Richard Dawkins: Why the universe seems so strange

[Cath]

[ronin]

Nothing strange about it.

It is what it is.

The strange thing is we seem to think otherwise and even more strange that we can do anything about it.

[Cath]

Nothing strange about it.

It is what it is.

The strange thing is we seem to think otherwise and even more strange that we can do anything about it.

Is there really nothing about it or any part of it that you find magical and/or over whelming at all ?

[ronin]

Not really.

I see too much of Why is gravity weaker then the other forces, but equally the other forces are not identical or equal so gravity just happens to be the one down the bottom.

The laws of this universe have to be what they are, otherwise we would not be here asking. Things just wouldn't work right for us/life to be here asking.

Too many times I read of people saying we must be almost the least significant thing in this universe, everything has to be better then we are. But I don't see anything more advanced, so far nothing better.

As I said the universe is what it is, hell it's not even infinite, just a big number, and if it was infinite equally so what - could actually make things easier.

There are bigger stars then ours and smaller ones.

Learning about it is interesting, but not magical or overwhelming.

[ollypenrice]

Exquisite. How I love that man! His intellectual generosity, his modesty, his reasonablesness, his eclectic synthesis of so many scientific ideas... breathtaking. And what a structured lecture. He has no living equal.

Ronin, I'm sorry, but do you think that Copernicus and Kepler and Newton and Euler and Faraday and Maxwell and Planck and Einstein and Bohr and Schroedinger and Feynman and, and and...  would have much time for your,  'Learning about it is interesting, but not magical or overwhelming.'  Why do we know their names?

I do know what you mean to some extent, though. My thoughts followed yours when first I read about Hoyle and his being troubled by the resonance needed to produce the Carbon atom and there I would agree with you. The resonance existed, it made carbon, carbon made us. C'est la vie.   However, I think that this is contained within Dawkinns' text. His wider point is that we should expect to be surprised because 'middle world' is not all the world.

Dawkins' ideas are philosophical borne of the biological and since we are born biological his philosopphy has the deepest truth.

Cath, yours is the best link I have ever followed on any forum and the thought that I might have missed it fills me with a kind of dread. How can I thank you?

Olly

[Qualia]

Although Dawkins is a well meaning thinker, I feel he is stuck not so much in some middle-world as some muddy-world and cannot go without critique Putting aside his argument on the way our physiological make up determines so much of how we perceive, interact and understand reality - which philosophically speaking can be traced back to Kant, and has been brought up by a host of thinkers since, it seems to me he contradcts himself to a degree.

We know that Dawkins suggests that mankind is an evolutionary animal, a contigent happening as such and thereby ruling out a God-inspired teleos; that, after all, is what Dawkins is most famous for, but at the same time -as highlighted in this lecture - he is a hard determinist. But if hard determinism is true, man cannot be contingent: he is a domino naturally falling after a long chain of dominoes falling in precise order as determined by initial conditions of the universe.

For a hard determinist, if you rewound the tape of life back to the same initial conditions, the dominoes would fall in the same way and you’d rerun all of history exactly, getting humans in the process. Granted this is not a teleos in the sense that some agent intended man to occur, but since under hard determinism you’ve got to assume that there can be only one history as determined by initial conditions, then Dawkins can’t logically conclude the contingency of human evolution when his own hard determinism means that man’s evolution was not contingent, but determined invariably by initial conditions in the universe .

Stranger still, Dawkins has no reason to plump for hard determinism given the quantum indeterminism he raises in his lecture, which is directly at variance with his hard determinism. These issues of hard determinism v. quantum indeterminism, and the inconsistency of plumping for hard determinism while insisting on the contingent evolution of humans, are interesting in their own right. The important point for now, as I see it, is that scientists like Dawkins display a certain degree of intellectual confusion when they step outside their own areas of expertise, and therefore I think many of their philosophical speculations and pronouncements ought to be taken at least with a grain of salt, if not with a metric ton of it

How's that for starting a debate

[Scooot]

I enjoyed that, can't say I understood everything. It's good that we don't know everything otherwise life would be a bit boring,there'd be no wow factor as we progressed.

Didn't see your post Qualia before I pressed the button, I was referring to the lecture.

[Moonshane]

Hi Rob, I agree with you on your last point about sticking with your specialism. I have not seen this lecture but have read most of his books and know not what hard determinism is (I had to google it). On your point about rewinding and re-running time, what if there was a large comet/asteroid that hit the Earth as humans 'got going'. could this not have halted their/our evolution to the point where humans don't then exist? surely external factors and internal chemicals affect our actions and development as much as anything, although we do not have free in the face of such things - perhaps until recently although watching e.g. Derren Brown / Dynamo etc suggests that apparent free will can easily be diverted. 

[Scooot]

Hi Rob, I agree with you on your last point about sticking with your specialism. I have not seen this lecture but have read most of his books and know not what hard determinism is (I had to google it). On your point about rewinding and re-running time, what if there was a large comet/asteroid that hit the Earth as humans 'got going'. could this not have halted their/our evolution to the point where humans don't then exist? surely external factors and internal chemicals affect our actions and development as much as anything, although we do not have free in the face of such things - perhaps until recently although watching e.g. Derren Brown / Dynamo etc suggests that apparent free will can easily be diverted.

Yeah the asteroid would or might have halted our evolution, it's not an external factor it's just a happening , and the dominos would have fallen differently, but if that had happened and you re-run it it would happen again?

[JamesF]

Very interesting lecture, and thanks for posting it, Cath.  In some ways it crystalises ideas that I've had floating about my head for some time.

James

[JamesF]

Although Dawkins is a well meaning thinker, I feel he is stuck not so much in some middle-world as some muddy-world and cannot go without critique Putting aside his argument on the way our physiological make up determines so much of how we perceive, interact and understand reality - which philosophically speaking can be traced back to Kant, and has been brought up by a host of thinkers since, it seems to me he contradcts himself to a degree.

We know that Dawkins suggests that mankind is an evolutionary animal, a contigent happening as such and thereby ruling out a God-inspired teleos; that, after all, is what Dawkins is most famous for, but at the same time -as highlighted in this lecture - he is a hard determinist. But if hard determinism is true, man cannot be contingent: he is a domino naturally falling after a long chain of dominoes falling in precise order as determined by initial conditions of the universe.

For a hard determinist, if you rewound the tape of life back to the same initial conditions, the dominoes would fall in the same way and you’d rerun all of history exactly, getting humans in the process. Granted this is not a teleos in the sense that some agent intended man to occur, but since under hard determinism you’ve got to assume that there can be only one history as determined by initial conditions, then Dawkins can’t logically conclude the contingency of human evolution when his own hard determinism means that man’s evolution was not contingent, but determined invariably by initial conditions in the universe .

Stranger still, Dawkins has no reason to plump for hard determinism given the quantum indeterminism he raises in his lecture, which is directly at variance with his hard determinism. These issues of hard determinism v. quantum indeterminism, and the inconsistency of plumping for hard determinism while insisting on the contingent evolution of humans, are interesting in their own right. The important point for now, as I see it, is that scientists like Dawkins display a certain degree of intellectual confusion when they step outside their own areas of expertise, and therefore I think many of their philosophical speculations and pronouncements ought to be taken at least with a grain of salt, if not with a metric ton of it

How's that for starting a debate

You know, I'm not sure

I've always thought of Dawkins as looking at the argument from the opposite direction and I'm not sure the "hard determinist" role fits that way around.  My interpretation is that he is saying "we are what we are as a result of this set of initial conditions".  I'm not convinced that is the same as "given this set of initial conditions, we will be the end result".  I think he looks at the chain of fallen dominos from the end and traces it back to the beginning rather than standing at the first and claiming that "this" is how they will fall.

Unfortunately it's rather too many glasses of red into a Sunday night to be able to marshall one's thoughts on the matter into much of a coherent argument

James

[Ptarmigan]

How's that for starting a debate

Nice analysis, trouble is that I think there is a mite of Kafka entanglement lurking therein.

If you're Dawkins, of if you're on the otherside, nevertheless we are examining this from the inside and sadly there is no way of knowing from without the system, neither side will be able to PROVE ,

I know I know shhhhh, a philosophy of despair but accept it, leastways, dont fight over it.

By which I mean, dont go to Syria or wherever , ,

[MrFinster]

If you're Dawkins, of if you're on the otherside, nevertheless we are examining this from the inside and sadly there is no way of knowing from without the system, neither side will be able to PROVE ,

I know I know shhhhh, a philosophy of despair but accept it, leastways, dont fight over it.

Liking the stoicism 

[Ptarmigan]

Heheee, thank you for noticing MrF !

Elesewhere on the forum Fred Hoyle is mentioned alongside other great and entertaining thinkers (like Penrose).

Hoyle is a hero of mine, I'm sure he was esentially right but got the detail wrong,,, it always was, is, and will be,

maybe by a big bounce, maybe a clash of M-branes, whatever,

cos the posibility of it starting and the question of who or what was responsible is too awful to contemplate.

Time for Zebedee,,

Oh, PS, didnt stoics get a bad name when the Christians of somelot came along ?

[ollypenrice]

Qualia, I don't think Dawkins is a hard determinist in the sense that you suggest. My copy of the relevant book is not with me in France but I'm sure I remember reading a section on the inherent instability of populations. I think he discusses the sensitivity of population evolution to initial conditions and sets this in the context of chaos theory, which (if I'm remembering this correctly) cannot be considered truly, if at all, deterministic. 

I know that, from pure thought, philosophers arrived at the conclusion that we must accept that we deal in perceptions of reality. I'm not as keen as you are on pure philosophy (largely because I'm no good at it. My Prof said darkly at the end of my studies, 'Your philosophy, however, was less successful...' Uh-Oh!) So I like to come at this the Dawkins way, through our evolutionary history. 

For me the greatest moments of the scientific revolution have all centred upon debunking anthropomorphism. Aristarchus, Copernicus, Kepler and Gallileo, between them, dislodged the Earth from the centre of the universe and us with it. Darwin debunked the idea that we were different in kind from the animals and removed the need for a creator (though you can retain one if you wish.) Einstein demolished the idea that we could consider space and time as if we had access to a unique and impartial viewpoint. The Quantum theorists further demolished the idea of an impartial viewpoint and demonstrated that what we find reasonable has no influence whatever on what happens to be the case.

For me, Dawkns' contribution arises from his evolutionary biologist's understanding of us and how we come to be as we are, perceiving things as we do. I'm more at home with this pragmatic exploration of anthropocentricity than with a purely philosophical one. I'm not trying to make a virtue of this, by the way. Far from it.

I love the idea that we are creatures of the Middle World.

Olly

Edit; An aside. I've just noticed, to my surprize, that Newton isn't in my list. There's something to think about later...

[LukeSkywatcher]

I have to say that i am not a fan of Dawkins. I have read a couple of his books and he just (in my eyes) seems to use other people work to try to get his point across, without any actual real personal input of his own. I feel that if you are going to write books and make a shed load of cash from them, then at least have some personal thoughts/research in the books.

I also find his ultra staunch view of atheism a real put off. Its either his way, or the high way.

I consider myself as an Agnostic. As such, i am open to opinions etc. I dont have the answers. Atheism (as in Dawkins case) shuts off that and dispells any remote possibility of accepting others opinions.

Sorry mods if this comment is verging on the edge of the CoC, but it is a discussion about Dawkins and nothing else. 

P.S.~~~ive seen him on live chat shows and he comes across as a very rude man who will only talk about his latest book and refuse to answer questions about any of his other books.

Just my honest opinion.

If yu want to read about the universe and how it works..................Bill Bryson's book "A Short History Of Nearly Everything", is a great read.

[JB80]

Paul, I think the thing with Dawkins is to make a distinction between his scientific work  and for lack of a better term his philosophical writings.

It's probably a shame that he will at least in the present be mostly remembered for his best selling book which I think you are referring to, but he seems to welcome the attention so each to his own really.

I see where you are coming from though.

I imagine that outside of the scientific community or people with an interest in learning about science not many would know he is a much heralded evolutionary biologist.

[symesie04]

Not really.

I see too much of Why is gravity weaker then the other forces, but equally the other forces are not identical or equal so gravity just happens to be the one down the bottom.

The laws of this universe have to be what they are, otherwise we would not be here asking. Things just wouldn't work right for us/life to be here asking.

Too many times I read of people saying we must be almost the least significant thing in this universe, everything has to be better then we are. But I don't see anything more advanced, so far nothing better.

As I said the universe is what it is, hell it's not even infinite, just a big number, and if it was infinite equally so what - could actually make things easier.

There are bigger stars then ours and smaller ones.

Learning about it is interesting, but not magical or overwhelming.

In  some ways I do agree with you, your right things are the way they are or we would not be here discussing it. However I think that the fact that all the ways things are come together is incredibly beautiful. And what is totally magical is learning of the existence of such beauty.

I have to say that i am not a fan of Dawkins. I have read a couple of his books and he just (in my eyes) seems to use other people work to try to get his point across, without any actual real personal input of his own. I feel that if you are going to write books and make a shed load of cash from them, then at least have some personal thoughts/research in the books.

I think its a little harsh to say he does not do his own work. However to take the point anyway I feel that there are many great scientists that create grand and inspiring theories such as Darwin and Einstein but sometimes we need someone to link these theories together to help us model our world. Without the likes of Dawkins most of us would never make an association between Darwin and quantum physics. As a result I don't mind Dawkins making money without "doing his own research" as he undoubtedly contributes clarifying the links between sciences in my opinion.

[ollypenrice]

I have to say that i am not a fan of Dawkins. I have read a couple of his books and he just (in my eyes) seems to use other people work to try to get his point across, without any actual real personal input of his own. I feel that if you are going to write books and make a shed load of cash from them, then at least have some personal thoughts/research in the books.

I also find his ultra staunch view of atheism a real put off. Its either his way, or the high way.

I consider myself as an Agnostic. As such, i am open to opinions etc. I dont have the answers. Atheism (as in Dawkins case) shuts off that and dispells any remote possibility of accepting others opinions.

Sorry mods if this comment is verging on the edge of the CoC, but it is a discussion about Dawkins and nothing else. 

P.S.~~~ive seen him on live chat shows and he comes across as a very rude man who will only talk about his latest book and refuse to answer questions about any of his other books.

Just my honest opinion.

If yu want to read about the universe and how it works..................Bill Bryson's book "A Short History Of Nearly Everything", is a great read.

Paul, it is Bill Bryson whose book contains no original work. He's a journalist and a brilliant one. I love him. But he's remotely an original scientist.

Dawkins' original scienific research is in evolutionary biology where he's made a massive contribution. Dawkins the atheist is just an afterthought to his real work. Scienifically he his more famous for his disagreement with Stephen Jay Gould over gaps in the fossil record. 

But the Dawkins of this thread was talking about why humans don't understand the quantum and cosmologcal scales and I thought his lecture was brilliant on this subject.

I've ever found him arrogant. His generosity and respect for the work of others is always very clearly expresssed I think.

We are in danger of seeing Dawkins added to the word filter if we have to invoke Dawkins the atheist every time his name comes up. He is also a famous scientist in his own field and probably the best scienific popularizer since Faraday! Indeed his Chair was in the communication of science.

I don't know how many copies of The Selfish Gene were sold but it's a lot!!  Unfortunately he still struggles agains those who thiink he meant a gene for selfishness...

Sorry for typos, I'm on a tiny PC away from home.

Olly

[Ptarmigan]

Edit; An aside. I've just noticed, to my surprize, that Newton isn't in my list. There's something to think about later...

Dont worry about it, Newton wasnt very good at including other people on his lists ! :)

[Macavity]

Never really into the "Wunderz" thing - Or the "I'm so small... I'm so small" rhetoric.

Enthusiasm for science is expressed in many ways? "Quieter" works OK with me?

Or maybe reflecting my general cynicism re. "sexing up" of science everything...

Re. R.D. - Reminded BBC's "Beautiful Minds" featured *two* Evolutionary Biologists.

I emerged more a fan of (wonderfully named!) Jenny Clack. Modest? Unsung Hero?

Headline: Dawkins readers find it hard to believe in existence of other scientists?

I note *some* Evolutionary Biologists referring rather sneeringly towards Physical

Sciences (scientists!) in "comedy warmups" at these... "science gigs"? *Nerds*, we

may be, but without Particle Physics and Astronomy they'd be short on material?

Sometimes I sense they (we) are fighting the wrong enemy... 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/maths-more-pointless-than-latin-british-pupils-china (Hmmm...) 

[JamesF]

I'm very much a fan of The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable and other Dawkins works.  The first in particular is almost worth making required reading in schools because it opens the world of evolution up in such a meaningful and comprehensible way.  I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that it changed the way I thought about the world.

He does, to me, seem to come across as exceptionally strident at times and I find that uncomfortable even though in many respects I completely agree with his point of view.  Lately I have come to wonder however if that's not just because we really aren't used to someone promoting the views he holds that strongly.  People promote gay rights, women's rights, religion and politics just as strongly after all, and the majority generally don't seem to find it too "in their face".  Few people promote science, the scientific method and humanism as forcefully and people really aren't that used to it.  It pushes them out of their comfort zone and I think that feeds their negative perception of him.

And to an extent I can understand him being cross with and almost scolding some of the "laymen" with whom he disagrees.  When I have formed some opinion or other by doing a lot of reading and research and testing my understanding and then someone with no genuine cause other than their own prejudice tells me I'm wrong in the face of all the credible evidence, I can sometimes get pretty cross, too.

James

[JamesF]

I've ever found him arrogant. His generosity and respect for the work of others is always very clearly expresssed I think.

My recollection is that despite many years disagreement with Jay Gould, Dawkins always had a great deal of respect for him and even dedicated a book to him after Gould's death (The River out of Eden, perhaps?  Not sure.)

James

[nebogipfel]

I have to say that i am not a fan of Dawkins. I have read a couple of his books and he just (in my eyes) seems to use other people work to try to get his point across, without any actual real personal input of his own. I feel that if you are going to write books and make a shed load of cash from them, then at least have some personal thoughts/research in the books.

I also find his ultra staunch view of atheism a real put off. Its either his way, or the high way.

I consider myself as an Agnostic. As such, i am open to opinions etc. I dont have the answers. Atheism (as in Dawkins case) shuts off that and dispells any remote possibility of accepting others opinions.

Sorry mods if this comment is verging on the edge of the CoC, but it is a discussion about Dawkins and nothing else. 

P.S.~~~ive seen him on live chat shows and he comes across as a very rude man who will only talk about his latest book and refuse to answer questions about any of his other books.

Just my honest opinion.

If yu want to read about the universe and how it works..................Bill Bryson's book "A Short History Of Nearly Everything", is a great read.

So let's get this straight .....Richard Dawkins probably the world's most eminent  Evolutionary Biologist isn't qualified to write on the subject ....... Bill Bryson on the other hand (I need a smack palm of hand to forehead emoticon here )

Dawkins is a deep thinker and an inspiring polite speaker. His earlier works detail his original researches and computer modelling of the evolutionary process. I strongly recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" to all readers interested in the diversity of life and the wonder of evolution.

As an aside (and I know religion is taboo on forums) but to clarify, Dawkins doesn't care if anyone believes in the Sugar Plum Fairy What he does care about to give a couple of examples is Religion being taught as science  and the fact that a huge percentage of the United States population believe the earth is <10'000 years old! (and of course the many more odious things)

We should all, irrespective of belief systems be appalled by these things particularly as visitors to a rational evidence based science forum. I emphasise this is just my understanding of Prof' Dawkins stance and not to stray into problem areas for the moderators. I just feel it needed to be said.

[ollypenrice]

Just to repeat, the OP made no mention of Dawkins the atheist. This thread is about Dawkins the evolutionay biologist. This is very important.

Olly