tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post116405051810534954..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: What's so great about evidence?Ronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164271289709213572006-11-23T00:41:00.000-08:002006-11-23T00:41:00.000-08:00More importantly, however, it is provoking a debat...<I>More importantly, however, it is provoking a debate that might not have reached the proportions that it currently has, had Dawkins et al. not beed so bold.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe. We'll never know because we can't do the control experiment.<BR/><BR/><I>In science, usefulness of evidence and truth correlate very well, in a "punctuated-equilibrium" kind of way, does it not?</I><BR/><BR/>Some kinds Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719368822663798864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164256833114540412006-11-22T20:40:00.000-08:002006-11-22T20:40:00.000-08:00The reason I take issue with Dawkins is not becaus...<I>The reason I take issue with Dawkins is not because he's wrong but because he's ineffective.</I><BR/><BR/>I've asked myself whether his approach could be counterproductive. Based on comments and articles posted at richarddawkins.net and elsewhere, there seems to be both good and bad reactions. More importantly, however, it is provoking a debate that might not have reached the proportions that Olivierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13494658023792247769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164224305508117882006-11-22T11:38:00.000-08:002006-11-22T11:38:00.000-08:00Ron, you are making this more complicated than it ...<I>Ron, you are making this more complicated than it has to be.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think so. Just because there is a why/how dichotomy between religion and science doesn't mean that that's the whole story. Furthermore, when someone with Dawkins' stature starts to spew counerproductive vitriol I think he needs to be challenged directly. And I think it's more effective when that challenge Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719368822663798864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164213625904005602006-11-22T08:40:00.000-08:002006-11-22T08:40:00.000-08:00Ron, you are making this more complicated than it ...Ron, you are making this more complicated than it has to be. And you should know better, since you are one of the people who helped me see just how simple it really is.<BR/><BR/>It does not make sense to compare the validity or the effectiveness or the usefulness of religious "truth" to those of scientific "truth". Those two kinds of "truth"s answer different kinds of questions, model different Bernardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14960088129824343480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164183883117625892006-11-22T00:24:00.000-08:002006-11-22T00:24:00.000-08:00Are you insane?How should I know? (That is not a ...<I>Are you insane?</I><BR/><BR/>How should I know? (That is not a rhetorical question, by the way.)<BR/><BR/><I> The reliance on evidence is the single greatest advance in the history of life on Earth</I><BR/><BR/>Sure, I think few people would dispute that relying on evidence is <I>effective</I>. But being <I>effective</I> and being <I>right</I> are two completely different things. The reasonRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719368822663798864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164180476257769152006-11-21T23:27:00.000-08:002006-11-21T23:27:00.000-08:00What's so great about evidence?Are you insane? (I ...<I>What's so great about evidence?</I><BR/><BR/>Are you insane? (I hope not :) The reliance on evidence is the single greatest advance in the history of life on Earth! Not only has it propelled humans way past our innate propensity to stagnate or climb back up the trees, but, as an added bonus, it's what allows us to protect ourselves against fraudulant, dishonest, manipulative charlatans, Olivierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13494658023792247769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164136618441707112006-11-21T11:16:00.000-08:002006-11-21T11:16:00.000-08:00But Dawkins doesn't argue that you have personally...<I>But Dawkins doesn't argue that you have personally verified the evidence, or that you have to. He says you may, if you wish.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, relgious people say the same thing, e.g. if you open your heart to God then you will personally experience Him.<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, religious books and their interpretations change too. But they are characterised by resistance. Scientists by contrast,Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719368822663798864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164116319467384432006-11-21T05:38:00.000-08:002006-11-21T05:38:00.000-08:00You made an excellent point Ron.But I think this a...You made an excellent point Ron.<BR/><BR/>But I think this also shows one downside of human today. We seldom question ourselves.<BR/><BR/>We take things for granted and we do not question.<BR/><BR/>Even if we do question, it's not critical. We simply accept things as they are presented.cerebratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17831944891225012499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164099033237519472006-11-21T00:50:00.000-08:002006-11-21T00:50:00.000-08:00You have a point there, Ron. But Dawkins doesn't a...You have a point there, Ron. But Dawkins doesn't argue that you have personally verified the evidence, or that you have to. He says you may, if you wish. Scientists continually examine their arguments and the evidence, and someone eventually discovers mistakes that are corrected. Scientific theories thus evolve with time, often very rapidly.<BR/><BR/>Yes, religious books and their interpretationsSunil Bajpaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04415704915268691419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164098826164683582006-11-21T00:47:00.000-08:002006-11-21T00:47:00.000-08:00science takes as an axiom that super-natural effec...<I>science takes as an axiom that super-natural effects do not provide systematic biases</I><BR/><BR/>I think that depends a great deal on how you define "systematic bias." If it's systematic enough then it's just part of nature, no?Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719368822663798864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1164078844143743192006-11-20T19:14:00.000-08:002006-11-20T19:14:00.000-08:00i would also suggest that science takes as an axio...i would also suggest that science takes as an axiom that super-natural effects do not provide systematic biases. perfectly reasonable, but there are no guidelines on where/how/if that assertion breaks down.asdfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04300268293562759791noreply@blogger.com