Heartland

Groovy Science Dude

Happy birthday.

(He's married to Romana from Dr Who too -- ultimate geek kudos )

Hmm, I find his attitude to religion a bit sixth-form at times (the Osama Bin Laden of Atheism... maybe not ) but yeah, he has made some very worthwhile contributuons to popular science, no doubt.

"Our survey says!" ("It's time to start RUNNING!")


Oops - that's Dawson...sorry!



*coat*

Quite enjoyed the selfish gene and a mate has given me three more of his books I am still to read

Have a good one

Obviousman wrote: Have a good one

Wait a minute, is he on here?!?

He's as bad as theists, putting all his faith into science. I really dislike positivism, it's as unhealthy as rampant theism.

I think it was Nietzsche who pointed out that each generation realizes the arrogance of the former generation for thinking they had the truth, but then makes the exact same mistake. But instead of realizing this and saying reason is practical and useful, they proclaim it's self-correcting, but you have to have a lot of faith to think it's correct this time or will one day be absolute, since there are thousands upon thousands of questions out there and we're not going to be around forever.

Also, I wonder if Dawkins has heard of David Hume's problem of induction, or read Nietzsche's On Truth and Lies, two works which have greatly influenced my way of seeing things and really put me off positivism.

EDIT - I should edit this properly when I have the chance, at the moment it looks like the ravings of a lunatic. But for now I'll just say I'm not overly impressed with Dawkins.

boudicca wrote:

Obviousman wrote: Have a good one

Wait a minute, is he on here?!?

Someone seems to have his/her birthday today? Don't really suppose so, but anyhow

nick the stripper wrote:Also, I wonder if Dawkins has heard of David Hume's problem of induction, or read Nietzsche's On Truth and Lies, two works which have greatly influenced my way of seeing things and really put me off positivism.

Wow, thanks for those, Nick, seriously - so rare that I get to use my brain first thing in the morning!

nick the stripper wrote:EDIT - I should edit this properly when I have the chance, at the moment it looks like the ravings of a lunatic. But for now I'll just say I'm not overly impressed with Dawkins.

You certainly do look like that. Though I have to agree Dawkins is a narrow minded fool.

Christ, I love Wikipedia! I could sit here and follow link after link after link all day, information wh0re that I am!




Oh, wait - I already do that, never mind.

Arch Deviant wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:EDIT - I should edit this properly when I have the chance, at the moment it looks like the ravings of a lunatic.

You certainly do look like that.

I think he has a good point, personally

HBD ....
seems to be a few interesting interviews n essays here...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/

http://www.infidels.org/

Oooooooooooooooo, thanks, Doc!

bushman*pm wrote:sorry about this, but zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
well thats bored the (.)(.) off me!

*Note to self: no discussions of existentialism with the bushman, if/when we ever meet up. Check!

Pffffffffffffffffft. I guess there's always the weather, eh?

boudicca wrote:

Arch Deviant wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:EDIT - I should edit this properly when I have the chance, at the moment it looks like the ravings of a lunatic.

You certainly do look like that.

I think he has a good point, personally

I agree. Dawkins may be a fine scientist, but he is a lousy philosopher and has given little or no thought the limits of reason or to the limits of scientifc method. It's a method designed for describing things in terms of mechanical causality--i.e., efficient and material causality, nothing more. Where Dawkins goes wrong is in his applications of knowledge of efficient and material causality to claims about formal and final causality; to put it another way, he presupposes (a rather crude) positivism and builds his arguments from there, rather than proving that positivism is the case. At the end of the day, he's a very fine scientist but he fundamentally lacks the necessary skills and knowledge of philosophy to try and make the arguments he's making--thus, all he can do is preach to the converted; and his shockingly rude rhetorical scorched-earth strategy will win him few, if any, converts. At the end of the day, I have yet to see any reason to take him seriously as a philosophical thinker.

I *heart* studying and blabbing about philosophy.

In spite of this, my take on it all is: you won't *really* know until you're dead, and maybe not even then. Meh.

SINsister wrote:
In spite of this, my take on it all is: you won't *really* know until you're dead, and maybe not even then. Meh.

I alway believe a wee bit, it's playing the odds, if you believe in a God and you die, well, you're Quids in , if you don't believe and you die and there is a God..................you're fucked, if there's not a God.........doesn't really matter either way.

"I figure I'll go for the life of sin, followed by a presto-changeo deathbed repentance..."

scotty wrote:

SINsister wrote:
In spite of this, my take on it all is: you won't *really* know until you're dead, and maybe not even then. Meh.

I alway believe a wee bit, it's playing the odds, if you believe in a God and you die, well, you're Quids in , if you don't believe and you die and there is a God..................you're fucked, if there's not a God.........doesn't really matter either way.

Yeah, but I wanna know ALL of it, and I wanna know all of it right NOW.

boudicca wrote:"I figure I'll go for the life of sin..."

I'd like to, as well, but it doesn't seem like I can even get being "wrong" right...

SINsister wrote:

Yeah, but I wanna know ALL of it, and I wanna know all of it right NOW.

bloody Women, and if you found out you'd only say it was wrong, that it was all Men's fault and you'd just go and change everything

scotty wrote:

SINsister wrote: Yeah, but I wanna know ALL of it, and I wanna know all of it right NOW.

bloody Women, and if you found out you'd only say it was wrong, that it was all Men's fault and you'd just go and change everything

Nah - I only care about logic. All of that "men/women" stuff is illogical, irrational, unreasonable, and often, really effin' silly (not to mention, effin' annoying) and therefore, I can't be arsed to think about it.

nick the stripper wrote:Also, I wonder if Dawkins has heard of David Hume's problem of induction

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm...thanks, yet again, for this: I hadn't delved into Hume at skool, and was unaware that someone else (hehe) thought about cr@p like this, too. My friends think I'm just nuts when I attempt to discuss such things; well, if I'm "nuts," at least I know now that I'm not alone, hee...


And yeah - I demand PROOF, dammit!!! Always. GRRRR.

BTW: If you like Dawkins, watch this, never watched it myself (cause I can't be arsed to just watch my computer screen without doing anything myself for about half an hour) but it's said to be quite good!