Richard Dawkins Documentary - Enemies of Reason

[Moontanman]

Do you imagine that it';s possible to do physics without doing metaphysics? It would be an unorthodox view. It would be like building a sand-castle.

 

So you have nothing, I thought not...

 

Actually, I hadn't realised that he had any real respect or support anymore. So rather naively I was taken by surprise. My fault.

 

Defaming a man by making unsupported claims... so classy...

 

 

 

 

Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...

[PeterJ]

 

So you have nothing, I thought not...

 

 

Defaming a man by making unsupported claims... so classy...

 

 

Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...

 

Do you actually read my posts? It appears not. Which claim was unsupported? Why do you say I have nothing? Anything can be stated without evidence, and anything can be dismissed without evidence. Do you not see that this is a mistake in both cases?

 

I've asked for an example of a specific criticism that I have made that is unjustified, so we could discuss it, and there were no takers.

 

Time to move on.

Edited May 29, 2013 by PeterJ

[pwagen]

As for Dawkins, how someone can make an argument for the non-existence of something and be taken seriously is beyond me, although from some of the posts in this thread I can see how he has an audience.

He doesn't, though. Saying "we shouldn't base our world view on X existing since we have no evidence of X" is very different from saying "X doesn't exist".

 

[PeterJ]

His claim is made in his book title. This is what I mean by lack of rigour.

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2013 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

Do you actually read my posts? It appears not. Which claim was unsupported? Why do you say I have nothing? Anything can be stated without evidence, and anything can be dismissed without evidence. Do you not see that this is a mistake in both cases?

 

WOW! Talk about a dishonest answer, is dishonesty the only way you can support your position?

 

I've asked for an example of a specific criticism that I have made that is unjustified, so we could discuss it, and there were no takers.

 

Time to move on.

Here you go, defend this horsefeathers...

 

Do you imagine that it';s possible to do physics without doing metaphysics? It would be an unorthodox view. It would be like building a sand-castle.

 

 

Or better yet answer my question.

 

Moontanman, on 28 May 2013 - 21:00, said:

 

Way to dodge a question there PeterJ, I'll ask it again, how has metaphysics contributed to the real world? How many more tons of food are produced each year by metaphysics? How many diseases have been cured or eradicated by metaphysics? Could civilization stumble on without metaphysics PeterJ? Take away science and all it has given us and people begin to die immediately, within days millions would be dead, within months billions. If metaphysics were taken away how would that impact our 1st world civilization?

 

[PeterJ]

WOW! Talk about a dishonest answer, is dishonesty the only way you can support your position?

Sorry. What was dishonest? I wasn't aware I was answering a questrion . I thought I was just making a comment.

 

Here you go, defend this horsefeathers...

 

Okay. Thanks for asking in such a nice way. Fortunately most scientists support my view.

 

"It is difficult to decide where science ends and mysticism begins. As soon as we begin to make even the most elementary theories we are open to the charge of indulging in metaphysics. Yet theories, however provisional, are the very lifeblood of scientific progress. We simply cannot escape metaphysics, though we can perhaps over-indulge, as well as have too little."

Banesh Hoffman - The Strange Story of the Quantum (Penguin 1968)

 

Banesh Hoffmann was born in Richmond, England, on 6 September 1906. He studied mathematics and theoretical physics at the University of Oxford, where he earned his bachelor of arts and went on to earn his doctorate at Princeton University.

 

While at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Hoffmann collaborated with Einstein and Leopold Infeld on the classic paper Gravitational Equations and the Problem of Motion. Einstein’s original work on general relativity was based on two ideas. The first was the equation of motion: a particle would follow the shortest path in four-dimensional space-time. The second was how matter affects the geometry of space-time. What Einstein, Infeld, and Hoffmann showed was that the equation of motion followed directly from the field equation that defined the geometry (see main article).

 

 

In 1937 Hoffmann joined the mathematics department of Queens College, part of the City University of New York, where he remained till the late 1970s. He retired in the 1960s but continued to teach one course a semester — in the fall a course on classical and quantum mechanics and in the spring one on the special and general theories of relativity.

 

 

 

 

Or better yet answer my question.

 

Moontanman, on 28 May 2013 - 21:00, said:

 

 

Which question was that? The one about what metaphysics has done for us? What an astonishing question. It's like asking what thinking has done for us. I think Hoffman answers it well enough.

 

I could add that one of the useful things it does is allow us to think about the nature of time and space, It allows us to see, for instance, that the idea that world as a whole had a beginning is daft. It is, as Francis Bradley says, 'an antidote to dogmatic superstition'. No doubt this why it is not a more popular.study. Without it there would be no disciplne responsible for answering fundamental questions, and science would be freed from the constraints of reason.

 

I think being an antidote to dogmatic superstition makes it useful, It is also useful in that science can ringfence all its foundational problems in one place and leave them to specialists.

 

Here is Bradley in Appearance and Reality.

 

"I certainly do not suppose that it would be good for every one to study metaphysics, and I cannot express any opinion as to the number of persons who should do so. But I think it quite necessary, even on the view that this study can produce no positive results, that it should still be pursued. There is, so far as I can see, no other certain way of protecting ourselves against dogmatic superstition. Our orthodox theology on the one side, and our common-place materialism on the other side (it is natural to take these as prominent instances), vanish like ghosts before the daylight of free sceptical enquiry. I do not mean, of course, to condemn wholly either of these beliefs; but I am sure that either, when taken seriously, is the mutilation of our nature. Neither, as experience has amply shown, can now survive in the mind which has thought sincerely on first principles; and it seems desirable that there should be such a refuge for the man who burns to think consistently, and yet is too good to become a slave, either to stupid fanaticism or dishonest sophistry."

Edited May 29, 2013 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

Sorry. What was dishonest? I wasn't aware I was answering a questrion . I thought I was just making a comment.

 

What was dishonest? You changed the wording of my statement and totally changed what it said and meant, you did that intentionally, you are dishonest the rest of this post smacks of special pleading, appeals to authority and just plain snake oil which is what I would expect from what is basically a dishonest stance... Yeah, report me, I'll defend this position until the heat death of the universe...

 

Okay. Thanks for asking in such a nice way. Fortunately most scientists support my view.

 

"It is difficult to decide where science ends and mysticism begins. As soon as we begin to make even the most elementary theories we are open to the charge of indulging in metaphysics. Yet theories, however provisional, are the very lifeblood of scientific progress. We simply cannot escape metaphysics, though we can perhaps over-indulge, as well as have too little."

 

Banesh Hoffman - The Strange Story of the Quantum (Penguin 1968)

 

Banesh Hoffmann was born in Richmond, England, on 6 September 1906. He studied mathematics and theoretical physics at the University of Oxford, where he earned his bachelor of arts and went on to earn his doctorate at Princeton University.

 

While at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Hoffmann collaborated with Einstein and Leopold Infeld on the classic paper Gravitational Equations and the Problem of Motion. Einstein’s original work on general relativity was based on two ideas. The first was the equation of motion: a particle would follow the shortest path in four-dimensional space-time. The second was how matter affects the geometry of space-time. What Einstein, Infeld, and Hoffmann showed was that the equation of motion followed directly from the field equation that defined the geometry (see main article).

 

 

In 1937 Hoffmann joined the mathematics department of Queens College, part of the City University of New York, where he remained till the late 1970s. He retired in the 1960s but continued to teach one course a semester — in the fall a course on classical and quantum mechanics and in the spring one on the special and general theories of relativity.

 

So what? Many religious scholars have contributed to science but guess what they didn't use religion to do it, so i ask again SO WHAT?

 

Which question was that? The one about what metaphysics has done for us? What an astonishing question. It's like asking what thinking has done for us. I think Hoffman answers it well enough.

 

No actually it was no answer at all...

 

I could add that one of the useful things it does is allow us to think about the nature of time and space, It allows us to see, for instance, that the idea that world as a whole had a beginning is daft. It is, as Francis Bradley says, 'an antidote to dogmatic superstition'. No doubt this why it is not a more popular.study. Without it there would be no disciplne responsible for answering fundamental questions, and science would be freed from the constraints of reason.

 

Meaningless drivel, you can think about the nature of the economics of elven culture as long as you want but it doesn't make elves real...

 

I think being an antidote to dogmatic superstition makes it useful, It is also useful in that science can ringfence all its foundational problems in one place and leave them to specialists.

 

Here is Bradley in Appearance and Reality.

 

"I certainly do not suppose that it would be good for every one to study metaphysics, and I cannot express any opinion as to the number of persons who should do so. But I think it quite necessary, even on the view that this study can produce no positive results, that it should still be pursued. There is, so far as I can see, no other certain way of protecting ourselves against dogmatic superstition. Our orthodox theology on the one side, and our common-place materialism on the other side (it is natural to take these as prominent instances), vanish like ghosts before the daylight of free sceptical enquiry. I do not mean, of course, to condemn wholly either of these beliefs; but I am sure that either, when taken seriously, is the mutilation of our nature. Neither, as experience has amply shown, can now survive in the mind which has thought sincerely on first principles; and it seems desirable that there should be such a refuge for the man who burns to think consistently, and yet is too good to become a slave, either to stupid fanaticism or dishonest sophistry."

 

If metaphysics has no more than this to offer I suggest you go back to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I will give you credit for giving answers that are nothing but bullshit warmed over a fire made of dried bullshit... I get it now, metaphysics is professional avoidance of really admitting you have no position except for an imaginary, invisible, all important nothing....

 

I asked you specific questions, you did nothing but equivocate and use dishonest tactics to change the goal posts... good job that...

 

Dishonest sophistry? Really? There is honest sophistry?

Edited May 29, 2013 by Moontanman

[PeterJ]

What was dishonest? You changed the wording of my statement and totally changed what it said and meant, you did that intentionally, you are dishonest the rest of this post smacks of special pleading, appeals to authority and just plain snake oil which is what I would expect from what is basically a dishonest stance... Yeah, report me, I'll defend this position until the heat death of the universe...

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have anything to say that is relevant to the discussion? Or do you just like to be foul to people for fun. All you do is make of fool of yourself with such posts.

 

So what? Many religious scholars have contributed to science but guess what they didn't use religion to do it, so i ask again SO WHAT?

 

 

No actually it was no answer at all...

 

 

Meaningless drivel, you can think about the nature of the economics of elven culture as long as you want but it doesn't make elves real...

 

 

If metaphysics has no more than this to offer I suggest you go back to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I will give you credit for giving answers that are nothing but bullshit warmed over a fire made of dried bullshit... I get it now, metaphysics is professional avoidance of really admitting you have no position except for an imaginary, invisible, all important nothing....

 

I asked you specific questions, you did nothing but equivocate and use dishonest tactics to change the goal posts... good job that...

 

Dishonest sophistry? Really? There is honest sophistry?

 

I hadn't realised I was dealing with a madman. Now I feel like a right prat for taking the time to talk to you.

 

If ever any evidence is required that Prof Dawkins attracts only fanatics and fools to his cause then this thead will do nicely.

 

I'll unsubscribe so you needn't waste any more time on me.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

This thread needs to calm down and get back on topic. There will be no second warnings. Any post that is even slightly insulting or hostile will henceforth be removed.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I have just had to split the 15 posts following my previous mod note into another thread for being entirely off topic. I will not be doing this again; any more posts will simply be deleted. If anyone wishes to continue posting about metaphysics, please direct your posts to this thread and once again, play nice.

[john5746]

Dawkins criticizes the growing field of alternative medicine which does not pass the same objective and statistical rigour as scientifically derived treatments using controlled double-blind studies. Without verifiable evidence, alternative therapies must rely on biased anecdotes and word of mouth to perpetuate. Dawkins observes these treatments have fanciful rationales and rituals behind them, with many alternative treatments employing pseudoscientific jargon such as "energy", "vibration" or "quantum theory" to give themselves greater credence to patients.

I completely agree with Dawkins in regards to much of the alternative medicine woo woo. The most unfortunate result of this is that we overlook common sense measures. Diet, exercise, stress reduction, meditation, etc. They are talked about here and there, but in my experience, doctors give up too easily and just keep adding drugs.

 

We do need drugs, but they come with side effects. Its just stupid to keep concentrating on drug and surgical procedures when people have terrible diets, smoke, drink, sit all the time, etc. Really spending most of the effort combating the shitty lifestyle we have adopted.

[overtone]

If ever any evidence is required that Prof Dawkins attracts only fanatics and fools to his cause then this thead will do nicely.

Note that the only objections to Dawkins presence in public discussion and value thereto is coming from people who have not read his books.

 

Such people tend to identify anyone who has actually read the guy's stuff as a fanatic or fool attracted to his cause - an attribution of fanaticism and foolishness uninformed about not only Dawkins's actual "cause", but the level or state of "attraction" in reality possessed by such persons.

 

In the spirit of righting a tipped boat, somebody who has actually read Dawkins and has at least some familiarity with his work might take this opportunity to post some objections or disagreements of their own, and thereby at least attempt a legitimate discussion of the OP. I am not the ideal person, because although I have a few caveats and bones to pick with the guy I have not seen (and do not plan to watch) the video mentioned in the OP or any other video of Dawkins other than his film of some years back.

 

So - -

Edited June 1, 2013 by overtone

[Moontanman]

I've watched all his videos, but I've read none of his books, In his videos i see no inconsistencies or logical fallacies, in fact he gives religion quite a bit more leeway than i do...