1. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46537 by Magpie on May 31, 2007 at 3:11 pm

The quantitative difference between non-human ape and human linguistic skills isn't, well, linguistic. Rather, many other primates have similar cognitive mechanisms to those that underlie language, but are used to organise social knowldge. As Seyforth et al (2005) note, Baboon social knowledge is representational, has discrete values, is hierarchically structured, has category based rules and is open-ended - all key aspects of human language. This a.) dovetails nicely with Dunbar's (1998) social brain hypothesis, that our language arose from our ancestor's pre-linguistic social knowledge, b.) explains why apes can achieve some form (however very basic) of langauge comprehension; they have some of the required cogntive mechanisms, and c.) as to why all of the species that we have successfully taught these extremely basic langauge skills to are social creatures with complex social networks- e.g. parrots, apes and dolphins.

Furthermore, this suggests convergence upon similar cogntive mechanisms to solve social ordering problems, perhaps because such solutions are near-optimal.

2. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46389 by Magpie on May 31, 2007 at 5:05 am

I agree that ape language abilities are quantitatively, not qualitatively, less than ours. However, it is very tempting to read far too much into the research. One of the guiding principles of animal behavioural studies is 'Morgan's Canon'; basically, an application of Occams Razor to prevent us fom over-interpreting the cognitive abilities that animals display, due to our anthropomorphising them.

Whilst dolphins, parrots and non-human apes all show the rudiments of syntaxs and semantics, much of their behaviour can be interpreted as due to instrumental conditioning. For example, Gardner and Gardner (1969) taught the chimp Washoe American Sign Language. In one instance, Washoe signed 'water + bird' when she saw a novel stimulus - a swan. Does this alone mean that she understood the meaning of the words? No, because she could have been instrumentally conditioned to make certain gestures when she saw particular things to get a reward - she saw the stimuli that meant she had to do the water gesture, and she saw the stimululi that meant she had to perform the bird gesture. We simply can't conclude, from this alone, that Washoe understood.

Kanzi is undoubtedly better at 'Yerkish' than Washoe was at ASL. For example, Kanzi responded correctly to 298 of 310 sentences, performing the correct action (Savage-Rumbaugh et al, 1993). This may suggest that Kanzi understood the syntax of the sentence, but most of the sentences could only be interpreted on way - 'Knazi please carry teh straw' for example, is rather unambiguous.

Nevertheless, certain non-human speceies do have considerable lingustic learning abilities. Just don't anthropomorphise their behaviours!

3. Richard Dawkins to appear in Second Life

Comment #44211 by Magpie on May 23, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Many appearances by public figures (mostly, politicians) in second life have been victims of 'cybervandalism'; attacked by hackers and made to look foolish in some 'funny' manner. Last year, for example, one nominee congressman's second life campaign base had a large turd placed upon it, amongst other things. Witty, I know.

Richard - don't be too shocked if some brand of internet 'humour' finds itself attached to your second life setup. 'Puerile' doesn't do much of it justice.

4. True faith is greater than the ranters

Comment #40276 by Magpie on May 14, 2007 at 4:28 am

It isn't hard to 'determine the proportion between rational and raving theists' as Rees-Mogg puts it, for one simple reason: Dawkins' point isn't about fundamentalism. Do most believers hold the God of say, Tillich, close to their hearts? Is their God a 'condition of possibility', to use Eagleton's woo?

No, they don't. They believe in an anthropomorphic deity that intervenes in their affairs. This is the simplistic notion of God, the one that is open to scientific inquiry.

For example if prayer studies really showed an effect, and showed that only (as Victor Stenger puts it) say, Roman Catholic prayers worked, then we have come to know God through science. But they don't. It's interesting how natural theology only becomes unfashionable and muddle-headed when it no longer seems to support a God. The interventionalist God can be brought up in the laboratory, and He can be falsified.

Arguments for an Aristotelian God, a vague intelligence behind things, are not testable via science. But such a God is manifestly incompatible with the judeo-christian God; this God in not anthropomorphic, and 'love' is the last thing taht it feels. Don't confuse teh two, William, as so many do.

As an aside, its absurd to suggest (as you do) that faith in science is equivalent to faith in God. No, I cannot rerun evolutions clock, but molecular biology studies can. My belief in sceince has a justification; even what I do not come to know directly, I can still come to know. God, on the other hand, I cannot come to know, save for my religious 'experience' which as we know, is merely an overactive temporal lobe.

Another wonderfully content-less defense of theism it is then.

5. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39307 by Magpie on May 10, 2007 at 9:40 am

Erm... Voltaire and Paine were Deists, not atheists, whilst GB Shaw became a mystic, still finding the judeo-christian 'tribal god' one of contempt. For some reason, I can imagine that woman on the TV screens of some nightmarish future dystopia, extolling purity in thought and deed and condemning all enemies of the state to painful death.

But maybe that's just me.

6. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38168 by Magpie on May 7, 2007 at 6:58 am

There is a rather unfortunate implicit tone to this piece; namely, that the New Atheists don't understand religion as well as me, Madeleine Bunting. Well, please enlighten us on your understanding of religon if this is the case.

Religion as you appear to see it - a belief in Gods and the afterlife - is not a universal phenomenon. What is universal is the belief in a hidden spirtitual world; a subtle but important distinction.

Of course, neither Dawkins nor Hitchens spend a single drop of ink discussing the role of religion. Except, they do. Dawkins argues that it is an evolutionary byproduct, a 'spandrel' (although though I doubt that he'd use Gould's terminology). Hitchens, from my understanding, takes an essentially Marxist view that religion is a consequence of the doubt, uncertainty and pain of oppressive conditions.

Finally, studies have indeed correlated faith with good health and happiness, but so too are morphine and pain relief. Just like morphine, religion can have unfortunate side-effects, and appears to be at least neutral in regards to societal health http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html . That is, a religious society is not a better one (although this alone doesn't entail that it is a worse one).

7. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33402 by Magpie on April 20, 2007 at 3:05 am

No, don't do it! Take my advice: http://www.itsatrap.net/

8. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32386 by Magpie on April 17, 2007 at 1:37 am

No, Mr Feder, Judaism didn't introduce the world to monotheism; Persian Zoroastrianism and Egyptian Atenism did. Despite proclaiming yourself the defender of the faith, it appears that you know very little about it.

9. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28399 by Magpie on March 29, 2007 at 4:36 am

Congratulations! Though I doubt that the prize is as big as the Templeton Award...

10. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25318 by Magpie on March 12, 2007 at 3:35 am

Nice debate! Interesting fact. David Watson who organised the debate, is the grandfather of my housemate. No, she's not a creationist.

11. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19732 by Magpie on January 29, 2007 at 4:18 pm

"I think that atheists can play basketball too" - priceless!

Oh, and to trillian: whilst I agree that some of the anti-FOX polemic can be a little hyperbolic, if you watch outfoxed (or read mediamatters.com)you realize that FOX is anti-journalism, with stories told by executive diktat rather than detailed investigation. In that sense, what the channel does is very bad.

12. Sex and the Single-Minded

Comment #18387 by Magpie on January 20, 2007 at 9:18 am

Actually, if we accept the long-term potentiation theory of memory (LTP), constantly using synapses and their associated neurotransmitters may well potentiate them - make them more likely to fire given a certain stimuli - thus premarital sex may well increase the likelihood of having a longlasting relationship. Just a thought.

13. The Blind Watchmaker : Video!

Comment #3254 by Magpie on October 27, 2006 at 12:32 am

Dawkins looks so young!