= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Let Them Debate College Students - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (139)
RAOW! Did I signal that I'm on the wrong "team" there? FWIW, Robin Hanson brought up the same thing here.
Yes, the probabilities are different, but critics of ID consistently, incessantly argue that ID and related concepts are not just wrong, but incoherent and totally outside the realm of science. Don't you think it's significant that Dawkins -- without probably realizing it -- just admitted that there's a 1% chance of this incoherent, unscientific idea being true?
Nope, not a good enough reason for refusing to address the case as presented without reference to the persons presenting it.
Well of course Dawkin's doesn't deny it when talking to Ben Stein ;-) But if you're asking if there's evidence Dawkins changes his claims when talking to creationists, well, sure, for one thing, he changes his claims to "..." when talking to creationists by virtue of not debating them.
But as for the fundamental issue: all across YouTube and the blogosphere, anti-creationists (sorry, don't know a better term to use, suggest a better one rather than criticize) were absolutely livid that Stein presented a Dawkins interview that he got under false pretenses and that this somehow makes the claims of the interviewees less significant. Now tell me, for purposes of ascertaining what Dawkins believes, why does it matter whether Dawkins made a statement in an interview with a creationist vs. in an interview "about" religion?
So that's why I ask about the epistemological status of "I believe this, but not in a way that creationists are ever supposed to hear".
The point is, when people like Dawkins so horribly fail at the use of probabilities, it makes it easier for people like me to be a devil's advocate for creationists.
No, you said something I thought was obviously unreasonable. There's a difference.
Sorry, but if "related concepts" includes the possibility that life on earth might have been designed (really truly without any implication that the designer need be supernatural) then I don't believe you.
(Two examples of such "related concepts": In The God Delusion -- notable among Dawkins's works, of course, for its consistent open-mindedness towards religious ideas[1] -- Dawkins says, in so many words, (a) that it's very likely that there are intelligent aliens whose powers we would readily classify as godlike, and (b) that if a genuine instance of "irreducible complexity" could be found, then indeed Darwinian evolution would be dead.)
OK, so you don't consider it a good enough reason. However, if Dawkins does -- and it's not hard to see why he might -- it seems to me that your sneering at his "epistemologicical status" is un-called-for.
Excuse me, but are you even slightly serious? (Perhaps I've made the mistake of responding seriously to what's just 100% trolling, in which case I hereby apologize to anyone whose time I've wasted.) In what possible world is there any equivalence, as far as "epistemological status" goes, between (1) "Dawkins says one thing to one set of people and another incompatible thing to another set of people" -- your earlier assertion -- and (2) "Dawkins says one thing to one set of people and doesn't talk to another set of people"?
What, please, does that have to do with Dawkins's opinions, or practices, or attitudes, or honesty, or intellectual integrity?
I'm not aware that anyone has said it does. Would you care to make your argument a bit more explicit at this point?
Er, is it just me or is this a complete change of subject?
Why should Dawkins, or anyone else, care how easy it is for someone to be a devil's advocate for creationists? If what you actually mean is that it makes it easier for creationists to be advocates for creationists, then that would be more to the point, but it's not quite clear to me what you're now arguing. Earlier on, it looked like you were casting aspersions on Dawkins's honesty or integrity or something; now it seems you've switched to commenting on his tactics.
[1] Why yes, that was a joke.