51. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233475 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 1:26 am

Yes..."alternative medicine"... To go along with your "alternative physics", "alternative biology", "alternative history"...Gah! This "alternative" garbage is just a way of trying to get an idea that has miserably failed, or you know couldn't possibly succeed in a rigorous investigative environment, or contradicts well established knowledge about the world, through the door.

If it worked, it wouldn't be "alternative" it would be just plain medicine.

52. Bill Maher on Religion

Comment #233467 by Mitchell Gilks on August 20, 2008 at 1:05 am

I know what's going to happen when I die. The universe will implode, because it surely can't go on without me.

53. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232912 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Bonzai, you're completely right about Canada's regulations of literature, and I am also deeply troubled by this as well. Harper has tightened them since his reign began, and if he gets a bigger control of parliament, he has said that he plains to tighten them further. Even putting far stronger regulations on what can be published in Canada by Canadians.

54. No credit for creationism

Comment #232553 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 10:52 am

Good. They can't possibly win. Reality doesn't have a "view point". Christians talk as if "secular" is actual a thing, and not just the lacks of something.

I'm afraid that you don't have the right to view the world through a "geocentric viewpoint" and still get college credits in a relevant field.

55. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232543 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 10:42 am

Well, I think their wasting time and effort with bibles, but I am deeply troubled by such regulation. I indeed do think it's wrong.

56. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232343 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 1:15 am

Ha, I think that in writing is more clear. If not, I'd never remember what my original subject was when it got dragged into the inevitable countless tangents...so I could return to it when they were resolved.

I was discussing with my brother the other day, the value of art to our mental health and development, and then we went off on a tangent about what constitutes art to begin with, for about an hour, and then we couldn't remember what the original topic was. I eventually did.

57. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232335 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 12:44 am

140. Comment #232334 by chewedbarber

I stated when I first responded to the subject that I thought it was far less likely than life just having started on earth. I was saying that I think that the principle of pan-spermia is viable, and that I think that it is highly likely that numerous planets in the universe owe their habitation to it.

I'm not certain, but I believe Steve is saying that same thing. That he thinks that the principle of pan-spermia is pretty likely

Also, even if he does mean on earth, I'm confident that he doesn't imagine an outside our solar system origin of the microbes.

58. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232332 by Mitchell Gilks on August 18, 2008 at 12:33 am

I simply reject a definition of "knowledge" that denotes absolutes all together. It is a useless way to use the word, as it can never be accurately applied to anything.

I use knowledge to mean "justified true belief" and truth to mean "that which is strongly implied by a robust amount of evidence". In which case I will say that I know that all religions are false. I will say that I'm confident that a deist god does not exist, because it contradicts knowledge about intelligences, and complexity.

When it comes to theists, of any of the worlds religions. I feel comfortable telling them that I know that their god does not exist.

Any omnixxx god is logically incoherent.

When it comes to anything supernatural, I'm almost at the point where I'd say that I know that it doesn't exist as well. I need a hair more convincing, and I'll be there.

59. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232326 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:52 pm

I feel I need to fight this fiercely because telling me to speak in formal language is in essence telling me to shut up.

60. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232324 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:50 pm

132. Comment #232323 by Steve Zara

I was talking about the viability of pan-spermia. Then it went somewhat into probability (and I said some things that would likely make Bonzai slap me) and then we started to quibble over semantics.

61. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232322 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:39 pm

127. Comment #232318 by Steve Zara

Not at all. I don't think that what you said has been inappropriate. I'm very interested in what you have to say. I forgot about that blog post. I will go check what you said.

62. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232316 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:36 pm

119. Comment #232310 by Goldy

I may be arm-flailing more than necessary, but I don't feel unfairly persecuted.

63. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232313 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Steve is right, in a formal usage of the word "proof" science, or anything else can't prove anything about the objective world. Everything we know about the universe is only implied by the evidence, it is not necessitated.

64. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232308 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:27 pm

113. Comment #232303 by Goldy

...I didn't mean no one on the site are scientists, I meant the specific people I was discussing with. I don't find it hard to believe that Steve is, but I'm disappointed if the other two were.

It doesn't make you "stupid in others" it just makes you no more formally educated in them than a layman. You very well could be far more knowledgeable in them than most layman, but it doesn't imply that you would be.

112. Comment #232302 by Steve Zara

What you are doing is misusing terms which apply in any area of science. A biologist would disagree with you as much as a nuclear scientist.

That is unjust! If you read back you will see that I did bring up the word proof without clarifying, but then J Mac brought up an example of a court room, where proof is used in a natural language context, which I immediately clarified in my following post, and defined the word.

Show me where I misused it? You disagreed with my usage of the word, but I was very clear from the beginning by what I meant by it. I would have only misused the word if I said that it was in a formal context, and meant that, which I never did, but was very clear on my usage.

The original context the word "proof" was brought in by, and used with, by both me and J Mac (with his court room example) was one of a natural usage, not formal.

65. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232300 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:07 pm

109. Comment #232298 by Steve Zara

Don't you work with computers or something?

Besides, being a biologist isn't going to imply that you are more knowledgeable in other areas of science. So no matter what type of scientist you are, I see you discussing several fields, in which you surely don't have an formal educating in them all. Being a scientist doesn't make you a polymath. So I think that's disingenuous.

Site like this? This isn't a site for scientists. It engages largely, if not mostly, with political topics.

Well anything I stated that I thought was true was based on what I read or heard from experts, and what they thought were true. You make it sound like I was ignorantly pontificating based on nothing. I really don't think that is fair.

66. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232297 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:54 pm

107. Comment #232294 by Steve Zara

I'm not a scientist, who is trained in the jargon and terminology. I can only offer to speak in natural language. In fact none of us here are scientists, so I think that quibble of semantics is merely a distraction.

Though you said "beyond any possible doubt", which is rather naive. It's quite possible to doubt that 2 2 = 4. It may not be reasonable but it is possible. Why should I bring this up and quibble if I know what you meant? Or it isn't exactly relevant to the issue?

Isn't our mutual understanding more important than everything being exactly proper? Especially when something like that may not be possible for me.

I'm a layman, and I'm limited in this discussions to regurgitating information I've read, to that 60-75% accuracy that I can expect my memory to offer.

I hope you don't expect me to be an expect in everything I talk about. Isn't it fine as long as I don't pretend that I know more about it than I do? I don't expect anything more than that from anyone else.

67. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232292 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:35 pm

102. Comment #232287 by Steve Zara

You're equivocating "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." -dictionary.com

The word has meaning in natural language as well as formal language. You can quibble over the word "true" but if you adopt a "known with absolute certainty" definition than you will have merely robbed it of any possible accurate application, and made the word useless.

68. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232285 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:29 pm

97. Comment #232282 by Steve Zara

Given. Though I think that using statistics the chances of it having not happened are far less likely than it having happened.

Worded out by the assumption of how many planets we expect to have life, how often they chance material with other planets in their solar systems, and what have you.

69. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232283 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:26 pm

95. Comment #232280 by Steve Zara

I think you are slightly equivocating the word "proof", the definition of the word I offered, science can offer us, and does offer us.

70. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232281 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Observation: life exists on celestial bodies in space. Hypothesis: Life can travel from one celestial body in space to another celestial body in space, and propagate. Test: is there a medium for life to travel from one body to another? Confirmed. Can life survive traveling through space? Confirmed. Can life surviving a high speed landing? Confirmed. Can life propagate on terrestrial planets? Confirmed. There is even evidence that life can exist on planets with extreme environments.

All that remains is actually witnessing its occurrence.

71. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232276 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:14 pm

90. Comment #232274 by J Mac

You've called me "fucking blind" and now an "irrational fool". Where have I insulted you? Where have I misquoted you?

I also stated what I thought was evidence, you said that it was not, so I asked what you thought would be if not what I suggested.

We aren't talking about something supernatural here, it should be easy for you to give an example of what you would consider evidence.

72. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232275 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:11 pm

I should clarify that I'm not talking about pan-spermia for life on earth, but merely the principle of pan-sperima.

I think that it is highly likely that several planets in the universe owe their habitation to it, based on the evidence.

Which is that planets within a solar system frequently exchange mass, micros can survive years in deep space, and can survive the crash landing.

73. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232272 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Are you just not going to respond to my question?

74. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232269 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:04 pm

85. Comment #232267 by J Mac

...I know you didn't...that is what I was saying...

I said that such a dichotomy was not offered, so if s/he said s/he meant that choosing an option would be 50/50 it would not be relevant to what you said.

75. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232268 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 10:03 pm

81. Comment #232262 by J Mac

I'm going to ignore your probability fumble...and move past it.

You neglected to answer my questions.

Also, proof and evidence are not "quite different" things. The only proof that applies to the world, baring logical, and mathematical is "evidence enough to establish something as true, or produce belief in it's truth" by definition.

The only different between proof and evidence is in amount. A proof about the world is merely a lot of evidence.

Now, what would constitute as evidence for pan-spermia? There is also evidence against a deistic god. It contradicts what we know about complexity and intelligences.

76. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232265 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Not to mention that the options of "deist god, or pan-spermia" was no even offered, mostly because it is not either or. Both could be true, the likeliness of either was is unrelated to the likeliness of the other. So by this virtue it excludes the 50/50 probability of ones chances of picking a correct one. So even if you meant that would not be relevant to this example.

77. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232260 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 9:50 pm

78. Comment #232256 by eggplantbren

Sigh...

Guess what my cats name is

1 kikyo
2 kagome

You don't know what the probability of either is, but there is a 100% chance that it is one of these, and a zero percent chance that it is the other. You're ignorance of the probability does not make either equally likely, it only makes your chances of chosing the correct option 50%, it doesn't make the chances of either option 50%.

The chances of something being true, and the chances of your chosing the correct option are not equivalent.

78. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232254 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 9:44 pm

73. Comment #232249 by J Mac

No...you said, and I quote "Panspermia is no more or no less likely than a deistic creator of the universe" which is saying that the probability of either is equal, which is inaccurate for the reasons I gave.

You have a skewed view of evidence. I didn't say it was proof, you are perhaps conflating the two. If we have everything except the example of its occurrence, then what happens if we found an example of its occurrence? Doesn't that just prove it? Are you using the two synonymously? Proof, and evidence? What would constitute evidence then?

I call anything that positively implies something to be evidence for it, or conversely, implies the opposite, to be evidence against.

79. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232244 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 9:29 pm

61. Comment #232206 by J Mac

This is inaccurate. Probability does not work like that. If we have two possibilities, and are unaware of the probability of either, or have no evidence for either, then that still in no way makes the equally likely. It only makes us unaware of the likelihood.

Though pan-spermia does have evidence. We know that everything that is necessary for the hypothesis can happen. Micros can survive for years in space without trouble. Planets exchange several tons of mass every few million years or so, and we even know that micros can survive the crash landing.

The only thing that we don't have is an example of it happening. We do know that all the things required for it to happen are true. There is arguably more evidence for its possibility than abiogenesis. We have witnessed, and verified everything required, just not an example of its occurrence. With abiogenesis, we have not witnessed it occur in a a controlled environment, or in a natural one. We're merely confident that it will work based on the knowledge we possess in the relevant sciences.

80. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232235 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 9:20 pm

60. Comment #232205 by Jesus86

Ha, well, I was not pontificating. I watched a Horizon documentary yesterday with my brother called "we are the aliens" in which they visited a Mr John D Rummel, who was NASA's "planetary protection officer" whose job involves making sure such contaminants do not make their way into space. The reasons I gave were the reasons he gave in the documentary. I though, did not clarify, that I was referring to planets within our own solar system, which we have not ruled out the possibility of life on, which you seemed to think we have on all of them.

I really hate it when people outright say you're wrong from a position of ignorance just because it doesn't sound right to them.

81. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232200 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 8:24 pm

58. Comment #232179 by Jesus86

I don't think that the idea of pan-spermia is hugely far-fetched in principle, but I don't think that it is how life got started on earth. I'd wager a bet that there are probably numerous places in the universe that owe its habitation to something like that (no need to be directly, or indirectly the result of extraterrestrial intelligences, since vast amounts of mass are exchanged between bodies in the universe without such aid). It is possible on earth, sure, but it is a solution without a problem. According to what we know, earth had everything needed, and was in an excellent position for abiogenises to occur. The right clays, the water, the elements, the proteins, Everything needed. So such an explanation, though possible, is simply superfluous.

Your example is unlikely however, I don't know how extraterrestrials do it, but we take painstaking efforts to avoid just that scenario. There are teams that examine everything that is going into space with a fine-toothed comb, and check and recheck to make sure no contaminants hitch a ride. Mostly because if we do land on some other planet someday, we don't want to find life that got there because of us, we want to find alien life, that did not originate on earth. If we were allowing such contamination, it would make searching for, and confirming such a thing, several levels more difficult.

82. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #231991 by Mitchell Gilks on August 17, 2008 at 11:54 am

20. Comment #231590 by justaminute

First, an argument that runs like this falls:
1) There are hundreds of ideas that people believe in that are wrong, therefore
2 ) All ideas that people believe in are wrong.

Simply asserting that most religions are false doesn't make all of them false.

This isn't even his argument, but you are still wrong.

If 99% of a class of idea, methodology, or mode of thought can be demonstrated to be flawed, and the remaining 1% cannot be shown to be fundamentally different, but instead can be shown to parallel with the other 99% exactly then it does very much imply that it is also wrong.

By that logic if I said that pink winged fairies exist, and this is proven false. This does not imply that blue winged ones, or red winged ones do not exist. If they are fundamentally the same class of thing, then disproving the bulk of them, discredits the remainder.

Though, remember, RD never even made this argument. His argument is an argument by analogy. He is saying that for the same reasons people believed those "false" religions in antiquity people believe the current ones today, and for the same reasons that you don't accept those ancient religions, he does not accept yours. Because yours cannot be shown to be fundamentally different than others. The only rational thing is to dismiss the whole class of them until evidence can be established.

It's as senseless to try and deny the supernatural on the grounds that science cannot measure it as it is for my wife to claim that I don't love her because the bathroom scales can't measure it.

False analogy. Love is not a magical thing that cannot be measured by any means, or a different between its existence and nonexistence cannot be given. It is measurable, evidence can be gathered, and demonstrated. When people watch romances, they very much can tell the difference between the presence and absence of love. No one on earth can even describe a difference between the presence and absence of an incorporeal, invisible, supernatural being that has no demonstrable effect on the world, and no being at all. I challenge you to describe the difference.

Second I can understand the argument that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. But it's entirely logical to argue that there may exist an intelligent being who created time space and matter and that that being was not caused because he / it did not have a beginning.

Firstly, no one makes that argument, Most fundamentally it is merely logically impossible. A cause is an event that precedes another event, an event cannot precede time, that is incoherent. Time is the measurement of chronology. Time having a cause makes about as much sense as square-triangles. It in fact also contradicts physical hypothesis for the origin of the universe, and observations of particles on the subatomic scale. RD's argument in this case is simply one of reduction. It is an argument against the idea of complexity necessitating design, not beginning. Nothing beyond subatomic particles have ever been observed truly "beginning" things within the universe come about by the reformation of already existing matter. They come into being by definition alone. Clay is not a pot, but when you form it to fit the definition of a pot, it does not pop into existence, what makes it up was already in existence. As far as we know, this is true for everything in the universe on the macroscopic scale...and if string theory is true, including the universe itself, and even subatomic particles. Nothing would have a true beginning, but merely being the reformation of things already in existence.

Something existing outside of space/time is definitely illogical, it contradicts the meanings of the words. What does existence mean if not to occupy space and time? To take up space, to hold a position in a location at a point? Due explain?

Scientific naturalists understandably rail against supernatural explanations because they clash with their belief system but they are quite happy to invoke significant amounts of 'luck' to bolster up the gaps in their science.

I had no idea that there was a scientific supernaturalism? Perhaps you could explain how that method works?...It would surely refute Hume, and make you a very famous man/woman.

RD is a great story teller but I reckon there's some large holes in his logic.

I think you need to spend more time worrying whether your logic is sound rather than valid.

P1) all supernatural entities have purple hair
P2) Yahweh is a supernatural entity
C1) Yahweh has purple hair.

That is a logically valid deductive argument, that proves Yahweh has purple hair. Though it doesn't count for much if I can't render my premises sound through actual investigating of the world. Believing something on logical validity alone is asinine, I can prove anything I want if I just get to make up my premises.

83. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230414 by Mitchell Gilks on August 14, 2008 at 4:27 pm

7. Comment #230207 by Cartomancer

I looked around but I can't find it...there was a study I read a few months ago that hooked adult males up to machines to gauge their level of sexual arousal, and then showed them pictures of little girls, 12 and under, and found that eighty percent were capable of becoming sexually aroused by girls 12 or younger. This was after eliminating anyone who admitted to being attracted to children in screening.

I think this partly explains why it is prevalent...but I would think that most males are at least against raping people they find attractive, and respect, and understand the concepts of informed consent. Most males capable of being aroused by very young girls, is of course part of it, but I really think that their disgusting religion offers them the justification to even consider acting on it.

84. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228960 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 10:22 pm

89. Comment #228928 by Bonzai

Well clearly all knowledge is subjective, whether of an objective subject or not. Would the information itself? The facts about evolutionary theory? No. Though that isn't quite the same as valuing something, that is just talking about the sheer information itself, which is not determined by people's goals desires or opinions. There are no values judgments in pure facts.

As I attempted to explain, using a standard objective figures can be determined. Like whether or not that piece of investigative journalism cohered with the facts, was thoroughly investigated, or what have you. The standard however, that investigative journalism ought be judged on those grounds is entirely subjective. It is a shared opinion, and reflects our desires, opinions and goals, of what we want to get out of it. Whether it follows the standard, and what the standard ought be are not equivalent.

This is what the is/ought fallacy is all about. I can derives and ought from an is if I have a goals, desires, opinions and values. Which are all subjective. I can't do this objectively. I can say that if I want to make money, then it is a categorical fact that I ought to get a job, or find some means in order to acquire it. I can't, however, say that I objectively ought to make money.

Like wise, I can say that if my piece of investigative journalism wants to be as accurate, precise, impartial, fair, and coherent with the facts as possible, then I ought to do such and such a thing, and take such and such a measure. Then my piece when finished can be judged against these goals to determine whether or not it has objectively, and categorically met my standard. That investigative journalism ought to strive for such things however, is entirely based on subjective desires, goals, and opinions.

Though, remember, subjective doesn't equal relative. Something that is subjective can still be universal. Even if every person on earth agreed with, and subscribed to this standard, it would still be entirely subjective, and based on those goals, opinions, and desires.

I'm also not at all nitpicking over words. This is a real distinction, that I do think matters. Because then you can't tell someone that they are categorically or factually wrong when they say that "making people think makes a quality book". You can only say that with regard to your standard it does not. In other words, "I disagree". Which I think is a very significant difference.

Sorry for the huge post.

(P.S. when are you going to get an avatar? There must be something you can think of that reflects your personality?)

85. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228921 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 8:39 pm

I find manga and anime to both have their ups and downs when contrasted. I'm quite happy to have both. Why even talk about which is better? They are different things. We need not have just one, we have both. (Though manga isn't quite the same as pure written word books. Though out of any media I do prefer print to absorb pure facts and information, because it is the fastest means to do so, though it is perhaps the least entertaining.)

85. Comment #228834 by Sciros

They're not? Hmmm...I've yet to have trouble.

86. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228919 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 8:29 pm

68. Comment #228746 by decius

Despite quoting you right and saying "non-fiction" my mind must have been somewhere else, because I thought you meant fiction/science. What I said there made no sense otherwise.

It is not an objective standard, no matter how many times you say it. It is a standard, but it is a standard that is solely, and entirely dependent on one's goals, desires, and opinions. You can only ever say "you are wrong with regard, or respect to this specific standard, which I and this group of people agree is the best". You cannot say this is an objective standard that is not based on ours desires goals and opinions. Because that simply isn't true.

It is wrong only with regard to the standard by which you think such books should be judged. There is no categorical standard by which they are judged, that is removed, and outside of what people think. Judging quality is a value judgment, not a statement of fact. Professional standards, by experts, and authorities in the fields, that have been developed over time are merely formalized versions of value judgments. With certain goals in mind, judging certain qualities as better, or more relevant than others can indeed equal to something being categorically, and objectively better, with respect to your standard, but the standard itself is not, and cannot be. It will always reflect shared value judgments.

87. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228742 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm

64. Comment #228739 by the great teapot

*SPOILER*

His dog dies at the end. Takes some poison for him or something. Heroic dog.

88. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228735 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 1:19 pm

60. Comment #228725 by Bonzai

There are authorities, and expects, that's opinions hold more weight, because they have more knowledge in the field, though those merits themselves were subjectively derived from past individuals and experts. So the books quality may be properly judged by a standard, but it wouldn't be an objective standard. It would still be ultimately based on what people think.

59. Comment #228722 by decius

Well, the God Delusion isn't a science book, nor is there such a dichotomy between non-fiction/science. Though even with a science book (such as creation science books) the quality of the book is still judged different depending on the goals in mind, or what one thinks one ought to get out of such a book. While the more scientifically educated may (and almost certainly will) hold a science book to the standards that you outlined, those writing the books do not have similar goals, and clearly don't give a shit about those things. They will judge its quality by how many people it convinces, and how many people it brings to their side.

In any case, you can only disagree on what you think a books quality ought be judged by, or the standard it ought be judged against, but this is still no less your opinion, and it in no way a categorical fact of the matter.

89. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228710 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 12:43 pm

51. Comment #228703 by decius

I hadn't realized that there were an objective standard by which the quality of books are judged?

Setting up a straw-man? That would only be the case if someone else, and solely that person was the absolute authority on judging the quality of books.

If someone wants to judge the quality of books by how much they influence people's thinking, I really don't see how you can tell them they are wrong to do so, and it to be anything more than your mere opinion.

90. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228642 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 10:31 am

I don't need no edge-ah-mah-cation. Learnin's for fools.

I'm sure England can just out-source its science, and specialist jobs. Section one of science education: Learn to comprehend thick Indian accent.

42. Comment #228631 by hungarianelephant

The Island of Doctor Popin J Bobington the third.

91. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228638 by Mitchell Gilks on August 12, 2008 at 10:16 am

289. Comment #228385 by Bonzai

The Jews say that the word "Satan" isn't a name, but means "adversary", and never refers to a single individual. The whole fall of Satan (described in the new testament) is supposedly written quite similarly to a poem describing Hephaestus's fall from Olympus.

286. Comment #228380 by Bonzai

Yes, his comments were removed on another thread, and RD explained that it was because it simply was incoherent, and was impossible to understand. So Wooter rose again (it didn't even take him three days) with his new (and I'm sure he thinks clever) name.

92. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228161 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 2:42 pm

267. Comment #228153 by Sargeist

Weed was the hardest drug, or substance I've quit. The others I didn't like as much. I really liked weed. I smoked it on a daily basis for three or four years. Though I didn't do much else. I just avoid people that are into such things now. Which is everyone I used to know.

93. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228147 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Maybe if you sprinkle it on top of the weed in a blunt, or dip a cigarette in it. Other than that cocaine is not smoked. Crack is.

This is just wrong. I watched people smoke coke right in front of me. Cracks heads just can't afford coke, that is the only reason.

Cocktail joints are another way to smoke it of course, but it is smoked just as easily, and by itself, in a pipe.

94. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228135 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 2:18 pm

251. Comment #228131 by decius

I was mixing it up with pseudo-coke made from couch syrup.

95. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228129 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm

247. Comment #228126 by thewhitepearl

Most of that isn't true, or is rather naive really. You can also smoke coke, and it is stronger, and more addictive. You can also inject crack, you can inject weed if you wanted to. That is all that it is cut with to constitute crack, though it can be cut with other substances to create cocktail mixes.

Considered by whom?

Crack has more users for the sole reason that it is cheaper. There is absolutely nothing that you can do with crack that you can't do with cocaine.

For duration, snorting lasts about 45 minutes, but is only really good for the first 25 or so. Smoking it lasts between 10-15 minutes, and it totally fucks you.

96. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228120 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 2:00 pm

239. Comment #228114 by Sargeist

I lack social skills, so I don't have that problem. I'm about as otaku as they come.

97. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228116 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm

231. Comment #228104 by thewhitepearl

Crack is cocaine that has been cut with glucose. It's cheaper because it has less cocaine in it. Hardly different things.

98. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228097 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 1:17 pm

223. Comment #228092 by decius

There is no such dichotomy with crack-heads, and heroine addicts. None of them are causal users.

At least not from my experience.

99. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228093 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 1:13 pm

221. Comment #228090 by AllanW

It definitely has changed my mind on the usefulness of even arguing it. I was contemplating shutting up about it, and not bothering arguing positions anymore, because I was being more and more convinced that it was useless. Now I feel like my old German short-haired pointer. Chasing a partrich, just before she's about to give up, and it seems like a useless effort, she actually catches one. It becomes harder and harder to stop chasing them, as long as you know that catching one is possible.

100. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228088 by Mitchell Gilks on August 11, 2008 at 1:06 pm

216. Comment #228081 by Sargeist

They can just roll over next to the corpses in the streets in the right-wing "night-watchmen" government, where none of those social programs exist, and everyone has several assault rifles for protection.