1. Storm

Comment #307731 by DrCogSci on December 28, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I was out to dinner the other night with about 20 people, and I happened to sit at the end of the table with the young earth creationist on my left, and the guy who was telling me about how his ?magnetic? bracelet prevents backpain - amongst other things...

I held out for as long as I could, I really did...

But I replied to something particularly egregious...

And afterwards, people not involved in the conversation, i.e. those at the other end of the table, were all tutting to themselves and saying "is he going on about all that stuff again"

Like it was my fault. Really. Soooooo frustrating.

2. Obama the Secularist

Comment #279896 by DrCogSci on November 6, 2008 at 2:55 pm

In viewing the longer speech, it's clear that a lot of the comments *are* in fact over-reaching in describing Obama's personal religious beliefs (at least from the evidence presented here).

I didn't see anything which suggested that he's anything other than a left leaning centrist who supports a fundamental secularism in deciding on policy, I don't know about you, but that's more than good enough for me, for now!

3. Dare we stand up for Muslim women?

Comment #269671 by DrCogSci on October 23, 2008 at 8:09 am

This seems to be the kind of situation where it's a specifically "Toxic" form of religion that causes such things. I think it'll be generations before we see a substantial change, but if nothing else, we should be enforcing our preference for the emancipation of women by force.

The U.S. is not above using such *rhetoric* in its international dealings. I.e. "operation Iraqi freedom" I guess this is the one instance where I'd like to see a *more* radical approach. Weird.

4. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236702 by DrCogSci on August 25, 2008 at 5:54 am

I'm sorry to be a bit of a pedant, but could we address the 3 particular rights discussed in the GAP document?

1) The right to life
2) The right to liberty
3) Freedom from Torture

As I argued before, any and all of these will only be meaningful in the moderation of human/ape relations - as we are not able, nor should we be willing, to try and moderate ape/ape relations.

Given that this applies only to our interactions with them, (and please, correct me if you think that these rights could/did emerge from ape societies themselves) surely we can make do with anti-cruelty laws without defining apes into personhood?

Essentially, don't:
Kill, imprison (without good cause) or torture gorillas, chimps, orangutans etc.

I happen to think that - provided we don't call them rights, these are noble directives for our interactions with other species. Why should we need to call them "rights" when it only muddies our current definition thereof, and the same effect can be achieved?

5. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236019 by DrCogSci on August 24, 2008 at 3:27 am

Among the rights that would be dispensed is the right to life, this seems to be very important in moderating human/ape interaction, but in ape/ape interaction this is

1) all but impossible to enforce
2) not enforced by the population itself: If our standards are applied to them, could they be said to be respecting the right to life of other apes *already*?

Monitoring every ape population on earth is impossible, and the chimp-crime squad is going to be hell of an overworked.

Secondly, if the right to liberty is enforced, we have to assume a kind of responsibility in chimps that the literature just doesn't support (yet?). What would constitute the deprivation of liberty, and how could we possibly justify animal testing in light of

"detention should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who would clearly be a danger to others if at liberty"

is a bit lost on me.

I'm all for supporting an agenda that gives greater protection to animals, and stricter ethical oversight to our interactions with them. But defining them into personhood is ridiculous.

Apes cannot have a right to life enforced by humans, nor can the conception of "liberty" as it appears here, allow for what interactions we do have with apes (zoos, conservancies, labs). Thus, the project of bestowing these upon them would at best be meaningless, at worst, harmful.

What good will arise out of granting them "human rights" as opposed to improving our existing protection of animals policies?

6. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235694 by DrCogSci on August 23, 2008 at 12:00 pm

You're absolutely right Steve, sorry about the "blanket" statement.

I see you and NJ especially have been discussing the appropriate response etc. Mea Culpa. Them "passions" get ahold of me sumtimes - fixated on the bits that make me angry! Sorry again.

7. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235685 by DrCogSci on August 23, 2008 at 11:48 am

#235572

"offering nothing but sycophancy and praise for an insulting idiot"

No, look at the content of my posts before making what is clearly a misinformed or disingenuous claim.

His statement was the result of a very mistaken interpretation. It happens. I think he wrote something rash, and I wouldn't try and defend the point he vouched if you paid me.

However, the claim was made, at some point in this dreary thread, that Meadon made his claim out of maliciousness, not as a mistake. There has been no proof *at all* offered for this, whereas I checked the rest of his blog and found only 1 other silly/stupid post. Hence my saying "2 rash posts aside"

So, in accusing Meadon of being malicious, which I think Brian English is right about in #235431, forum members are running around hand-waving without any evidence of intent. Essentially doing the same thing that Meadon did, except willfully. (the equivalent of not watching the documentary at all)

#235584

Mitchell, you may not consider character on trial, but it is the basis of at least some of the criticism, furthermore, the vast majority of what I've said has nothing to do with Meadon's character at all, though in deciding to ignore me based on my (self-admitted) prior knowledge of Meadon's blog, it may just mean you've ignored the other bits.

Meadon's entire blog is there for anyone to see, and it serves as evidence for the "mistake" hypothesis - which is the reason I bring it up at all, as evidence for point 2 in the 3 point argument from earlier.

I would also liked to have thought that the members of the board here would pay more attention to the arguments, and less on dogmatic criticism. I (obviously) would be unable to see why my comment is "irrelevant" as Decius claims, but I think categorising everything I've said as such, without offering any evidence that I'm mistaken is precisely the kind of bad thinking we're trying to criticise.

Njwong put it brilliantly. I think Meadon was wrong, but that we've descended into "bashing".

Regardless of how foolish his initial claim was, painting every other statement he makes with the same brush, as well as dismissing *anything* I have to say on the subject doesn't make for the best picture of the board as rational responders.

As I've said, I'd have really liked to see people engaging with the arguments *only*. Guess not. Nice one, /b/

8. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235546 by DrCogSci on August 23, 2008 at 8:01 am

#235437

At Dr. Doctor - I have read and re-read both the blog entry (which I believe is incorrect in accusing Prof. Dawkins of any proslytising etc. etc.) and Prof. Dawkins' replies. I don't know how I'm misrepresenting things. To clarify my position (if only so that you may more accurately criticise me)

1)Meadon seems to take the point of 'it' seriously. To be dismissive of it seems demeaning to me. This is because he is not trying to 'get anywhere' in his 'it' section: He's not using it to QUALIFY his statements, only explain his mistake - in my reading of his apology)

2)To the best of my knowledge, to lie implies intent. To deliberately slander Prof. Dawkins seems out of character with the vast majority of Meadon's posts. It seems that, (on this point) we are starting from different positions. Mine on the charitable side, yours on the malicious.

Reading Meadon's blog and interacting with him lead me to believe the mistake, not lie, thesis. Why do you believe yours?

3)Prof Dawkins has clearly read Meadon's apology, and must thus know that he offered to remove the offending statements completely, at Richard's request.

Knowing this, I believe one can only interpret that section of #235381 (Dawkins)

"Meadon has now crossed out (though not deleted) this insulting lie, but the phrase 'guilty of horrendous pedagogy' is still up there, presumably because he still maintains that I should have pushed 'compatibilism'."

as having *some* kind of problematic element.

It seems to me that "though not deleted" and "presumably because he still maintains..." doesn't take account of what Meadon has been saying since his initial blunder. So, I conclude that either Prof. Dawkins wasn't considering these statements, or was being malicious.

Thinking very highly of Prof. Dawkins, I assume he is not being malicious, and thus that the only option left is that he just wasn't considering them at the time of writing.

It seems to me to be very unfair to criticise someone for not deleting the posts when the offer has been made to do so, and is yet to be accepted. Should Meadon leave them up after a deletion request, that would be a different story.

Please let me know where you think I have made a mistake here.

Incidentally, at Decius, you're not doing the general tone of the conversation any favours by accusing those who don't agree with you of dishonest practices (Morphing/Sockpuppetry). How about DrJumpsToConclusions for your new moniker instead?

9. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235430 by DrCogSci on August 23, 2008 at 3:35 am

#235381

Prof. Dawkins, Meadon offered, in his apology, to delete the claims altogether - but has stated that be believes it to be cowardice to erase the evidence of one's mistakes.

Furthermore, I believe you are being very uncharitable in your description of his apology - he is open to the possibility of being wrong, he (upon reflection) feels he can't be certain of his position any longer and thirdly implies that it was not only a "genuine mistake" (as redundant as that sounds) but is self-effacing in at least implying that he had been *stupid* (in his citing Hanlon's Razor).

It seems that definitional problems don't just raise the ire of the general public, but of the highly intelligent and highly educated as well.

'quibble' demeans a sincere apology, as does continuing to use 'lie', and to complain that he hasn't deleted them - when all it would require is your request (I imagine he will have inferred this by now, and will do so) - is at *best* an over-sight on your part, and at worst a highly dishonest attack on his character.

Considering that I know I am among 'friends' (in some sense) here, it would not trouble me at all to apply the most charitable interpretation until proven otherwise.

Unlike the members posting till now, yourself included, sir, I refuse to immediately adopt the attitude of indignance, until sufficient clarity is gained to know as to whether it's required.

Meadon has apologised, and I believe that it is your emotional state which is colouring your interpretation of events beyond the initial (and clearly mistaken) slight.

P.S.

I must also acknowledge my own bias, in that my repeated interactions with Meadon have always left me with the impression that he is an earnest, intelligent and competent thinker - despite the grand total of 2 rash blog posts to his name.

10. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235289 by DrCogSci on August 22, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Styrer - Meadon has apologised and withdrawn his initial claim. Asking for him to provide clarification at this point is rather unnecessary. He has revisited the scene, explained where he made his mistake - and left us with a more interesting topic to discuss, namely, his point number 2, as well as why compatabilism seems so taboo on this forum.

There is no reservation etc. in Meadon's apology - and he furthermore refers to "Hanlon's Razor" I'm not sure how much more "mea culpa" he could be? Your opinion on the correct course of action for the correction of his own blog is also rather amusing. Meadon has offered to remove the offending remarks completely should Richard deem it fit - it's not for you to decide.

11. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235273 by DrCogSci on August 22, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Biased as I am... There is no problem with posing compatabilism as (if nothing else) a pragmatic tool with which to win people over. That being said, although I'm a fan of the "universal acid" metaphor, I think we're all sufficiently well schooled to realise that in *principle* evolution says nothing that directly challenges the conception of a creator, however plausible, likely, beautiful and succinct the alternative it provides is.

I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with correcting PennAndTeller's misconceptions.