Being skeptical about Skepticism

[luiz]

Again - he clearly is not arguing that, at all. He is simply saying that war does not spring directly from our biology.
That is a very different proposition than saying it is not deeply entrenched, and of course in one of the articles they quote Margaret Mead, the originator of the war-as-cultural-innovation theory, saying flat-out that it may be impossible to end war anyway because like many other cultural innovations it has become so deeply entrenched.

So if it's just an argument between people saying it is deeply entrenched by biology and others saying it's deeply entrenched by culture, how come only one side is supposed to be fueling warmongers?

Sorry, scientific objectivity is nowhere to be seen on Haas' remarks.

 

[Lexicus]

So if it's just an argument between people saying it is deeply entrenched by biology and others saying it's deeply entrenched by culture, how come only one side is supposed to be fueling warmongers?

Sorry, scientific objectivity is nowhere to be seen on Haas' remarks.

Okay, I'm not claiming that Haas' remarks are scientifically objective though, or even that I particularly agree with them...

 

[Cheetah]

Nah I go one step further, I'm skeptical of your skepticism of his skepticism of Skepticism.

Seriously though, I do think that identifying yourself as a capital-S Skeptic is a weird thing to do. Thinking criticallly and having a healthy measure of skepticism should just go without saying. It's like calling yourself a Breather.

Isn't it more like just having a community which supports skepticism, rationality and science? It's good to have a community of likeminded, and a community needs some kind of name, so why not skeptic? I don't think it is productive to specify capital-S or not.

It's also quite accurate as he frequently makes extremely dubious claims. His politics are also atrocious and to the extent that he attempts to justify them with science he certainly allows his prejudices to get in the way of his scientific rigor.

I think you're grossly misinformed. Can you point to any actual dubious claims or atrocious politics which Dawkins has advocated? Not stuff presented by others, but things he's actually stating himself, while having enough time to give a considered response.

The "hard" target examples in the article are

Multiverses and the Singularity
Overtested and Overtreated for Cancer
Mental-Illness Over-Medication
Gene-Whiz Science
The Deep-Roots Theory of War

The multiverse theory is fiercely debated, with string theorists even being made (lightly) fun of; the singularity is still more sci-fi than science; actual cancer researchers I've read about have been pretty clear for years (as long as I've been paying attention) that there aren't any super-cures available now or in the near future; there's serious discussions going on within psychiatry about medication and lots of other questions; and finally I don't have a clue what gene-whiz is... (I'll get back to the deep-roots thing later in this post.)

All in all, I don't think these examples are any good. At most they might say something about the problem with science journalism, but the science itself seems to be churning on.[/QUOTE]

I actually witnessed this in a video by Dawkins where he talked with a Creationist. Now the Creationist was dumb and Dawkins a lot smarter etcetera. However, in some aspects, the Creationist had a point. Which was that evolution is not as scientifically well established as gravity for instance. Because we can not actually test evolution as a whole. That, of course, does not deny that we still can put evolution on very solid scientific feet. But just not quit as solid as gravity. But Dawkins was so eager to make his superior argument that he actually argued the opposite. That evolution was as solid as gravity. That's just not true. This is a small example of how being occupied with the wrongness of others while very passionate about your own POV can pollute train of thought.

What are you talking about??

Evolution is easily as solidly understood as gravity. The Theory of Evolution is backed by two centuries of fossil finds, by the evolution of bacteria which we can't control, and by a myriad of experiments to evolve fruit flies and other species. With DNA and chemistry we even have a strong understanding of how evolution works!

Gravity on the other hand: It is well known, and we can test the mathematical laws around it, but we still don't have a clue why it happens, or why it is so much weaker than the other forces, or why it reaches so much further.

Dawkins is right on this point, and you and the creationist are wrong.

Regarding Deep-Roots Theory of War, doesn't culture in part rise somewhat from biology and environment. I mean yes there are large cultural variations because of this, but the way the brain treats groupations might make peace difficult, especially when resources or territory are lacking and so especially without civilizational modifiers. Later on when you have civilization, you have more ego, more need to have more 'stuff'. Now I just pulled this out of my behind, what do the experts think?

I don't know anything about the ego and greed arguments, but I find it hard to imagine that culture arose from anything but biology and environment.

We also know that, for instance, chimpanzees wage war, so wars are pretty ancient stuff. We've found mass graves or badly treated skeletons, indicating that humans tens of thousands of years ago massacred each other (which should require a war to have been fought, I'd imagine). Because of the low population density and nomadic lifestyle, there probably weren't many (relatively speaking) wars like these though. It's only with the advent of agriculture, sedentary lifestyles, population increases and the usefulness of slavery that wars begun to be popular ways of enriching one's group.

And as for using this knowledge in todays politics: Just because something occurs naturally, doesn't mean it is good, necessary or desired. We can change a lot of stuff, decreasing wars is one of the things we should be working towards.

 

[Lexicus]

I think you're grossly misinformed. Can you point to any actual dubious claims or atrocious politics which Dawkins has advocated? Not stuff presented by others, but things he's actually stating himself, while having enough time to give a considered response.

I've seen some of his tweets and stuff he's written himself about feminism and sexism and so forth.
This article is full of links to specific examples.

 

[uppi]

The multiverse theory is fiercely debated, with string theorists even being made (lightly) fun of;

That it is fiercely debated instead of just laughed out of science is already a bad sign.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Cheetah
To understand something or to prove something are not the same thing.
We can also understand the Lord of the Rings lore better than gravity, for instance.

But since I am "wrong", possibly you could actually address the main point of my argument. Instead of just going on about what a great theory the theory of evolution is (which wasn't the question, as such).

edit: Alright I spell it out again - fundamentally, the theory of evolution is conjecture. A very dense and solid conjecture. But still, you know, conjecture. That is what you call it when you can not directly test something, but only, to varying degrees, its assumptions and implications.
Obviously, it is more powerful and solid when you can directly test something. And obviously, if you can't, that is relevant and shouldn't just be omitted so to cheaply gain argumentative points, IMO. Especially since this fact is exactly what makes Creationists thrive in the first place.

What a Creationist needs to understand is why conjecture still can be extremely powerful and why this one is. Instead of just pretending that it was no conjecture at all and as solid as gravity.

 

[Lexicus]

The theory of evolution is, if anything, on firmer ground than the current physical theory of gravity (general relativity).

Evolution, at least, is not in direct conflict with any other extremely well-supported theories.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Gravity isn't in conflict with anything. This at best may apply to theories trying to explain gravity and/or other phenomenas. You, as well, mix up establishing something as true with the implications and assumptions of it.

 

[Lexicus]

Gravity isn't in conflict with anything. This at best may apply to theories trying to explain gravity and/or other phenomenas. You, as well, mix up establishing something as true with the implications and assumptions of it.

On the contrary, you are conflating the phenomenon of gravity and the currently-held "theory of gravity", the theory of general relativity.

The phenomenon of evolution is just as well-supported as the phenomenon of gravity. Evolution occurs, there is no ambiguity or doubt about that whatsoever. But the theory of evolution is separate from the fact of evolution, just as the theory of general relativity is separate from the phenomenon of gravitational attraction between masses.

 

[warpus]

Most people who these days claim that they are "skeptics" are actually not skeptics, they're just giving skepticism a bad name by denying things like evolution, climate change, etc.

Skepticism doesn't mean that you throw science out the window, it means that you offer a rational counter-point to some status quo. Key point is rational

 

[uppi]

The theory of evolution is, if anything, on firmer ground than the current physical theory of gravity (general relativity).

Evolution, at least, is not in direct conflict with any other extremely well-supported theories.

That might be the fault of Quantum Field Theory and not of General Relativity.

GR is much better tested and has been revised much less in the last 100 years. So I would say that GR is on much firmer ground and I would trust a statement that originates from GR much more than I would trust a statement that originates from the Theory of Evolution. As evidence, I put forward the discovery of epigenetics (aka "Lamarck was not that wrong after all").

Edit (back on topic): A health amount of skepticism is good, but if you are skeptic all the time you will not make any progress, ever. So I would be very wary of someone calling himself a "Skeptic".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I've seen some of his tweets and stuff he's written himself about feminism and sexism and so forth.
This article is full of links to specific examples.

But when it comes to feminism, he’s steadfastly refused to let his own consciousness be raised.

 

[Ryika]

I've seen some of his tweets and stuff he's written himself about feminism and sexism and so forth.
This article is full of links to specific examples.

Yeah, examples like this:

For good measure, Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking.

...linking to:

(Dawkins) @mrgregariously Exactly. If you want to drive, don't get drunk. If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don't get drunk.

@RichardDawkins @mrgregariously so are you saying a person can't get raped if they are drunk? All victims just need to "plan better"?!

(Dawkins) @lemoncayke Of course they can. But their testimony "I was too drunk to remember" is unlikely to convince, if there's no other evidence.

It's almost like the author is willfully ignoring the fact that Dawkins makes a simple, logical observation in that thread of tweets - that if you drink a lot, black out and don't remember anything that doesn't exactly help you make a case.

Instead the author hopes that people (like you - seems like it worked!) just go with what is being claimed - that Dawkins says that "being drunk" by itself diminishes your ability to make a case, that you "shouldn't be believed" because you were drunk. But looking at the original makes it pretty clear pretty quickly that that's not at all what is being said.

I know, I know... nuances. Who needs those, let's not be skeptical about our believes, right?

 

[Lexicus]

It's almost like the author is willfully ignoring the fact that Dawkins makes a simple, logical observation in that thread of tweets - that if you drink a lot, black out and don't remember anything that doesn't exactly help you make a case.

Of course if you look at the string of tweets to which Dawkins was replying "exactly" it is clear that the article is not twisting things at all. Dawkins is replying "exactly" to a guy who is arguing that a person who gets drunk is at fault if they are the victim of a crime.

There is nothing particularly "nuanced" about that...

 

[Ryika]

That's not even what the article claims. The article claims that Dawkins says "that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking", there's nothing in that line of tweets that even hints at that. The only time Dawkins talks about being drunk being a problem for convincing the police about rape is the one that I showed above. He's talking about a blacked out (alleged) victim that literally can't remember what happened.

About the other stuff... well, yeah, if you're of the opinion that a person who gets drunk and then gets mugged by people who see them as an easy target has had absolutely no part in their own misery, I guess then it makes sense that you'd disagree with what is being said. The way I see it that's an extreme position that doesn't make sense.

I'd go into detail how it's perfectly fine to encourage reasonable behavior and that that doesn't mean that the person is saying that it's a person's own fault if they get mugged in such a situation, but I know that you'll just accuse me of victim blaming anyway, so let's skip that part.

 

[Zkribbler]

The theory of evolution is, if anything, on firmer ground than the current physical theory of gravity (general relativity).

Of what are you speaking when you say "theory of evolution."

IMHO, it can be demonstrated in the laboratory that evolution exists. The classic historical example are moths in the U.K. They evolved from being white to being black when the industrial revolution covered the trees with black soot, making white moths easy prey for birds.

But much of the history of evolution remains unknown. Just in the last month, a new kind of human was discovered. It was within the last few decades that it was determined the weather changes in Europe caused the heavy forests to recede. This put the ambush-hunting Neanderthals at a disadvantage to the Cro-Magnons, with their long-distance throwing sticks.

My own pet hypothesis is that life arose at least three times here on Earth. Once with CO2-breathing plants; once with oxygen-breathing animals; and once with chemo-synthetic bacteria near hydrothermal vents. Totally changing from one of these lifeforms to another is, IMHO, not possible via evolution. I therefore postulate that life has arisen several times on Earth.

AFAIK, no scientific experiments have been done to prove or disprove either hypothesis.

 

[Lexicus]

The theory of evolution is what explains why evolution, which you rightly point out has been observed under laboratory conditions, occurs.

I'll accept uppi's correction as he's certainly more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am.

But what you describe would be the realm of a theory of abiogenesis, not evolution.

And BTW, you're missing the pre-DNA abiogenesis events. It's highly unlikely that DNA-based life in its current form arose from non-living matter in a single step. But it's also likely that no evidence remains of pre-DNA life (except indirectly in the form of RNA viruses and stuff).

Totally changing from one of these lifeforms to another is, IMHO, not possible via evolution.

And I am certain you are wrong about that, but I can't prove it conclusively I guess.
At the very least, the common descent of all DNA-based life is pretty definite, though the mitochondria were probably originally separate organisms that somehow got absorbed into the things that later became the basis for cells.

That's kind of the problem with abiogenesis. The evidence of it is probably just gone. It's why we'll need to look beyond Earth to really learn about life.

 

[Angst]

I mostly associate annoying skepticists with those people that constantly spout: YOU CANT BE SURE ABOUT THAT, to anything, really. It's why I love phenomenology. It doesn't actually care about ontological systems. It just works with stuff as stuff appears, trying to approximate a systematization. (Yea it is kinda like science. It just also takes subjective emotional experience into account.)

 

[Terxpahseyton]

On the contrary, you are conflating the phenomenon of gravity and the currently-held "theory of gravity", the theory of general relativity.

The phenomenon of evolution is just as well-supported as the phenomenon of gravity. Evolution occurs, there is no ambiguity or doubt about that whatsoever. But the theory of evolution is separate from the fact of evolution, just as the theory of general relativity is separate from the phenomenon of gravitational attraction between masses.

Hugh!
Mr. Sir Lexicus - you scored a point there I can not deny and am forced to hand to you.
Somewhat. In the end - not really. Okay, not all. But - that was still a decent point of view I had not considered.

The part of evolution which is the purest of hard science - that is hypothesizes which can be directly verified and falsified - that kind of science is part of evolution. But are such parts covering the rough whole of evolution, while leaving the details aside?
Not really.

Such parts are saying that there is a change in organisms. Such parts are saying that organisms adapt. Such parts are even saying that organisms grow in complexity and accordingly in the necessary refinedness to support such complexity.

But everything else is left to conjecture. And this is not enough to make the general idea of "evolution" which would transcend the particular state of scientific exploration of it.

Because the general idea of evolution is way more than the general idea that organism adapt and develop. It is about how such processes are possible within the known realms of physics, chemistry and biology. And about building a narrative how that actually happened. Note: that this narrative and the idea that evolution was a natural outgrowth of physics are intimitately linked. One depends on the other. And neither is as much hard science as the idea of gravity is. But both is integral to evolution. Without it - there is no evolution as understood by the scientific community.

Even the mere idea of evolution is wholly beyond the "purest of hard science".

It still is pretty good science. But not as good as the science which establishes the general idea of gravity.

Just understand that while physics is about finding laws, evolution and really the whole of biology is about understanding historic processes. Of course one is harder science than the other! And in a non-trivial way.

In the end - it is silly that we even have to discuss this.