Richard Dawkins: Why the universe seems so strange

[nebogipfel]

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

Quite true. In that capacity I find him an authoritative and inspirational author and speaker.

For anyone interested there are quite a few lectures and debates featuring him readily available on Youtube. A search for "ASU Origins" will bring up quite a bit of material featuring such speakers as Prof' Dawkins, Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss and other eminent scientists.

Because of Dawkins stance on rationality and evolution he does come under a fair bit of criticism for things he doesn't say rather than credit for the things he does.

And I did take issue with the comparison to Bill Bryson.

EDIT To add link:-

This should worry all of us, not just Prof' Dawkins

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Really good video, the universe is a very strange place. We've done well to overcome our macroscopic biases to gain some understanding of its nature, but I wonder how much further we can go before we hit the limits of our comprehension and our ability to perform meaningful experiments?

I also like to spin the question around: what would an intuitive universe look like?

[LukeSkywatcher]

Apologies. It was wrong of me to talk about my opinion of Dawkins the atheist, and Dawkins the evolutionary biologist. He (the atheist) rubs me up the wrong way and as a result i never did finish "the greatest show on earth".

I suppose i should give it (and Dawkins the evolutionary biologist) a fair chance, and reread it.

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

Careful now !!!! you dont want to annoy Bryson fans. We are a loyal fierce bunch of so and so's.

[JessicaFaye]

I have to say I'm glad to see varying views on Dawkins. I very much dislike him as a person, I think he is a very intelligent and educated man, and have read and watched a lot of his views. However he always leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth... the same as Sam Harris. Very rigid views and incredibly disrespectful to those with a belief in God. I do not have a belief in God but I have deep respect for those who do and he very very clearly and evidently does not. This sadly taints how I view him and deters me from wanting to hear his views....

[Myopicus]

@LukeSkywatcher

+1 for that.  Big up the Bryson Massive.

[bingevader]

Apologies. It was wrong of me to talk about my opinion of Dawkins the atheist, and Dawkins the evolutionary biologist. He (the atheist) rubs me up the wrong way and as a result i never did finish "the greatest show on earth".

I suppose i should give it (and Dawkins the evolutionary biologist) a fair chance, and reread it.

Nope, I wouldn't bother.

His earlier works may have been good (but not as ground breaking as some seem to be suggesting!), but he's just turned into a blinkered self publicist.

From either side, atheist or creationist, I've never understood his type of exclusionist philosophy. 

I practise my faith and study science, neither to the exclusion of the other.

Cheers

[LukeSkywatcher]

I just remembered. Someone bought my Dawkins books from me at a car boot sale a couple of months ago. They were brand new and i paid full price and i only got about 3 euros per book.

[JessicaFaye]

Nope, I wouldn't bother.

His earlier works may have been good (but not as ground breaking as some seem to be suggesting!), but he's just turned into a blinkered self publicist.

From either side, atheist or creationist, I've never understood his type of exclusionist philosophy. 

I practise my faith and study science, neither to the exclusion of the other.

Cheers

A person who studies science and rejects God is not academically superior as some would lead you to believe!! Very happy to see this post

[JessicaFaye]

I just remembered. Someone bought my Dawkins books from me at a car boot sale a couple of months ago. They were brand new and i paid full price and i only got about 3 euros per book.

The person who bought them was still ripped off

[JessicaFaye]

EDIT To add link:-

This should worry all of us, not just Prof' Dawkins

We should also worry that incomplete versions of the THEORY of evolution, which is incredibly in-depth and ever changing is taught as fact in our schools with no leeway to other concepts and beliefs!

[JamesF]

We should also worry that incomplete versions of the THEORY of evolution, which is incredibly in-depth and ever changing is taught as fact in our schools with no leeway to other concepts and beliefs!

Why capitalise "theory" there?

James

[JessicaFaye]

Why capitalise "theory" there?

James

Because it's taught as fact.

[ollypenrice]

This is not about Dawkins the atheist. This is about Dawkins the biologist talking about the way in which brain and thought are linked to environment. Our environment is neither quantum not cosmological, it is local. Does nobody find this interesting? I do.

Olly

[Myopicus]

In fairness, we live in an increasingly multicultural society whereby tolerance and understanding of differing belief systems are taught as the norm in schools (U.K. state schools at least).

I guess the bottom line is that 'faith' is just that - a belief, much like Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy.  Science is taught as 'fact' because it has an empirical credence.

"Science is the record of dead religions."  Mr Wilde, again. 

[LukeSkywatcher]

If Alice Roberts told me that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around earth.....................i'd believe her.

[Myopicus]

If Alice Roberts told me that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around earth.....................i'd believe her.

 Yes, but the way that she says 'agrees', with the emphasis on the 'eeesss', is let's face it, just a tad really annoying.

[JessicaFaye]

You're right Olly it's not about that, and yes I do find it very interesting. perception is a very powerful thing, I have only really looked at it from a psychological angle, with the research by Timothy Leary and the such like rather than biologist point of view.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

 Edit - sorry, wrong quote.

[rowan46]

This is not about Dawkins the atheist. This is about Dawkins the biologist talking about the way in which brain and thought are linked to environment. Our environment is neither quantum not cosmological, it is local. Does nobody find this interesting? I do.

Olly

I do

[JamesF]

Because it's taught as fact.

I think you're misinterpreting the word "theory" when used in a scientific context with the way it's often used outside the scientific community.  That is, that it means the same thing as "hypothesis".  That is absolutely not the case in science.

A scientific "theory" is a model, if you like, built on logic, deduction and experimentation that is both consistent internally and consistent with the real-world observations on which it is based.  It may not and indeed does not have to explain all observations, but nature must agree with all observations that can be predicted from it otherwise the theory is not valid, just as Newton's Theory of Gravitation was shown to be invalid by Einstein.  (Being invalid doesn't make it useless, but it means that it will produce results inconsistent with reality.)

So, we have a situation where a scientific theory either matches reality or can be invalidated by the demonstration of a single inconsistent fact.  No scientist will ever assume that such a single fact cannot turn up because doubt is the fundamental position of the scientific method, but until such time as it does the theory is effectively a perfect match for reality.  in such circumstances it's philosophically possible to argue that the theory is indeed fact.

Of course, the theory isn't complete and some of it is still, err, evolving  I wonder if any theory based on "natural" science ever can be complete.  But that the theory is incomplete doesn't invalidate it, whether it be evolution or relativity or quantum theory.

Now one might think other competing ideas should be taught alongside evolution.  After all, just because there's one theory doesn't mean there can't be another.  This is quite a common situation in science until one or the other is invalidated by failure to agree with reality.  What Alice Roberts is saying is "Fine, but not in science classes".  Science belongs in science classes.  If one wanted creationism taught in science classes, or intelligent design, one should have to show that they followed the scientific method otherwise they clearly don't belong.  Both however quite clearly don't follow the scientific method and therefore are not science.  So, as Alice Roberts says, teach them elsewhere if you must, but not in science lessons.

James

[JamesF]

I do

As do I.  In fact it's one of those insights that once spoken seems blindingly obvious.  The sort of thing you think you'd probably have realised for yourself if you gave the matter any serious thought

James

[LukeSkywatcher]

 Yes, but the way that she says 'agrees', with the emphasis on the 'eeesss', is let's face it, just a tad really annoying.

That's just her Bristol (west country accent) showing through.

If that accent bothered me, i'd never watch Russell Howard (my favourite comedian), and Phil Harding's (Time Team) accent would have me driven up the wall.

Our environment is neither quantum nor cosmological

You are correct. In many parts of the UK and Ireland, our environment is under a couple of feet of water right now.

[nebogipfel]

Apologies. It was wrong of me to talk about my opinion of Dawkins the atheist, and Dawkins the evolutionary biologist. He (the atheist) rubs me up the wrong way and as a result i never did finish "the greatest show on earth".

I suppose i should give it (and Dawkins the evolutionary biologist) a fair chance, and reread it.

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

Careful now !!!! you dont want to annoy Bryson fans. We are a loyal fierce bunch of so and so's.

Hi Paul,

I'm a Bryson fan also  I particularly enjoyed "The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid"

I'll admit I didn't get Dawkins at first, he's quite an intense and serious chap. Now having watched him in many interviews/lectures and read most of his stuff I can see where he is coming from.

He is widely misunderstood and quoted out of context and it is very difficult bearing in mind the code of conduct on the forum to discuss it in any degree. He is certainly an unapologetic atheist but his gripe with the beliefs of others are mainly concerned with what he sees as the bad influence of religion in society. He finds issues such as young earth creationism being taught as science and what he sees as the indoctrination of young minds.

Dawkins is usually a quiet and polite man and I've seen him having to respond to mind numbingly stupid deluded people

As I say I don't want to stray into areas I shouldn't and with respect to the original topic of this thread I will comment no further.

[JessicaFaye]

James there's lots of things I could say to your post, even if we don't see eye to eye, I appreciate that input there's always something to consider maybe for a different topic.  it's a very interesting subject... all I will say is my brain and subsequently my thoughts are linked to my environment I can make no apologies for that, it's science

(also I do fully understand my use of the word theory)

[ollypenrice]

Because it's taught as fact.

If science is taught as fact it's being wrongly taught, because scientific theories are intellectual models of reality, not facts. However, teaching this effectively might not be dead easy. Teachers do have certain responibilities. There's a theory, evidence based, that says that if you jump from a great height onto tarmac certain biological, chemical and physical consequences will arise. This, as you rightly say, is just theory. But lets's now distinguish between theory and hypothesis. I propsoe to you this hypothesis; tie a bunch of green bananas round your left ankle and sing the Marseillaise as you jump and you will land softly without harm. So here's my question; which do you prefer, theory or hypothesis?And what is the difference between them?

Anyway, I take it that nobody wants to talk about the OP's link. How many people in this conversation have watched it?

And who cares if Dawkins is nice? Was Newton nice? No, he wasn't even slightly nice, he was abominable, so it's obvious that his laws of motion are useless.   On the other hand Tycho Brahe was the life and soul of the party (man, that nose thing, too funny!!!) so the sun, moon and stars do move around the earth and the other planets move around the sun.   

Olly (who really does think that the relationship between our evolved brain and our ability to grasp large and small scales is interesting...)

Edit, Sorry, this has moved on and James has already done the 'hypothesis/theory' distinction which crops up endlessly.)