Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins in London
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 22 (32208)
02-14-2003 5:39 AM


Well, I didn't ask any of the questions proposed (sorry Brad / Syamsu), and my own question, along the lines of..."given that incremental increases in intelligence are self-evidently advantageous for survival and evolutionary strategy, why did it take so long for intelligence (ie intelligence to human level) to evolve?" was asked by someone else right at the begining, almost word-for-word! He must have heard me explaining the question to my friend on the way up there
I get the feeling that Dawkins had been asked that, or similar questions before, his answer was quite good in that it the question "why didn't X evolve?" can be answered in two ways - the first is that our intuition may simply be incorrect - it may be that intelligence only provides an evolutionary advantage under a very specific set of circumstances, which the hominid brain underwent. And/or it may be that this is how long it would "normally" take, given the sheer complexity of the brain. Which, I guess, is fair enough - but it does leave me wanting a little bit more, so maybe I'll start reading some Dennett.
The hour or so of readings from his book ("A Devil's Chaplain") were quite good, if sometimes a little dry / luvvie. I'd only recently realised that he was married to Romana from Dr Who (old UK tv series), who was also reading and whose timbre and delivery gave some real resonance to the concepts being discussed (especially good when she was reading an excerpt from a postmodern feminist arguing that fluid mechanics was less understood than solid mechanics because fluids represented the female form, and science, as we all know, is virulently anti-female!).
The biggest laugh of the night was when someone in the audience asked Dawkins "what is the proof of evolution?" After doing a double-take "did you say proof?", Dawkins pointed out that the evidence for evolution would cover miles and miles of shelves of books and papers. If pressed to give just one example, he, interestingly enough, pointed to dna similarities between organisms and how these could be use to construct phylogenetic trees.
At the very end, a woman told Dawkins that she used to be a committed Christian until five years ago when she read "The Selfish Gene", which convinced her that the idea of a God was completely superfluous, and she wondered whether there were any atheist organisations out there. I don't know if it was just me, but I felt a tinge of embarassment by this and I think Dawkins cringed as well (although this could be projection). As an atheist myself, its good that the woman has learned to question rationally, but her tone to me was reminiscent of a church meeting without the Abrahamic deity bit (or maybe Alcoholics anonymous). Also slightly disconcerting was the length of the queue of people waiting for Dawkins to sign a copy of his book afterwards...couldn't help feeling some (unintentional I'm sure) cult of personality creeping in.
That said, it was a good talk overall, and I picked up a copy (unsigned) of the book, much of which already seems to be available on the web. He managed to get in a broadside against the scourges of postmodernist mumbo-jumbo, the disproportionate respect and consideration afforded to religion, the dangers of a rigid examination-based education as opposed to one where the child learns to actually understand the topics as well as a lament for Douglas Adams.
Mark24 - were you also there? It'd be interesting to know what you thought of it.
PE
------------------
Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software - Clarke's 69th Law

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 02-14-2003 7:57 AM Primordial Egg has replied
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 02-18-2003 11:48 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 17 of 22 (32214)
02-14-2003 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Primordial Egg
02-14-2003 5:39 AM


PE,
I was there, the readings were fun, getting laughs from the audience, the "post-modernist" essay being my favourite. But to my mind it was the last 20 minutes that were the most interesting, when he took questions. I don't think I was the only one who's eyes rolled when that chap stated, "I think science has brought the earth to the brink of extinction...". I thought Dawkins response was superb, he could have treated the question with scorn, but gave the fellow an excellent response (science is neutral, it's how it's used etc..). His answer to the question, "how is homosexuality explained by Darwinism?" was particularly good, & refreshingly honest, I thought. Though he admitted to speculating, he suggested that although there is a clear genetic component to homosexuality, it could well be the environment that controls the expression of the "phenotype", ie social conditions, rather-than-you-have-this-gene-so-you-will-be-gay.
That ex-christian woman at the end was a bit pointless, in my view, someone with a legitimate question, rather than a desire to be sycophantic, could have used the time better, IMHO.
quote:
Also slightly disconcerting was the length of the queue of people waiting for Dawkins to sign a copy of his book afterwards...couldn't help feeling some (unintentional I'm sure) cult of personality creeping in.
I managed to get a signed copy, although the queue behind me went around two corners! Although, I admit, I'd probably have joined the end of the queue if I'd not been first out of the auditorium. Dawkins is my new God! Gould is dead, long live Dawkins!
If I had to criticise, I'd like to have seen a lot more questions taken. He was at his best when doing this. To paraphrase the Times literary editor, "Dawkins has a knack for clarity".
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-14-2003 5:39 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-14-2003 8:15 AM mark24 has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 22 (32216)
02-14-2003 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mark24
02-14-2003 7:57 AM


The postmodernist feminist quote was taking from the book "Intellectual Impostures" (called "Fashionable Nonsense" in the States) and the authors (Alain Sokal is a bit of a hero of mine) were discussing Katherine Hayles....
The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.
quote:
I managed to get a signed copy, although the queue behind me went around two corners! Although, I admit, I'd probably have joined the end of the queue if I'd not been first out of the auditorium. Dawkins is my new God! Gould is dead, long live Dawkins!
Well, Dawkins last night only had good things to say about Gould in his eulogy. Its certainly interesting that the two of them were working on a letter just before Gould died to explain to scientists why they shouldn't enter into debates with creationists (I suspect its because the entering into the debate itself might give the creationist position some undeserved semblance of credibility, but Dawkins wasn't explicit). Would have been good to see that paper.
Agree with you on the shortness of the q&a time- that was by far when Dawkins was at his best. He had a crisp, lucid and honest answer to everything asked.
PE
edit: added last para.
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 02-14-2003 7:57 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 02-14-2003 9:01 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 19 of 22 (32218)
02-14-2003 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Primordial Egg
02-14-2003 8:15 AM


PE,
quote:
Well, Dawkins last night only had good things to say about Gould in his eulogy. Its certainly interesting that the two of them were working on a letter just before Gould died to explain to scientists why they shouldn't enter into debates with creationists (I suspect its because the entering into the debate itself might give the creationist position some undeserved semblance of credibility, but Dawkins wasn't explicit). Would have been good to see that paper.
Yes, especially since Eldredge agreed that Gould would have wanted it completed & published. Maybe we will see it yet.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-14-2003 8:15 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-18-2003 5:31 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 02-18-2003 11:35 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 22 (32532)
02-18-2003 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mark24
02-14-2003 9:01 AM


quote:
Yes, especially since Eldredge agreed that Gould would have wanted it completed & published. Maybe we will see it yet
Actually, the first draft, by Dawkins before Gould had a chance to add to it, does indeed feature in the book (Chap 5.5). As I suspected, it talks about the folly of giving creationists the "oxygen of respectability" and cites a Creationist (I forget who, Miller perhaps?) who considered the very fact that he'd managed to debate a biologist at Harvard a "home run", regardless of who actually won the debate.
To Dawkins & Gould, debating Creationists would be the equivalent of debating flat-earthers. The upside of this is that it leaves serious scientists to spend their time arguing and debating the "interesting stuff". The downside of this of course is that it leaves science open to wild accusations of global conspiracy and the like (the conspiracy meme is particluarly virulent) and doesn't really address the question of what should be done about the teaching of creationism alongside science in schools.
PE
edit: inadvertently called "creationists" "creations". Sure there's something Freudian going on there....
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 02-14-2003 9:01 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 22 (32559)
02-18-2003 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mark24
02-14-2003 9:01 AM


as far as I see it it is a primoridial fear unjustified post9LL that the substraction going on philosophically will mean the redundnacy of some biogeographic percipent KNOWLEDGE.. but dont let me talk above Percy's head in the age of web enabled object LMS that this site is...
Let me say that it is not true that the PROJECTION from the geographic distribution BACK in time will be shown by exploratory database analysis to be FALSE when millions of rotationos are included in the model. This can not be the point that Kuhn was making about maps and science and is clearly NOT what the good science of Dawkins and Gould is all about...
I do not know Dakwins in terms of creatons etc but GOULD CLEARLY is operating WIHTHOUT being able to sense any c/e tension within the NORMAL day to day family living atmosphere.. Well he is dead aftermath...
All I know is that it may be that the TASK to provide herpetology with a different global projection than entomology than ornithology is not out of the realm of barminiology and that A PRIORI resistence is futile. They probably realized that on an empirical basis is was going to become an economic issue (WHICH IS SHOULDNT INDEED BE) but this is due to the science of simple programs and the like that do not need the image of an organim to be equated in language (any language due to every deceptive evolution that may or may not ply) to the FIGURE-GROUND of the "word".
It was not possible for Gould to longer but by prima facieality to restrain the written biology from enetering a deconstruntion within letter formation as the new graphic cabilities correct and permit butDawkins' meme being even more suspect biologically would not have enough research paradim space to find this natural DISCURsive effect of c/e popularism on the very creation of the support technology.
There is no doubt some restraint called for but to constrain authortaourily for simply sythetic reasons fails to realize any analysis advances otherwise that were done and are available thanks to INDUCTION which were actually deductions. I know to what form I speak. Brad. term==termite not Hume...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 02-14-2003 9:01 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 22 of 22 (32560)
02-18-2003 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Primordial Egg
02-14-2003 5:39 AM


That's interesting... I tend to ANSWER this question by thinking about what does bio-change (evolve)... My thought on *this* question used to go INTO herpetology and out to all/any biology in terms of the triune (not!! bicameral)brain (but then I am stuck with arguing with Carl Hopkins over how to program Fortran FOR electric fish...and not the physophorylation I would have thought no matter the computer osciloscope shows...).
Thanks for the report and of thinking of me... God Bless....I would take as long as it needs to to think of any Pribram wave in the Shuffle brain but of a mammal and not the herp (any) it could be.
The time it takes me to think thru all the herp froms I minded (mind) is longer thant he 7 day social tolearance in either the answer or the question as the communication is not about or on(a single) point (though the taxa subjecivity I THINK i s).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-14-2003 5:39 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024