I don't see that as being conferred from outside.
To be honest, I'm with you. I'm not sure about him though, he seems a bit odd.
All you asked of me was a credible account. I think plausible satisfies that criterion.
I agree. Perhaps I should post you a gold star.
My position is that Sheldrake does not have a religio-political agenda such as Dawkins'; you have not shown such. You clear the board away.
Did I ask you if you played chess? Fancy a game? Or how about UT2004?
Sheldrake is into the religio-political game up to his nostrils and you know it.
Sheldrake's agenda seems to be that of any other serious biologist; to answer questions about biology.
Yes and all the other serious biologists dislike his hairstyle and therefore refuse to take him seriously.
Or misconceived.
I'll stick with 'misunderstood' if it's all the same to you.
Doesn't look like Sheldrake is going to do it at the same time as his science, now, does it, which is where it would count.
He is clever, clever enough not to press in public whilst wearing his lab coat.
Loved the Life animation, incidentally. Got any more cool stuff like that?
You will be the first to know. I am aware that you have drawn my attention to much more stuff than I could possibly reciprocate given my dereliction of duty on the knowing what is out there front. Thanks again.
"And, according to Sheldrake, we have these forms that resemble prior forms which are transmitted in such a way (morphic resonance) that defies scientific testing."
Sheldrake has not said that MR may not be tested.
"Sheldrake strongly implies that he is."
No such implication. Sheldrake rejects chance and not algorithm.
"If Sheldrake had the remotest idea how morphic resonance might work in terms of what we already know about physics then he might be able to devise experiments that were more direct than the unsuccessful indirect ones he has tried so far."
You likely would not find any particles. I think Sheldrake feels that morphic fields are more radical than that, one of the things behind particles. Something like gravity; no sign of gravitons but lots of evidence of the phenomenon of gravity.
Still, nothing in Sheldrake's account implies anything which is not blindly algorithmic.
"I'm not sure about him though, he seems a bit odd."
Oddness is simply a variety of charisma. We find oddness in a lot of scientists who step beyond materialism into philosophy. Dawkins, for example, is deeply odd and often contradicts his claimed materialism with lurches into metaphysics and wild speculation.
Personal oddness is neither here nor there, though, when we must consider a man's ideas. I fear that many people have been influenced again Sheldrake's integrity by the kind of measured hysteria we have seen on that video.
"I agree. Perhaps I should post you a gold star."
Rather concede that Sheldrake was not alluding to Creation and that therefore there is no evidence in this video for the religious motivations which you allege against Sheldrake.
"Did I ask you if you played chess? Fancy a game?"
Infrequently but I would certainly play you. Do you know of any good robot player sites?
"Or how about UT2004?"
What's that?
"Sheldrake is into the religio-political game up to his nostrils and you know it."
I see no evidence for this charge.
"Yes and all the other serious biologists dislike his hairstyle and therefore refuse to take him seriously."
I think he has offended a great many people simply by taking a stand against Imperial Darwinism. You know, all that stuff about universal acid.
"I'll stick with 'misunderstood' if it's all the same to you."
So you misunderstood. That's no crime.
"He is clever, clever enough not to press in public whilst wearing his lab coat."
I shall take that as your admission that there is no evidence for your charges.
"You will be the first to know. I am aware that you have drawn my attention to much more stuff than I could possibly reciprocate given my dereliction of duty on the knowing what is out there front. Thanks again."
You are welcome and thanks. I'm notionally promiscuous while you are married to, what?
.
Sheldrake has not said that MR may not be tested.
He doesn't need to. His tests of the effects predicted by the existence of morphic resonance have shown the theory to be wanting but he has not even attempted to specify morphic resonance in such a way or in sufficient detail so that it could be tested directly. That is because he has no idea how it might work other than in a very vague magical thinking kind of way.
No such implication. Sheldrake rejects chance and not algorithm.
But a blind algorithm with a significant arbitrary or chance element is what he is implying is unsatisfactory. I'm sure he would be happy with an algorithmic interpretation of morphic resonance because the algorithm would hardly be 'blind' in the same sense would it?
You likely would not find any particles. I think Sheldrake feels that morphic fields are more radical than that, one of the things behind particles. Something like gravity; no sign of gravitons but lots of evidence of the phenomenon of gravity.
I would not rule it out. Time will tell. Do you think you would bet on gravitons or morphogenetic fields?
Rather concede that Sheldrake was not alluding to Creation and that therefore there is no evidence in this video for the religious motivations which you allege against Sheldrake.
I do not concede this.
I see no evidence for this charge.
It is plain to see.
So you misunderstood. That's no crime.
You got the above sentence wrong. But that's no crime. The word 'you' should read 'you're'.
I shall take that as your admission that there is no evidence for your charges.
I shall take this sentence as your complete and unconditional acceptance that my point of view is correct on this matter. Seems only fair.
On the chess front:
Infrequently but I would certainly play you. Do you know of any good robot player sites?
I don't know about robots but I was thinking of http://play.yahoo.com
UT2004 is a game called Unreal Tournament on the pc. it is a bit faster than chess.
"His tests of the effects predicted by the existence of morphic resonance have shown the theory to be wanting"
His predictions have not been supported by the data, but then they were unusual predictions. I feel he should have stayed with morphogenesis, personally, and not moved into the consciousness market.
"That is because he has no idea how it might work other than in a very vague magical thinking kind of way."
Speaking of "magical thinking", your man Stevens seems to have a very vague idea about the world himself:
"According to anthropologist Dr. Phillips Stevens Jr., magical thinking involves several elements, including a belief in the interconnectedness of all things through forces and powers that transcend both physical and spiritual connections."
He's either not a very good writer or he actually believes that there are such things as "spiritual connections". If the first then Stevens' argument is no more coherent than that of those silly people who point out contradictions in the Bible. I note he is appealing to neurology, which as we both know is the new evolutionary biology, to account for "magical thinking". He's on a hiding to nothing there. Stevens' field seems to be African sculpture, from what I can see on JSTOR, and he gets acknowledgements in papers such as:
"The Devil-Worshippers at the Prom: Rumor-Panic as Therapeutic Magic"
"Satanic Cultural Rumors as Contemporary Legend"
"Symbolism in Olukun Mud Art"
"Joking, Affinity and the Exchange of Ritual Services Among the Kiga of Northern Rwanda: An Essay on Joking Relationship Theory"
"The Power of Words in African Verbal Arts"
"How Truly Traditional Is Our Traditional History? The Case of Samuel Johnson and the Recording of Yoruba Oral Tradition"
Some of those papers could have been written by Profesor Austin Herring. These are some of his:
"Bachama Joking Categories: Toward New Perspectives in the Study of Joking Relationships"
"Social Science Involvement in African Development Planning"
No original research on "magical thinking" nor operational or devotional magic. Really, this isn't his field and I advise you to take his pronouncements with a pinch of salt, which amount to nothing more than summary jottings namechecking a number of prominent paper tigers and includes, bizarrely, a little Shakespeare:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-
11/alternative.html
If you want an overview of the Western esoteric tradition then go to Yates. Your man Stevens has nothing to say. His swipe at Sheldrake in the site to which you linked was a cheap shot, portraying Sheldrake as something he is not.
I wish anthropologists would leave history to the historians.
"But a blind algorithm with a significant arbitrary or chance element is what he is implying is unsatisfactory."
Yes, as an account. I agree. There is no randomness in the world, only complexity.
"I'm sure he would be happy with an algorithmic interpretation of morphic resonance because the algorithm would hardly be 'blind' in the same sense would it?"
Of course Sheldrake would be happy with this interpretation because it's what he proposed from the outset. From the publication of ANSOL Sheldrake has seen morphic resonance as working to algorithm, as natural laws. He has never said otherwise. Leave your inferences at the door, please.
"Do you think you would bet on gravitons or morphogenetic fields?"
I am not fond of either idea, honestly.
"I do not concede this."
Too late.
"It is plain to see."
That I see no evidence for the charge. I see you refer to implications, each of which I have taken seriously and discussed with you but you have not provided anything substantial. We may joke about an inch of territory here and there but I hope you would appreciate that I am arguing fairly with you.
"You got the above sentence wrong. But that's no crime. The word 'you' should read 'you're'."
Ruthless.
"I shall take this sentence as your complete and unconditional acceptance that my point of view is correct on this matter. Seems only fair."
Now, don't be like that. My confidence in you is such that were this exchange happening between two other people I feel you would accept the particular point I made here. What you said isn't fair. You wish me to judge Sheldrake now on something that he hasn't done, and isn't likely to do but which you say he will do in the future.
"I don't know about robots but I was thinking of http://play.yahoo.com"
I shall have a look at it.
"UT2004 is a game called Unreal Tournament on the pc. it is a bit faster than chess."
Strategy or Shoot-'Em-Up?
.
His predictions have not been supported by the data, but then they were unusual predictions.
I don't see why that should be a factor. Some of the predictions of quantum theory were very unusual.
I feel he should have stayed with morphogenesis, personally, and not moved into the consciousness market.
I think you are probably right there though.
Speaking of "magical thinking", your man Stevens seems to have a very vague idea about the world himself:
That's a fair point and I enjoyed your Herring comparison.
Yes, as an account. I agree. There is no randomness in the world, only complexity.
Interesting point but something of a can of worms.
Sheldrake has seen morphic resonance as working to algorithm, as natural laws. He has never said otherwise.
I agree.
Leave your inferences at the door, please.
Shall I leave them here next to this pile about Dawkins of yours?
I am not fond of either idea, honestly.
At least we agree on some fundamentals.
Too late.
I have thought of another drinking game. Each of us, in turn, attempts to explain to the other that morphic resonance is not like magical thinking at all. If we dissolve into laughter during the attempt we have to take a drink.
That I see no evidence for the charge. I see you refer to implications, each of which I have taken seriously and discussed with you but you have not provided anything substantial. We may joke about an inch of territory here and there but I hope you would appreciate that I am arguing fairly with you.
Yes and I have met your objections and clarified what I meant.
My position remains that the views Sheldrake holds can plausibly be seen as influenced by his religious world view and that the evidence is circumstantial and can be interpreted differently as you do. I do not disagree that your interpretation also fits the evidence. Yet, despite saying that you refer to documents when taking a pop at Dawkins, in fact you refer to exactly the same kind of source material, interviews, articles and the like and you make interpretations of circumstantial evidence to deduce propositions of the form 'Dawkins says X because of his religio-political agenda.' These propositions are no more sound than mine are about Sheldrake. Go on, prove it ain't so!
Now, don't be like that.
Come now, you started it, I was just replying rather flippantly.
On the question of direct evidence, remember I said that the evidence would be circumstantial. My whole Sheldrake argument is nothing more than a pastiche of the ones you come up with about Dawkins. I have said before that I think Dawkins is prone to many of the follies that you accuse him of, I am not defending him at all but I do detect favouritism on your part regarding Sheldrake, that is my only beef. And by the way, I wonder if I am equally or more likely to concede a point to you than to most.
Strategy or Shoot-'Em-Up?
It is FPS deathmatch.
For RTS I would opt for Homeworld but you would whup my ass.
"It is FPS deathmatch.
For RTS I would opt for Homeworld but you would whup my ass."
FPS? RTS?
WTF?
.
Sorry.
FPS = 'first person shooter' which means a shootemup from first person perspective.
RTS = 'real time strategy' as opposed to turn based games.
"I don't see why that should be a factor. Some of the predictions of quantum theory were very unusual."
If biology were a matter of mathematics we would all be Olympians. Well, those us can do hard sums. The rest could pay for it and we would be rich Olympians.
"That's a fair point and I enjoyed your Herring comparison."
Who's Whom: A Pedant's Directory.
"Interesting point but something of a can of worms."
Only over on the BBC, I should think.
"Shall I leave them here next to this pile about Dawkins of yours?"
The difference here is that according to you Sheldrake is brimming over with implications which support your suspicions while my criticisms of Dawkins are very much to what Dawkins asserts, hence my very particular reference to documents when presenting these criticisms.
"I have thought of another drinking game. Each of us, in turn, attempts to explain to the other that morphic resonance is not like magical thinking at all. If we dissolve into laughter during the attempt we have to take a drink."
Well, I am afraid that you might get very much more drunk than I, if only because I think I've eaten a lot more paper on the subject of "magical thinking" than yourself. Would it be possible to tweak the format a bit, that we might present particular phenomena as examples of MR. Melting ice, for example. Or fetiform teratoma.
Actually, I seem to recall Sheldrake referring to such things as freezing and boiling points as the results of formative causation.
"Yes and I have met your objections and clarified what I meant."
I used the word "appreciate" and that could have come across as an ettempt at patronising you. If it did then I apologise. I should have used the word "acknowledge".
"My position remains that the views Sheldrake holds can plausibly be seen as influenced by his religious world view and that the evidence is circumstantial and can be interpreted differently as you do."
I welcome your clarifications and they sometimes throw a more meaningful light on your position but I don't think anyone could have done much with simple suspicions.
As to "interpretated differently", I do not see the point in inferring from a particular absence of argument in a man's argument to an agenda or any other confection unless that man is specifically asked to comment upon the thing which is absent.
"I do not disagree that your interpretation also fits the evidence."
See above.
"Yet, despite saying that you refer to documents when taking a pop at Dawkins, in fact you refer to exactly the same kind of source material, interviews, articles and the like and you make interpretations of circumstantial evidence to deduce propositions of the form 'Dawkins says X because of his religio-political agenda.' These propositions are no more sound than mine are about Sheldrake. Go on, prove it ain't so!"
Right-ho.
I refer directly to Dawkins' words while you refer to something you suspect Sheldrake will do at an unspecified point in the future when he thinks nobody's looking.
Your turn.
"Come now, you started it, I was just replying rather flippantly."
I have a habit of ploughing through.
"On the question of direct evidence, remember I said that the evidence would be circumstantial."
Right, I remember now. So if we allow for the fact that circumstantial evidence never really stands up to scrutiny then you had a pretty good argument.
"My whole Sheldrake argument is nothing more than a pastiche of the ones you come up with about Dawkins."
Really? I'm going to have to read the whole thing again, now. Any particular points I should keep an eye out for?
"I have said before that I think Dawkins is prone to many of the follies that you accuse him of, I am not defending him at all but I do detect favouritism on your part regarding Sheldrake, that is my only beef."
I happen to have find Sheldrake's prose more personable and, you mayn't like this at all, Dawkins' prose frequently pernicious. Dawkins' posturing just makes my skin crawl; his arguments are the worst kind of sophistry and he's actually leaving young people more ignorant and less rational than when he found them. Dawkins is really queering the field like nobody's business.
"And by the way, I wonder if I am equally or more likely to concede a point to you than to most."
Point taken.
.
"FPS = 'first person shooter' which means a shootemup from first person perspective.
RTS = 'real time strategy' as opposed to turn based games. "
Sounds fun. These things need anything beyond a keyboard, then? And where might I take a look?
.
If biology were a matter of mathematics we would all be Olympians. Well, those us can do hard sums. The rest could pay for it and we would be rich Olympians.
Except, some aspects of phenomena are amenable to a mathematical treatment across the board, biology, physics chemistry, sociology, music, you name it. Sadly, it's just a model, not Camelot. So we can have devices that depend on the findings of quantum mechanics but we haven't got flying cars or computers we can talk to and get sense back. Why do we have so many remote controls? Because voice recognition technology sucks. Don't single out biology.
The difference here is that according to you Sheldrake is brimming over with implications which support your suspicions while my criticisms of Dawkins are very much to what Dawkins asserts, hence my very particular reference to documents when presenting these criticisms.
No, don't do yourself down, you go far beyond what Dawkins asserts and into the same territory as I did with Sheldrake, you speculate about why he asserts what he does and conclude, from circumstantial evidence, that it is all down to his religio-political agenda.
if only because I think I've eaten a lot more paper on the subject of "magical thinking" than yourself.
A pity it seems not to have furnished you with an ability to detect an obvious example. Perhaps it got in the way. Wood, trees, that kind of thing.
Actually, I seem to recall Sheldrake referring to such things as freezing and boiling points as the results of formative causation.
I think you are right, I remember that too.
As to "interpretated differently", I do not see the point in inferring from a particular absence of argument in a man's argument to an agenda or any other confection unless that man is specifically asked to comment upon the thing which is absent.
I gave a plausible account based on what Sheldrake actually said. With timecodes. Your attempt to imply that I am dealing with something absent does not work.
I refer directly to Dawkins' words while you refer to something you suspect Sheldrake will do at an unspecified point in the future when he thinks nobody's looking.
Your turn.
See above.
Just in case you need a clue though, the lab coat comment of mine is about a philosophical stance, if you believe goddunnit, as Sheldrake says he does, then it really is a matter of 'when' not 'if' you think god is responsible, whether in a meddling 'theistic evolution' kind of way, or a wind up the universe and let it go way. My main argument was about what he said. Just like yours about Dawkins are.
Right, I remember now. So if we allow for the fact that circumstantial evidence never really stands up to scrutiny then you had a pretty good argument.
Physician, heal thyself.
I happen to have find Sheldrake's prose more personable
Fair enough. I suspect this is a difference in taste, an aesthetic quibble.
Sounds fun. These things need anything beyond a keyboard, then? And where might I take a look?
These are pc games and I use only a standard querty keyboard. You would also need to download or buy a dvd with the required game. Unreal Tournament and Homeworld have websites. I suspect chess might be the thing though.
"Except, some aspects of phenomena are amenable to a mathematical treatment across the board, biology, physics chemistry, sociology, music, you name it."
You said it; some aspects.
"Don't single out biology."
I did not think that I was being unfair.
"No, don't do yourself down, you go far beyond what Dawkins asserts and into the same territory as I did with Sheldrake, you speculate about why he asserts what he does and conclude, from circumstantial evidence, that it is all down to his religio-political agenda."
The difference is that Dawkins cites his agenda while Sheldrake cites none. It's unfair to suspect that Sheldrake has an agenda in attempt to undermine my legitimate criticism of Dawkins' militant atheism.
"A pity it seems not to have furnished you with an ability to detect an obvious example."
I know it when I see it.
"I gave a plausible account based on what Sheldrake actually said. With timecodes."
Timecodes or not, bells or not, it wasn't plausible.
"Your attempt to imply that I am dealing with something absent does not work."
Your ambition exceeds your ability to bluff.
"Just in case you need a clue though, the lab coat comment of mine is about a philosophical stance"
Philosophical stances are funny things, often in contradiction with actual behaviour. Your church attendence, for example, does that mesh well with your materialism?
"My main argument was about what he said. Just like yours about Dawkins are."
No, your arguments are about what Sheldrake doesn't say.
"Physician, heal thyself."
I am quite well. I offer historical documents. You offer their absence.
"Fair enough. I suspect this is a difference in taste, an aesthetic quibble."
Don't you think that Dawkins rather over does it? I think he regards himself as the Hugh Grant of evangelical biology.
"These are pc games and I use only a standard querty keyboard. You would also need to download or buy a dvd with the required game."
Happily.
"I suspect chess might be the thing though."
Why not. I would prefer a nice slow game to begin with, though. Something postal, in the older, benign sense. Via e-mail, I think, if you are amenable. I have not played Go for ages, that would be fun.
I hope your Summer has been a good one.
.
You said it; some aspects.
Well we can agree on that.
I did not think that I was being unfair.
Mathematics has limitations in all fields, not just biology. Thus your implications about Olympians does seem unfair but since it was a non sequitur anyway I suppose we should let it drop. Unusual predictions require unusually good evidence and Sheldrake didn't even get averagely good evidence for his predictions.
The difference is that Dawkins cites his agenda while Sheldrake cites none.
So Dawkins is at least upfront. When Sheldrake goes on his book signing tours for his iconoclastic works, gathering gaggles of new age followers as he goes, we conclude that he is just being buffeted by the winds of fate, rudderless.
It's unfair to suspect that Sheldrake has an agenda in attempt to undermine my legitimate criticism of Dawkins' militant atheism.
There are legitimate criticisms of militant atheism to be made, but those of the form: 'he only says that because he is god bashing' are not really quite up to the mark.
I know it when I see it.
Really? Do tell, when have you seen it? What makes morphic resonance different?
Timecodes or not, bells or not, it wasn't plausible.
I maintain that it has more plausibility than your anti-Dawkins diatribes.
Your ambition exceeds your ability to bluff.
Good at bluffing as you are, this counter-bluff is transparent. You have not demonstrated that your criticisms of Dawkins are any more evidence based than mine of Sheldrake.
Philosophical stances are funny things, often in contradiction with actual behaviour. Your church attendence, for example, does that mesh well with your materialism
I imagine that there is a definition of materialism that might work for my position. It meshes perfectly well given the basis on which I attend.
No, your arguments are about what Sheldrake doesn't say.
Nonsense, I can point you to my arguments and you can see where they give the timecode for what Sheldrake says.
I am quite well. I offer historical documents. You offer their absence.
'Historical documents'? Is that supposed to lend your argument some much needed gravitas? Tell me from whence you obtained these sacred scrolls...do me a favour we both refer to writing, audio and video in the public domain. You seem to think that the fact that Dawkins is upfront about his commitment to rationalism licences your genetic fallacies.
Don't you think that Dawkins rather over does it? I think he regards himself as the Hugh Grant of evangelical biology.
Yes I agree with you here. He has made an appalling gaffe in comparing religious upbringing with child abuse.
Something postal, in the older, benign sense. Via e-mail, I think, if you are amenable.
Possibly. It seems a bit like nostalgia and yet I suppose I would trust you not to cheat. I have a .co.uk hotmail account (not psiomniac but I bet you can find it).
I hope your Summer has been a good one.
Yes thanks and I hope yours has also. Toodle pip!
"Mathematics has limitations in all fields, not just biology."
I think that was implicit in my original condition.
"Thus your implications about Olympians does seem unfair but since it was a non sequitur anyway I suppose we should let it drop."
It was conditional. And a joke.
"Unusual predictions require unusually good evidence and Sheldrake didn't even get averagely good evidence for his predictions."
Ditto several of Dawkins' pronouncements, who hasn't even looked for evidence. The joik thinks he's the next E.O. Wilson.
It looks like Dawkins is planning on getting up to some daft antics, however:
"1. Research. We intend to sponsor research into the psychological basis of unreason.
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org
/foundation,ourMission"
What an ultramaroon. Once he's accomplished that little trick no doubt he'll invent the lightbulb that works by sucking up darkness.
"we conclude that he is just being buffeted by the winds of fate, rudderless."
We conclude that he wishes to air his ideas about science and also to make a bit of money on the side.
"There are legitimate criticisms of militant atheism to be made, but those of the form: 'he only says that because he is god bashing' are not really quite up to the mark."
Next time you see some one doing so you jolly well tell them that.
"Really? Do tell, when have you seen it?"
Various places. Chapter 7 of TGD, for one.
"What makes morphic resonance different?"
Morphic resonance is an attempt to explain a genuine scientific problem. Dawkins' spook isn't anything of the sort.
"I maintain that it has more plausibility than your anti-Dawkins diatribes."
I have heard of high-maintenance wives who rarely give out.
"Good at bluffing as you are, this counter-bluff is transparent."
Then you were bluffing.
"You have not demonstrated that your criticisms of Dawkins are any more evidence based than mine of Sheldrake."
I should like to see how any of Dawkins' ideas might be interpreted in any way other than those meanings contained in my criticisms.
"I imagine that there is a definition of materialism that might work for my position. It meshes perfectly well given the basis on which I attend."
Go on then.
"Nonsense, I can point you to my arguments and you can see where they give the timecode for what Sheldrake says."
You cannot point to anything which shows that Sheldrake's ideas are constructed and conveyed that they might push his Christianity. You have nothing beyond aspersion.
"'Historical documents'? Is that supposed to lend your argument some much needed gravitas?"
No, it's from something approaching exasperation. My use of the adjective historical and of the noun documents is fair.
"do me a favour we both refer to writing, audio and video in the public domain."
We do, and these may be described as historical documents. You don't like my use of the description because you haven't got any to support your position.
"You seem to think that the fact that Dawkins is upfront about his commitment to rationalism licences your genetic fallacies."
My what?
"He has made an appalling gaffe in comparing religious upbringing with child abuse."
What of memes and his zeitgeist? Rational?
"It seems a bit like nostalgia and yet I suppose I would trust you not to cheat."
As I you, which is why I was comfortable suggesting it. I have seen no reason to distrust you.
"I have a .co.uk hotmail account (not psiomniac but I bet you can find it)."
I would not like to presume; I might end up at court. The consequences of any error are too hilarious to contemplate. He exclaimed. Go on, though, surprise me.
.
I think that was implicit in my original condition.
But this arose due to your special pleading attempt to rescue Sheldrake's predictions from dis-confirmation. So you were singling out biology, but since you now say that it was a joke and presumably you mean by this that you did not intend to communicate a point by this humour, let's leave that there.
Ditto several of Dawkins' pronouncements, who hasn't even looked for evidence. The joik thinks he's the next E.O. Wilson.
I have already spelled out that I am not defending Dawkins, I am quite prepared to agree that Sheldrake and Dawkins both put ideas forward that don't seem credible.
Morphic resonance is an attempt to explain a genuine scientific problem.
So is ID but that doesn't make it credible or scientific in its conception.
Then you were bluffing.
No. But you thought I was. So from your perspective, your attempt was a counter-bluff.
I should like to see how any of Dawkins' ideas might be interpreted in any way other than those meanings contained in my criticisms.
Just pop over to the Dawkins website and there are pages and pages of such. Not that you will believe any of it because you have made up your mind on circumstantial evidence that in every case, the direction of causation is anti-religious agenda -->cobbled together ideas.
Go on then.
I attend on the basis that I don't believe a word of it. So I find it difficult to think of a definition of 'materialism' with which this stance is incompatible.
You cannot point to anything which shows that Sheldrake's ideas are constructed and conveyed that they might push his Christianity. You have nothing beyond aspersion.
Since I have never argued that this was what he was doing then it really isn't surprising is it?
No, it's from something approaching exasperation.
Cup of tea?
You don't like my use of the description because you haven't got any to support your position.
My position is supported by similar sources to your own. Or are you saying you have seen the hand written first draft of TGD?
My what?
You aren't guilty of that I apologise and retract. I had thought that you dismiss argument X on the grounds that Dawkins said it, and he is a renowned anti-religionist. On reflection I think this is not true. I think you look at argument X, think it is nonsense and deduce that the only reason he would have said it is because of his anti religious stance.
What of memes and his zeitgeist? Rational?
The former I doubt he was using literally, it is shorthand for complex interactions between humans in the context of a given culture and time. The latter is a bit like morphic resonance. Bit of magical thinking, attempt at a working testable theory, no results to speak of.
Go on, though, surprise me.
Well if I can find an email address for you, I'll mail the first move (chess). (Unless you want to pick colours.)
"But this arose due to your special pleading attempt to rescue Sheldrake's predictions from dis-confirmation."
Humans arose from hairier apes but we don't run around playing Roddy McDowall. The discussion moved along from from my legitimate discrimination to a joke.
"So you were singling out biology"
Isn't this a discussion about a biologist?
"since you now say that it was a joke and presumably you mean by this that you did not intend to communicate a point by this humour, let's leave that there."
All humour has a point.
"I am quite prepared to agree that Sheldrake and Dawkins both put ideas forward that don't seem credible."
While Dawkins has a clear religious agenda and Sheldrake does not.
"So is ID but that doesn't make it credible or scientific in its conception."
True. ID is certainly magical thinking. Dilation.
Incidentally, does it irritate you when people use the term revolution to describe the behaviour of things other than those which revolve? Annoys the heck out of me.
"No. But you thought I was. So from your perspective, your attempt was a counter-bluff."
There you go, bluffing again.
"Just pop over to the Dawkins website and there are pages and pages of such."
I should have qualified; by people who aren't misanthropic narcissists
"Not that you will believe any of it because you have made up your mind on circumstantial evidence that in every case"
Do you go there often, as a member perhaps? I took a look and there do seem to be some people who are fairly intelligent, so their apparent support for Dawkins puzzles me I suppose very much in the way that you are puzzled by reasonable people who do religion. Is your concern about this more to divert your attention from your own church attendence?
"you have made up your mind on circumstantial evidence that in every case, the direction of causation is anti-religious agenda -->cobbled together ideas."
Prima facie there's a bloody strong correlation on that site, wouldn't you say?
"I attend on the basis that I don't believe a word of it. So I find it difficult to think of a definition of 'materialism' with which this stance is incompatible."
There is nothing in there which makes no sense? What about the ethical teachings?
"Since I have never argued that this was what he was doing then it really isn't surprising is it?"
Are you telling me now that you have not argued that Sheldrake has a set of religious agenda which influence his science and publication?
"Cup of tea?"
Doesn't anyone else make teaa in pots anymore?
"My position is supported by similar sources to your own."
You have so far failed to present anything which shows that Sheldrake trades upon his reputation as a scientist in order to push his religion.
"Or are you saying you have seen the hand written first draft of TGD?"
If you are implying that such originally contained a monstrous caricature of the position I identify for Dawkins then no. I have presented plenty of referenced arguments in the other place.
"You aren't guilty of that I apologise and retract."
Accepted, but what was it of which you briefly thought I was guilty? What are "genetic fallacies"?
"I think you look at argument X, think it is nonsense and deduce that the only reason he would have said it is because of his anti religious stance."
Heavens, no. I think that there are some religionists who are absolute dingbats. Over on The Pagan Topic, for example. Granted there is likely as much actual religion there, rather than notional and behavioural crap, as you would find in an average-sized termite mound, but if we regard religion as a complex of magical thought then my criticisms are not always positive. Yes, it's true that my criticisms in that place are more from a love of the grand traditions of ideas and history that these nuts spew over than anything else, but there you are.
"The former I doubt he was using literally"
Perhaps not at the time but once the Imperial Darwinist Dennett and others took an interest in the analogy Dawkins, flattered by tinkering, has spoken of memes as though they were a pragmatic philosophical tool rather than a ephemeral conceit.
"it is shorthand for complex interactions between humans in the context of a given culture and time."
There were two perfectly good words already which did the job; ideas and behaviour. Memes are taken seriously only by morons who think they are Mentats.
"The latter is a bit like morphic resonance. Bit of magical thinking, attempt at a working testable theory, no results to speak of."
At least Sheldrake had a go.
"Well if I can find an email address for you, I'll mail the first move (chess)."
What are those pieces called which look like Houyhnhnms?
"(Unless you want to pick colours.)"
Go ahead.
.
Humans arose from hairier apes but we don't run around playing Roddy McDowall. The discussion moved along from from my legitimate discrimination to a joke.
There is nothing legitimate about special pleading. Was he Cornelius in the tv Planet of the Apes?
Isn't this a discussion about a biologist?
Yes. It seemed to me that you were implying that the reason Sheldrake's ideas had no evidential support was that biology is so fiddly that it is not amenable to analysis by the scientific method in such a way as to be able to deliver statistically significant results in favour of Sheldrake. I thought the joke illustrated this. If I am mistaken I apologize again. If not, then it is special pleading.
While Dawkins has a clear religious agenda and Sheldrake does not.
They both have agendas and each is informed by their respective take on religion.
Incidentally, does it irritate you when people use the term revolution to describe the behaviour of things other than those which revolve? Annoys the heck out of me.
Is this your rather dry way of accusing me of pedantry or literal mindedness? Do you wince at the phrase 'French Revolution'?
There you go, bluffing again.
No I would never...er...[cough]..do such a thing.
I should have qualified; by people who aren't misanthropic narcissists
Do you find yourself revising your tidy taxonomy of those with whom you disagree from time to time?
Do you go there often, as a member perhaps?
I'm afraid I go there rarely and I am not a member, therefore I have never posted. I was briefly tempted to join so that I could post something like 'Get Max Clifford in, he'd stop you shooting yourself in the foot when you appear on the Today Programme, but in the end I realised that it was futile.
Is your concern about this more to divert your attention from your own church attendence?
It isn't me that needs diverting from the issue of my church attendance, but then my mean attendance per year probably is about twice to the nearest integer. So it's no biggie.
Prima facie there's a bloody strong correlation on that site, wouldn't you say?
Now, come along there. Correlation does not equate to causation, and there's you, with the direction of causation all neatly post-rationalised.
There is nothing in there which makes no sense? What about the ethical teachings?
Actually, when I said 'I don't believe a word of it', I might have been exaggerating. I think when the priest said 'The..' I was quite convinced, but then again it was downhill after that.
Are you telling me now that you have not argued that Sheldrake has a set of religious agenda which influence his science and publication?
Are you telling me now that you cannot distinguish between a religious agenda and an agenda influenced by religion?
Doesn't anyone else make teaa in pots anymore?
I still warm the pot before brewing.
You have so far failed to present anything which shows that Sheldrake trades upon his reputation as a scientist in order to push his religion.
For 'failed' substitute 'never intended' and you would have it right.
I have presented plenty of referenced arguments in the other place.
Do you sit in the House of Lords? I can imagine that. But your sources are not so much 'historical documents' such as original drafts, as the same sort of source that I reference.
Accepted, but what was it of which you briefly thought I was guilty? What are "genetic fallacies"?
It means attacking an argument on the basis of the attributes of its proposer rather than on its merits. 'Jones said X, but we don't believe that, because, as we all know, Jones is an artichoke enthusiast'.
Heavens, no. I think that there are some religionists who are absolute dingbats.
That's a non sequitur. The idea was, Dawkins says X, you see it as weak and deduce that his judgement is clouded by his agenda. Whether some religionists (you might include Dawkins in that set) are dingbats is neither here nor there.
There were two perfectly good words already which did the job; ideas and behaviour. Memes are taken seriously only by morons who think they are Mentats.
Just to clarify, by 'former' I meant 'zeitgeist' which I take to be metaphorical, and 'latter' I mean 'memes' which I take to be folly.
At least Sheldrake had a go.
Yes, that's a fair point.
What are those pieces called which look like Houyhnhnms?
Well, unless there is a themed set with a specific name that I have not encountered, I can only think 'knight'. Which doesn't give me a lot to go on. But since you must be the clever one (as well as the nice one), perhaps you should do the solving. Just think of a muddled ape constable.
Go ahead.
I pick white.
Alright, I know that's not how it works. Ok, left hand or right hand?
"There is nothing legitimate about special pleading."
Hence I made no special plea.
"Was he Cornelius in the tv Planet of the Apes?"
Yes.
"Yes. It seemed to me that you were implying that the reason Sheldrake's ideas had no evidential support was that biology is so fiddly that it is not amenable to analysis by the scientific method in such a way as to be able to deliver statistically significant results in favour of Sheldrake. I thought the joke illustrated this. If I am mistaken I apologize again. If not, then it is special pleading."
Apology accepted.
"They both have agendas and each is informed by their respective take on religion."
Which isn't what I said but I can understand if you cannot bring yourself to agree.
Just listening to Radio 4; new series of In Our Time from this Thursday. Good stuff. Pleasant, easy listening.
"Is this your rather dry way of accusing me of pedantry or literal mindedness?"
No, just something that occurred to me while I was considering how magical thinking may be likened to transformations of plane figures.
Something else that irritates is when people use "Nth degree" as hyperbole. I have always considered mathematics as a branch of natural language but there are limits. No pun intended.
"Do you wince at the phrase 'French Revolution'?"
Not so much, strangely. I suppose that I am accustomed to it.
"Do you find yourself revising your tidy taxonomy of those with whom you disagree from time to time?"
Not really, but then I would not be alone if I had such a taxonomy.
"I'm afraid I go there rarely and I am not a member, therefore I have never posted."
I view those boards more frequently, these days. I am considering a scale whereby the amount of laughter those boards generate in a set time may be taken as an index of sanity.
"So it's no biggie."
Interesting, though. Do you visit for sentimental or professional reasons?
"Now, come along there. Correlation does not equate to causation, and there's you, with the direction of causation all neatly post-rationalised."
It's probably all the laughter addling my brain.
"Actually, when I said 'I don't believe a word of it', I might have been exaggerating. I think when the priest said 'The..' I was quite convinced, but then again it was downhill after that."
Oh, do be serious.
"Are you telling me now that you cannot distinguish between a religious agenda and an agenda influenced by religion?"
Are you telling me now that you believe that you have been willfully arguing at cross purposes?
"I still warm the pot before brewing."
Good man. Stick it on the hearth?
"For 'failed' substitute 'never intended' and you would have it right."
There you go; nothing but aspersion after all.
"Do you sit in the House of Lords? I can imagine that."
What was that you were saying about your literalism, again?
"But your sources are not so much 'historical documents' such as original drafts"
A document does not have to be an original draft to be historic. Besides, how many drafts do you believe are made of a live, recorded interview in front of an audience?
"as the same sort of source that I reference."
Such as?
"It means attacking an argument on the basis of the attributes of its proposer rather than on its merits. 'Jones said X, but we don't believe that, because, as we all know, Jones is an artichoke enthusiast'."
That's a genetic fallacy? Doesn't it have some other name?
"That's a non sequitur. The idea was, Dawkins says X, you see it as weak and deduce that his judgement is clouded by his agenda. Whether some religionists (you might include Dawkins in that set) are dingbats is neither here nor there.
No, it isn't. I argue against atheist dingbats and religious dingbats. You were speaking of Dawkins' "anti-religious stance" and not agenda in general
"Just to clarify, by 'former' I meant 'zeitgeist' which I take to be metaphorical"
For what in Heaven's name, could a zeitgeist serve as a metaphor? It's like a schoolboy telling his teacher that a dragon ate his homework and expecting his teacher not to think that the schoolboy is saying that a dragon ate his homework. This zeitgeist nonsense is Dawkins' serious moral argument. The man is intellectually bankrupt.
"and 'latter' I mean 'memes' which I take to be folly."
And zeitgeist isn't?
"Yes, that's a fair point."
Thank you.
"But since you must be the clever one (as well as the nice one), perhaps you should do the solving."
Clever and nice, that's me.
.
I can phrase that thing about the dragon a little better.
For what, in Heaven's name, could a zeitgeist serve as a metaphor? It's like a schoolboy telling his teacher that a dragon ate his homework and expecting his teacher not to think that they have heard the boy say that a dragon ate his homework. This zeitgeist nonsense is Dawkins' serious moral argument. The man is intellectually bankrupt.
.
Hence I made no special plea.
I reckon we will have to agree to differ on that.
Apology accepted.
In that case I don't know what you were on about. No matter.
Which isn't what I said but I can understand if you cannot bring yourself to agree.
It is what I said, and strangely, I agree with me.
No, just something that occurred to me while I was considering how magical thinking may be likened to transformations of plane figures.
I see. How do you think it may be so likened?
Something else that irritates is when people use "Nth degree" as hyperbole.
I think I know what you mean, but I'm not clear why the phrase is flawed. On the one hand, it is clear that 'to the nth degree, where n is a member of the set of transfinite cardinals' doesn't really trip off the tongue, but on the other, if n were a low integer it would be quicker to state it, as in 'the third degree'. So the fact that n is so large as to be unwieldy is implicit.
Interesting, though. Do you visit for sentimental or professional reasons?
Of the two, I would pick sentimental reasons.
Are you telling me now that you believe that you have been willfully arguing at cross purposes?
No, not at all. I set out my position, so any crossed purposes are either not my fault or are not willful.
What was that you were saying about your literalism, again?
I think I said it was fine as long as it was in the service of a crass joke.
A document does not have to be an original draft to be historic. Besides, how many drafts do you believe are made of a live, recorded interview in front of an audience?
But the term 'historical document' can be replaced by 'document' without loss of meaning in the context that you used it. We both know that we are not talking about future documents. So I can only assume that this uncharacteristic departure from economical prose on your part was in order to imply that your sources were a cut above. In fact, we have both accessed a broadcast documentary and some written quotes. You might have actually consulted that marvelously traditional form-the physical book, whilst you put the pot on the hearth. Does that make your argument any better? I reckon not.
That's a genetic fallacy? Doesn't it have some other name?
I don't know.
No, it isn't. I argue against atheist dingbats and religious dingbats. You were speaking of Dawkins' "anti-religious stance" and not agenda in general
I don't think this attempted nit pick obscures the non sequitur status of your remark. Another agree to disagree moment perhaps.
For what in Heaven's name, could a zeitgeist serve as a metaphor?
I stated what I thought it was a metaphor for. Perhaps you disagree.
And zeitgeist isn't?
I didn't say that.
Clever and nice, that's me.
Well solved.
RR,
I recently stumbled across an example of your use of 'historical' material to attack Dawkins here.
You say:
"It is interesting to note that McGrath was interviewed for Dawkins’ television programme “Root Of All Evil” but was edited out because he answered each of Dawkins’ questions directly and gave him no opportunity for misrepresentation;"
but you do not cite any evidence for this assertion. All you have is the fact that the interview was edited out. This is a case of you judging something that wasn't there and inventing your own reason for its absence.
You go on to say:
"McGrath out-argued Dawkins, essentially, and this would not be good for Dawkins’ image."
Yet the full McGrath interview has now been published on Dawkins' website as you know which blows out of the water your idea about motive. I have watched it and Mcgrath does not out argue Dawkins at all, so perhaps that was your speculation based on something that wasn't there, because the only way you would have written that, having seen it, is if you were massively biased.
Compared to this my Sheldrake argument seems like a paragon of scholarly rigor.
"I see. How do you think it may be so likened?"
Reflections. Transpositions Scalings. People use their own characters and beliefs as templates and transform from there.
"I'm not clear why the phrase is flawed. On the one hand, it is clear that 'to the nth degree, where n is a member of the set of transfinite cardinals' doesn't really trip off the tongue"
Because that is not customarily what people use the phrase to mean when exaggerating significance.
"if n were a low integer it would be quicker to state it, as in 'the third degree'."
Different context.
"So the fact that n is so large as to be unwieldy is implicit."
I don't think people use it that way. They assume "nth degree" describes extreme significance simply because they have heard others use it that way. I have not tried but I doubt were we to ask anyone using the phrase in a non-mathematical context for its literal meaning that they could provide it. I think that, naively, they assume n is a very large constant like c.
"Of the two, I would pick sentimental reasons."
I think more of you.
"No, not at all. I set out my position, so any crossed purposes are either not my fault or are not willful."
That'll do.
"But the term 'historical document' can be replaced by 'document' without loss of meaning in the context that you used it."
If no meaning would be lost then none has been added and you need not assume me of pretension.
"So I can only assume that this uncharacteristic departure from economical prose on your part was in order to imply that your sources were a cut above."
I thought that perhaps it might have been a good idea to remind you of the superiority of things that are a matter of historical record over things you haven't been able to show. In retrospect I think it turned out rather nicely considering your diversionary attack on the adjective.
"In fact, we have both accessed a broadcast documentary and some written quotes. You might have actually consulted that marvelously traditional form-the physical book, whilst you put the pot on the hearth. Does that make your argument any better? I reckon not."
Are we still arguing over Sheldake? I showed my case by reference to documents - historical ones at that - and you haven't provided any which show yours. My argument is better.
Incidentally, do you recall that excellent Mitchell and Webb Sound sketch in which a talk show host fiercely satirises callers who use he phrase "I reckon" to imply some kind of judgement or calculation? I do. It was hilarious.
"I don't think this attempted nit pick obscures the non sequitur status of your remark. Another agree to disagree moment perhaps."
Well we must agree on that, it seems, as I don't think we have ever really convinced one another of anything. I've had you up against a few walls, in the most dry sense of the metaphor, but I recall only a single capitulation. Anyway, one only has to listen to several of Dawkins' speeches or read some of his articles to realise that the man cannot reason his way out of a paper bag and may even be a little less together than previously. His grand arguments are certainly not reasonable. Listen to this here, his recent speech to the "Giordano Bruno Foundation", that name being a joke in itself. You'll notice his confession to ignorance of the German language, which likely explains a lot.
I thought that you classed it as magical thinking rather than as a metaphor, an attempt at a workable hypothesis, I think you said. Would you clarify?
"Well solved."
Well set. It was a nice little toy.
"All you have is the fact that the interview was edited out. This is a case of you judging something that wasn't there and inventing your own reason for its absence."
Judging something that wasn't where, exactly?
" perhaps that was your speculation based on something that wasn't there"
You mean misinterpretation.
"I have watched it and Mcgrath does not out argue Dawkins at all, so perhaps that was your speculation based on something that wasn't there, because the only way you would have written that, having seen it, is if you were massively biased."
You say that from a position which is massively biased in the teeth of the facts.
To overcome Dawkins in argument one must simply not permit him to misrepresent you and answer his questions fully, even going a little beyond his questions, using an even more avuncular uppercrust English accent than that which Dawkins himself commands. Dawkins considers McGrath his social equal and, likely and grudgingly, his academic superior due to McGrath's career and criticisms and the not infrequent criticism of other academics and pundits of Dawkins' bird book approach to theology. Dawkins gave McGrath the space to answer his questions and took no opportunity to play the sanctimonious boffin so familiar from his other media appearences. Subsequently, have you noted any heated criticism of McGrath from Dawkins such as we have seen from him after his chats with other people of deep religious beliefs?
"Compared to this my Sheldrake argument seems like a paragon of scholarly rigor."
Then, assuming the possibility of any bad analysis by anyone else, for we have seen that I have made nonesuch, you accept that your Sheldrake argument is a pile of cack. Cheers.
Reflections. Transpositions Scalings. People use their own characters and beliefs as templates and transform from there.
Fair enough.
Because that is not customarily what people use the phrase to mean when exaggerating significance.
Most people should probably not be let near a fork lift truck because they would not use it properly. It does not follow that fork lift trucks are flawed.
I don't think people use it that way. They assume "nth degree" describes extreme significance simply because they have heard others use it that way.
If that is what you think I can understand your irritation. If I were to use the phrase, I would use it in the way I described.
If no meaning would be lost then none has been added and you need not assume me of pretension.
Interesting. Surely if no meaning has been added then one of the options of what has been added is an impression of significance? These are not just documents, no, they have the stamp of 'historical' on them, a matter of record, something to be taken seriously.
I thought that perhaps it might have been a good idea to remind you of the superiority of things that are a matter of historical record over things you haven't been able to show.
And there you are, you admit it!
In retrospect I think it turned out rather nicely considering your diversionary attack on the adjective.
We might have to differ there. What actually happened was that I reminded you that my sources were as 'historical' as yours, and my inferences from them more plausible than yours about Dawkins.
I showed my case by reference to documents - historical ones at that - and you haven't provided any which show yours. My argument is better.
That is really your memory of how the argument went? Fascinating...
Incidentally, do you recall that excellent Mitchell and Webb Sound sketch in which a talk show host fiercely satirises callers who use he phrase "I reckon" to imply some kind of judgement or calculation? I do. It was hilarious.
Yes, I do, it was very funny.
Well we must agree on that, it seems, as I don't think we have ever really convinced one another of anything.
I'm not so sure. But you might be right.
I've had you up against a few walls, in the most dry sense of the metaphor,
What, no lube?
This latest post of yours has alerted me to our divergent views about how our discussions have gone. Probably those times I have thought that you stubbornly refused to concede despite clear defeat were the very same ones when you thought I was against the wall.
but I recall only a single capitulation.
I'm curious, how many times do you think you have capitulated?
Listen to this
Thanks I just did. I reckon he has an agenda you know...
I thought that you classed it as magical thinking rather than as a metaphor, an attempt at a workable hypothesis, I think you said. Would you clarify?
Are you referring to 'zeitgeist' here?
Judging something that wasn't where, exactly?
In the broadcast programme.
You mean misinterpretation.
No.
You say that from a position which is massively biased in the teeth of the facts.
You had not seen the interview when you speculated about Dawkins having been 'out argued' had you? I strongly reject your assertion that my judgement is massively biased or at odds with the facts.
To overcome Dawkins in argument one must simply not permit him to misrepresent you and answer his questions fully
I think it is apparent who is massively biased here.
McGrath did not out argue Dawkins at all. I saw a civilised disagreement to which even the assignment of a points victory would be tricky, let alone the knockout you were implying before you had even seen it. Or are you claiming that you had seen it at the time of your post?
Then, assuming the possibility of any bad analysis by anyone else, for we have seen that I have made nonesuch,
I think this one is a fair cop, you are bang to rights and should capitulate.
you accept that your Sheldrake argument is a pile of cack. Cheers.
Not in the least. But 'cack' is not the only alternative to 'paragon'. Perhaps you are too fond of Boolean algebra.
"Fair enough."
Can you think of any other times during which people might reason geometrically rather than semantically?
"It does not follow that fork lift trucks are flawed."
I do not think that I said that the term itself is flawed.
"Surely if no meaning has been added then one of the options of what has been added is an impression of significance?"
Which served as a timely reminder of the fact of the significance.
"And there you are, you admit it!"
Right. You agree with me, then.
"my sources were as 'historical' as yours, and my inferences from them more plausible than yours about Dawkins."
You presented no sources to support your hypothesis. Your inferences were illegitimate.
"That is really your memory of how the argument went? Fascinating..."
Oh, don't start. I could say the same to you. If you have arguments then make them.
"Yes, I do, it was very funny."
By happy coincidence.
"What, no lube?"
You haven't earned it.
"This latest post of yours has alerted me to our divergent views about how our discussions have gone. Probably those times I have thought that you stubbornly refused to concede despite clear defeat were the very same ones when you thought I was against the wall."
It could be so. What's to be done?
"I'm curious, how many times do you think you have capitulated?"
Once.
"Thanks I just did. I reckon he has an agenda you know..."
Now let's have something which shows the same from Sheldrake, if you think there is substance to your argument.
"Are you referring to 'zeitgeist' here?"
Yes.
"In the broadcast programme."
It was there.
"No."
Then you are mistaken.
"You had not seen the interview when you speculated about Dawkins having been 'out argued' had you?"
I had not seen it but I did not speculate.
"I strongly reject your assertion that my judgement is massively biased or at odds with the facts."
Again, we both see the same material and we disagree, then.
"I think it is apparent who is massively biased here."
Yes it is.
"McGrath did not out argue Dawkins at all. I saw a civilised disagreement to which even the assignment of a points victory would be tricky"
A victory for Dawkins in this arena is the humiliation of his opponent. I did not see McGrath humiliated at all.
"you are bang to rights and should capitulate."
You forgot to include the personal pronoun.
"Perhaps you are too fond of Boolean algebra."
Then we are both right?
Can you think of any other times during which people might reason geometrically rather than semantically?
I wonder whether the distinction is that sharp. How about when they are driving? Sometimes geometrical reasoning is essential.
I do not think that I said that the term itself is flawed.
In which case, why not give people the benefit of the doubt?
You presented no sources to support your hypothesis. Your inferences were illegitimate.
On the contrary, I used the 'Heretics' programme and my inferences were a lot more legitimate than yours about McGrath vs Dawkins, since I had actually seen it.
By happy coincidence.
Thanks, I enjoyed listening to that again.
You haven't earned it.
Said the impartial judge...
Once.
So, you weren't admonishing me for having capitulated only once, you were just supporting your idea that we don't really convince each other of anything. I'm still not so sure.
Now let's have something which shows the same from Sheldrake, if you think there is substance to your argument.
Let's not go through all that again.
On 'zeitgeist' I have already said what I think it is shorthand for. Something like the interaction of culture and biology which at any given time gives rise to the ethical landscape within a society.
I can see why he said it I think, but I have no interest in defending it.
It was there.
No it wasn't.
Then you are mistaken.
You admit you hadn't seen it. yet you want to label your pronouncements about it as 'misinterpretation' rather than 'speculation'?
I had not seen it but I did not speculate.
Really? So when you said that McGrath had out argued Dawkins, you were 'misinterpreting' what exactly? Something you hadn't seen?
Again, we both see the same material and we disagree, then.
That seems a fairer way to look at it.
A victory for Dawkins in this arena is the humiliation of his opponent. I did not see McGrath humiliated at all.
I agree with the second sentence, the first is a blatant attempt to move the goalposts.
Then we are both right?
I said 'Boolean algebra' not 'the Law of the Excluded Middle'.
There are many intermediates between 'cack' and 'paragon' but I am right and you are wrong on this one.
"No it wasn't."
Yes it was.
"You admit you hadn't seen it. yet you want to label your pronouncements about it as 'misinterpretation' rather than 'speculation'?"
I had not seen it. Were you present at the Battle of Waterloo? I have not said that I wish you to consider my position on it misinterpretation. It is the fact that you feel I have misinterpreted the piece under discussion.
"Really? So when you said that McGrath had out argued Dawkins, you were 'misinterpreting' what exactly? Something you hadn't seen?"
I did not misinterpret. I reported something upon which I had knowledge.
"That seems a fairer way to look at it."
Insipid, though.
"the first is a blatant attempt to move the goalposts"
Not at all. Dawkins cannot prove McGrath wrong in this area anymore than McGrath can prove himself right. Dawkins can only win, then, by making McGrath appear foolish so that we might conclude that his position is foolish. McGrath only has to keep his cool and demonstrate his expertise in order to defeat Dawkins. McGrath came out on top. There is no other way to conceive of this meeting. Dawkins was not on a fact-finding mission but sought material for a populist television programmed entitle "The Root of All Evil" which included interviews with a number of religious people who ended up looking foolish. Dawkins wished McGrath to appear humiliated and yet, you agree, McGrath did not appear so and consequently his interview was not included in the television programme. Dawkins lost, McGrath won.
"I said 'Boolean algebra' not 'the Law of the Excluded Middle'."
Sorry, old boy, but I don't think that I was appealling to that. Now, you accused me of being Boolean right after you denied that your argument was cack so I conclude from this scornful accusation that you reckon your argument was in fact somewhere between cack and paragon. 50% cack? 22% cack? 78% cack? Still smells of cack.
"I wonder whether the distinction is that sharp."
It's interesting to consider. I feel the distinction is sharp. Consider your example and the apparent change in mood which comes over a person when they are engaged by driving.
"In which case, why not give people the benefit of the doubt?"
In a non-mathematical context the term makes no sense.
It's often very easy to form a useful opinion of a person's general facility with ideas, and draw contingent conclusions, by listening to the way they attempt to persuade, don't you think? Question Time is fun, it's like watching children attempt to deceive one another and dodgy semantics abound. In the latest edition David Lammy spoke of a jigsaw unravelling.
"On the contrary, I used the 'Heretics' programme and my inferences were a lot more legitimate than yours about McGrath vs Dawkins, since I had actually seen it."
You did not infer from Heretics; you speculated. As for the McGrath vs Dawkins piece, seeing it would not be the only way of discovering its contents.
"Thanks, I enjoyed listening to that again."
You're welcome. I'm listening to this from 7 at the moment. Very Wold Newton.
"Said the impartial judge"
There is no such animal.
"Once.
So, you weren't admonishing me for having capitulated only once, you were just supporting your idea that we don't really convince each other of anything. I'm still not so sure."
Yes, but if you think otherwise then please tell. Shout it down the drainpipe if you prefer. I would be interested in your view on this.
"Let's not go through all that again."
My laurels, I think.
"On 'zeitgeist' I have already said what I think it is shorthand for. Something like the interaction of culture and biology which at any given time gives rise to the ethical landscape within a society."
You spoke of memes in this way, actually, not Dawkins' zeitgeist. Still, we both think Dawkins is on a loser with it.
"I can see why he said it I think"
Because he's not half so bright as he likes to think.
Yes it was.
"31th May 2007 : This interview was filmed for the TV documentary "Root of All Evil?" but was left out of the final version. Time restrictions dictated that not all interviews filmed could be used. This was especially regrettable in the case of the McGrath interview, which is therefore offered here now, unedited." -from RichardDawkins.net
I had not seen it. Were you present at the Battle of Waterloo?
No, but I can speculate about what happened.
I have not said that I wish you to consider my position on it misinterpretation. It is the fact that you feel I have misinterpreted the piece under discussion.
Certainly I don't agree with your interpretation, by which I mean the one you came to after you had seen the interview.
I did not misinterpret. I reported something upon which I had knowledge.
I agree, you didn't misinterpret, you speculated.
Dawkins lost, McGrath won.#
Well, if we add your humpty dumpty definition of 'out argued' to these latest, 'lost' and 'won' then we can see your argument is correct in its own terms.
Sorry, old boy, but I don't think that I was appealling to that.
So we can agree, I can regard my position as right and yours wrong, whilst criticising your inappropriate use of two valued logic without inconsistency.
Now, you accused me of being Boolean right after you denied that your argument was cack so I conclude from this scornful accusation that you reckon your argument was in fact somewhere between cack and paragon. 50% cack? 22% cack? 78% cack? Still smells of cack.
Good one. However that is a fallacy of reification you know. There is no '% of cack' in my argument.
"Time restrictions dictated that not all interviews filmed could be used."
The fact that McGrath wasn't a gibbering maniac was likely a contributory factor, also.
"Certainly I don't agree with your interpretation, by which I mean the one you came to after you had seen the interview."
This was the same interpretation which I had reached before I had seen the interview.
"I agree, you didn't misinterpret, you speculated."
No, that's what you did about Sheldrake.
"Well, if we add your humpty dumpty definition of 'out argued' to these latest, 'lost' and 'won' then we can see your argument is correct in its own terms."
Why dont you just stick your fingers in your ears and blow a raspberry?
"So we can agree, I can regard my position as right and yours wrong, whilst criticising your inappropriate use of two valued logic without inconsistency."
Sorry, old boy, but I don't think so.
"Good one. However that is a fallacy of reification you know. There is no '% of cack' in my argument."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have been talking about zeitgeists and memes, yes?
It's interesting to consider. I feel the distinction is sharp. Consider your example and the apparent change in mood which comes over a person when they are engaged by driving.
I suppose it depends on the scope of 'semantic'. We interpret plane figures as abstractions which we can represent and transform. There is abstract symbolic thought going on.
In a non-mathematical context the term makes no sense.
Which is a bit like saying 'revolution' makes no sense in a non-turning context.
It's often very easy to form a useful opinion of a person's general facility with ideas, and draw contingent conclusions, by listening to the way they attempt to persuade, don't you think?
And I must say, you do splendidly well, which is why....
Yes, but if you think otherwise then please tell.
...although I can't pinpoint an example, I feel that all your persuading must have been successful sometimes.
You did not infer from Heretics; you speculated. As for the McGrath vs Dawkins piece, seeing it would not be the only way of discovering its contents.
I inferred. I had seen it. Tell me, what did you do to 'discover' the contents? Sacrifice a goat and examine the entrails? Or did you have access to some kind of mysterious field that surrounds all video clips and transfers their contents to you?
There is no such animal.
I agree.
My laurels, I think.
Think again.
You spoke of memes in this way, actually, not Dawkins' zeitgeist. Still, we both think Dawkins is on a loser with it.
I apologise I made an error there. The laurels are yours after all. Here, take them and hand over that pearl handled revolver would you?
When I said:
"The former I doubt he was using literally, it is shorthand for complex interactions between humans in the context of a given culture and time. The latter is a bit like morphic resonance. Bit of magical thinking, attempt at a working testable theory, no results to speak of."
I meant:"The Latter I doubt he was using literally, it is shorthand for complex interactions between humans in the context of a given culture and time. The former is a bit like morphic resonance. Bit of magical thinking, attempt at a working testable theory, no results to speak of."
I know, unforgivable.
The fact that McGrath wasn't a gibbering maniac was likely a contributory factor, also.
No such animal eh? Look, if you want to put forward tautologies because you presuppose the criteria to be met then fine. Dawkins did not reduce McGrath to a pile of ash therefore he is a dribbling abject cowering failure in the debate. No really, it's all here in the definition of 'win'...
This was the same interpretation which I had reached before I had seen the interview.
Yes. Now, either you have this prescient ability to know what the interview would be like, or access to non propagandist info on it, like a 'historical document' such as a copy of the production notes or the minutes of a meeting where Dawkins says: 'curse that calm McGrath I can't use that footage..', or you had made your mind up regardless of the evidence because of your partisan stance. But which to choose? Erm..
No, that's what you did about Sheldrake.
This could start to look like bickering.
Why dont you just stick your fingers in your ears and blow a raspberry?
That would make as much sense as your definition of 'out argue' I agree.
Sorry, old boy, but I don't think so.
Then we will differ, you will be wrong. Cigar?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have been talking about zeitgeists and memes, yes?
I think you brought them up, no?
Oh, and it's still your move.
"I suppose it depends on the scope of 'semantic'."
Your sense of humour at its most tacit.
"We interpret plane figures as abstractions which we can represent and transform. There is abstract symbolic thought going on."
Sight, I feel, is the most immediate of the senses, as demonstrated by the way in which we think and remember, and not being a Platonist I think there must have been points in my history during which I was introduced to squares and cubes and circles and spheres &c, not as ideas but as real things. When I think of these shapes I am referencing the facts of the objects which first conveyed their qualities to me. I do not think of these shapes as abstracts but as objects. The abstraction is in the way in which we relate these objects one to the other and while these relations may be unusual from time to time, as with "magical" thought. they are still logical.
Nothing appears in my diary but I recall a period in which I began to think much more visually than previously and that around this time I found satisfactory conclusions much easier to reach.
"Which is a bit like saying 'revolution' makes no sense in a non-turning context."
It doesn't. Half a revolution, quarter of a revolution, tenth of a revolution - these are closer to the meaning of revolution as people use it in a notional or historical context, which sense would be better conveyed by the term locomotion or jog or hopscotch than revolution.
"And I must say, you do splendidly well, which is why although I can't pinpoint an example, I feel that all your persuading must have been successful sometimes."
Thank you. Has anything surfaced?
"Tell me, what did you do to 'discover' the contents? Sacrifice a goat and examine the entrails? Or did you have access to some kind of mysterious field that surrounds all video clips and transfers their contents to you?"
Sarky. If you must know I have access to the beta version of Echelon. SETI@home was becoming a bit predictable.
"I know, unforgivable."
Aren't there any penitential services around this time of year?
"No such animal eh?"
Are you implying that McGrath was a gibbering maniac?
"Look, if you want to put forward tautologies because you presuppose the criteria to be met then fine."
Tautology? You'll be accusing me of "quote mining" next.
"Dawkins did not reduce McGrath to a pile of ash therefore he is a dribbling abject cowering failure in the debate. No really, it's all here in the definition of 'win'"
If I say that the first person to pass a finishing line in a running race is the winner then is that a tautology?
"Erm.."
Told you. Echelon.
"This could start to look like bickering."
God forbid.
"That would make as much sense as your definition of 'out argue' I agree."
Some material was included and some was not. It is fair to suppose that the included material supported Dawkins' thesis, that religion is the "root of all evil", and that which was not included did not satisfy Dawkins' thesis nor could be made to support Dawkins' thesis by devious editing. So there.
"Then we will differ, you will be wrong. Cigar?"
No, you will be wrong. And only if it's chocolate.
"I think you brought them up, no?"
Only in report of Dawkins' reification.
Your move.
.
I was introduced to squares and cubes and circles and spheres &c, not as ideas but as real things.
There are no such animals. They are an abstraction. I think we differ in how much semantic tagging our perceptual systems carry out. Vision strikes us as immediate but this is a user illusion. An enormous amount of preprocessing is required. I don't doubt that other primates can think visually but as far as I am aware, none of them draw circles or squares.
The abstraction is in the way in which we relate these objects one to the other and while these relations may be unusual from time to time, as with "magical" thought. they are still logical.
I agree with you here.
It doesn't. Half a revolution, quarter of a revolution, tenth of a revolution
Now you are having a larf I think. Things don't have to be literally turning in order to merit the term 'revolutionary', although I like 'hopscotch'. 'The French Hopscotch' has a ring to it.
Thank you. Has anything surfaced?
I think there is a chance it might, with a lot of trawling but perhaps we should focus on the future.
If you must know I have access to the beta version of Echelon.
What is 'Echelon'?
Aren't there any penitential services around this time of year?
Good one.
Are you implying that McGrath was a gibbering maniac?
Of course not.
If I say that the first person to pass a finishing line in a running race is the winner then is that a tautology?
But what you actually said was the equivalent of 'McGrath won the race'. And for 'win' you supplied your own definintion which was somewhat different to 'pass the finish line first'. Something more like McGrath 'won' because he wasn't tarred and feathered during the race.
Some material was included and some was not. It is fair to suppose that the included material supported Dawkins' thesis, that religion is the "root of all evil", and that which was not included did not satisfy Dawkins' thesis nor could be made to support Dawkins' thesis by devious editing. So there.
By 'fair' you mean of course....
Your move.
Over to you.
"Of course not."
You're no fun.
"Something more like McGrath 'won' because he wasn't tarred and feathered during the race."
Exactly.
"By 'fair' you mean of course...."
...Fair.
"There are no such animals. They are an abstraction. I think we differ in how much semantic tagging our perceptual systems carry out.
I'm sure you know the sort of thing I mean. This is a circle. This is a square. Most young children are shown pictures and objects, not taught Euclid.
"Vision strikes us as immediate but this is a user illusion."
Note the modifier.
"An enormous amount of preprocessing is required. I don't doubt that other primates can think visually but as far as I am aware, none of them draw circles or squares."
I'm sure that I can climb into a tree but I would require a stepladder to reach the branches. What's your point?
"I agree with you here."
Then religious belief is logical.
"Now you are having a larf I think."
Yes, I'm laughing but I'm still correct.
"Things don't have to be literally turning in order to merit the term 'revolutionary'"
You have it topsy-turvy. Ideas don't have to be literal things in order to merit the term revolutionary but they do have to change their meaning diametrically, not once but twice, if they are to be thought as having undergone a revolution. Think of it in the following way suppose that you wanted to fly unaided like a bird and then suppose that, after determining that the only way to succeed in this is to transform yourself into a bird, many years of furious study into magical practices later you succeeded in transforming yourself into a crow. So you have achieved your wish and are able to fly like a bird because you are, in fact, a bird. Now, after your maiden flight, your feathers all neatly preened and glossy, you find that you're a little hungry. To your horror, you rather fancy the idea of a nice, juicy roadkill, all red and flat and raw and gamey, guts everywhere, yet there is no reason why you should be surprised at this because, after all, you are a crow. Not a person under the appearence of a crow, but a crow. The moral of the story is that only birds can fly like birds. In the same way only those things which have undergone a revolving of some sort may be described as revolutionary.
"'The French Hopscotch' has a ring to it."
I think so.
"I think there is a chance it might, with a lot of trawling but perhaps we should focus on the future."
Come on now; dredge it up.
"What is 'Echelon'?"
A mythical surveilance system of extreme efficiency and perspicacity. Have you been watching “The Lasy Enemy”?
"Good one."
There're some around now, as well, aren't there?
...Fair.
Of course.
I'm sure you know the sort of thing I mean. This is a circle. This is a square. Most young children are shown pictures and objects, not taught Euclid.
Yeah sure. Just try telling that to the chimps (without the thousands of researcher-hours to back it up.)
Note the modifier.
Eh?
Yes, I'm laughing but I'm still correct.
What, literally?
I'm sure that I can climb into a tree but I would require a stepladder to reach the branches. What's your point?
That the semantic tagging that allows a geometric interpretation of our visual field is quite different from the system that allows climbing. I thought that was clear.
Then religious belief is logical.
Why shouldn't it be?
Yes, I'm laughing but I'm still correct.
It's a metaphor. If something revolves it just means it turns. Your stipulation of more than pi is somewhat arbitrary. In the metaphor, surely diametric opposition is sufficient?
The moral of the story is that only birds can fly like birds.
No, it is that you shouldn't fall for your own anthropomorphisms, since, as a crow you wouldn't feel horror in the first place. So presumably this crow should feel incredulity at its own horror since it should recognise that it shouldn't be capable of feeling such a thing.
When Aunty Flo
Became a Crow
She had a bed put in a tree;
And there she lay
And read all day
Of ornithology.
From Aunts and Uncles, by Mervyn Peake.
"Just try telling that to the chimps (without the thousands of researcher-hours to back it up.)"
Try telling the chimps that children aren't taught Euclid?
"Eh?"
Most immediate.
"What, literally?"
Yes, I'm literally laughing.
"That the semantic tagging that allows a geometric interpretation of our visual field is quite different from the system that allows climbing. I thought that was clear."
Difficult to disagree with something which so goes beyond the obvious. I would be surprised if a chimp climbing a tree required any semantic thought at all, actually, which is only important in communication. Geometry, however, is communicated and so does require semantic thought.
You know, it is possible to address my arguments by making more than tangential contact with them. Why chimps should have anything to do with the human appreciation of geometry is anyone's guess, especially when it is quite obvious that the powers of chimps and humans are really quite distant from one another.
"Why shouldn't it be?"
Then why should you suppose that religious belief and scientific investigation are entirely different modes? Or have you changed that position?
"It's a metaphor. If something revolves it just means it turns. Your stipulation of more than pi is somewhat arbitrary."
A revolution is a full turn through 2pi.
"In the metaphor, surely diametric opposition is sufficient?"
Not if something is said to have undergone a revolution.
"No, it is that you shouldn't fall for your own anthropomorphisms, since, as a crow you wouldn't feel horror in the first place."
Crows are immune to emotion?
"So presumably this crow should feel incredulity at its own horror since it should recognise that it shouldn't be capable of feeling such a thing."
I think it likely, after you came to terms with a diet of gore, yes, you would had a good long think about things, reconcile yourself to the incongruence of your circumstances and affect and then, unless you had the power and inclination to transform yourself back to your old shape and preferences, you would start investigating crow religion. No anthropomorphic difficulties here but it will teach you not to mess around with magic.
Ooh I liked that Peake.
Difficult to disagree with something which so goes beyond the obvious.
If you were the sort who reliably agreed with the unarguably obvious then that retort might be pertinent.
You know, it is possible to address my arguments by making more than tangential contact with them.
Ha ha, my turn to laugh out loud. I don't think you can be serious in suggesting that the sometimes oblique nature of this interchange is all my doing.
Not if something is said to have undergone a revolution.
Not if something is said to have undergone a complete revolution.
Crows are immune to emotion?
'Horror' is a human label for a human emotion. I suppose their might be a crow analogue of that.
Something here to support my judgement of Dawkins' aim in interview of others.
Try this, then. Only a couple of days left on site, I think.
"If you were the sort who reliably agreed with the unarguably obvious then that retort might be pertinent."
An illegitimate induction, and so unlike you.
Besides, what is obvious to you isn't necessarily the way of things. If you felt otherwise then you would not entertain arguments counter to your position.
"I don't think you can be serious in suggesting that the sometimes oblique nature of this interchange is all my doing."
Yes, so the crow was a bit of an indulgence on my part, but I felt it made things a bit more interesting and touched on our prior discussions.
"Not if something is said to have undergone a complete revolution."
If a thing hasn't undergone a complete revolution then it hasn't undergone a revolution at all. Is half a wheel a wheel?
"'Horror' is a human label for a human emotion. I suppose their might be a crow analogue of that."
Horror, perhaps.
Post a Comment