Comments by robert s
51. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science
Comment #70028 by robert s on September 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Science is a latin name for "knowledge". If Knowledge is counter-intuitive then I don't know what would be intuitive.
Ah, good to see the believers aren't the only ones who like to play the old, 'you said X, but in a different context X means Y, and what you said isn't true of Y!' game.
52. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science
Comment #69994 by robert s on September 13, 2007 at 2:33 pm
You were the one that picked 'faith', so let's stick with that. My point is that your definition seems to "belief based only on evidence that other people have been involved in". Therefore it does indeed strip down to your faith in the media. It's not obvious to me that this is tangibly different to faith in historians and archaeologists.
Both seem totally different to what religious people mean by 'faith'. A journalist and a historian can both give you reasons for why they believe what they do and even if you can't personally check it, you can get a second opinion - other specialists can look at the records (or whatever form the evidence takes).
And, crucially, you can match the strength of your belief to the strength of the evidence.
The supernatural claims of religions are simply entirely unevidenced. It seems to me that the term 'faith' (in its epistemological sense) should be reserved for belief in those kinds of things.
53. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science
Comment #69984 by robert s on September 13, 2007 at 1:42 pm
bama, you have stretched the definition of 'faith' so far that, by your own terms, you only have it on faith that Jimmy Carter was President of the US.
Comment #69777 by robert s on September 12, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Perhaps Dutch viewers should write to them and request they show Lost Worlds, Vanished Lives
55. Another view
Comment #66224 by robert s on August 29, 2007 at 11:32 am
aodh, how something works is a different question to whether something works. One studies the efficacy of ECT (and all other medical procedures) by observing the outcomes. Whereas one studies the mechanisms by using things like brain scanners.
ECT is an interesting case in that there's no way to 'blind' a trial - all the patients and doctors will definitely know who is in the control group! - so any studies on it will have their credibility questioned on those grounds. Obviously this is only relevent if the study purports to show an effect.
However the irrational medical procedures can be tested, very often under proper double-blind conditions and they typically fail to show an effect. In those cases, asking whether the mechanism is mysterious seems like a diversion to me.
56. God in the Military - The Pentagon and its Christian Embassy
Comment #61886 by robert s on August 7, 2007 at 9:47 am
When Roosevelt ran for a third term, there was no legal impediment to that. After his death, Congress amended the constitution to make two terms the maximum. So if GWB were to seek re-election, he would be breaking the constitution (although hardly for the first time).
I wonder if this 'embassy' will start handing out white tabards with red crosses on them to the troops heading for Iraq and Afghanistan?
57. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!
Comment #60625 by robert s on August 2, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Actually Dawkins started it by quoting [But] was there ever dog that praised his fleas? in response to an enquiry of is opinion on the recent crop of books with his name in the title.
58. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!
Comment #60314 by robert s on August 1, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Is Vox Day supposed to be a pun on vox Dei?
59. Welsh Hindus fight to save Shambo the sacred bull
Comment #59063 by robert s on July 27, 2007 at 6:19 am
Off Topic, but Shambo has now been euthenised.
Shambo's TB was never an issue of human safety, but simply one of compliance with the law, which mandates the destruction of any animals with TB antibodies.
60. Darwin or Design
Comment #57507 by robert s on July 19, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Jason, Quetz asked a very simple question, which gave you the opportunity to outline what you see as the case for ID and you completely flubbed it.
If I asked what's your favourite programming language and why, I would expect to get an answer that addressed the question by talking about what is different in your preferred language to others.
If you said something like 'Perl, because it allows you to store data in variables' you'd look very stupid, because many languages have that feature.
61. Darwin or Design
Comment #57503 by robert s on July 19, 2007 at 2:58 pm
roach, there are some very nice examples of cross-polination between biology and engineering, like the Palm House at Kew Gardens or Genetic Algorithms. No real scientist or engineer would feel defensive about another expressing interest in his field.
Jason's prickly defensiveness is just a reaction to his realisation that he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
62. Darwin or Design
Comment #57498 by robert s on July 19, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Only if the biologists stay off the engineers turf.
Nice, answer the jokey ad hom rather than the substantive point.
63. Darwin or Design
Comment #57494 by robert s on July 19, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Evolutionists don't deny Jason's assertion (paraphrasing for clarity) "some bits of lifeforms look designed if you don't know much about biology". We even have the word 'designoid' to describe these things.
As Jason has spent a great deal of time talking to proponents of ID, I'm disappointed that this is what he finds most convincing about it. After all that work, it would've been nice if he could have constructed an answer that actually addresses the question of whether ID is true or not.
64. Insurance for Sex Abuse: A policy tailor-made for the Catholic church
Comment #56890 by robert s on July 17, 2007 at 4:54 pm
These aren't fines, they're compensation payments, presumably the court doesn't care who pays.
A fine would be a different matter.
65. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Comment #56847 by robert s on July 17, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Islamophobic?
As in, lit. the state of fearing Islam?
Hasn't the guy read Hirsi Ali's biography?
Comment #56632 by robert s on July 16, 2007 at 4:41 pm
The smiley suggests fin is joking.
Of course the theist can ask for divine guidance, however there's nothing out there to answer the request, so they have to resort to Plan B: make shit up and try and sell it as divine guidance.
Comment #56582 by robert s on July 16, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Is it just me, or is SJG taking a bigger part in these debates some years after his death than he did when he was alive?
Comment #56581 by robert s on July 16, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I don't think Hitchens thinks the heaven he fears exists either.
I can see why it might be better all-round if our critical thinking skills survived into an afterlife (if there is an afterlife, a rather large if), but that's a long way short of actual evidence for thinking that this is actually the case.
I can think of lots of things that would be nice if they were true, but aren't.
69. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West
Comment #56580 by robert s on July 16, 2007 at 1:07 pm
You're worried about journalism? I'm more worried that one or more of the many 'parliaments' and 'councils' this guy is apparently a member of might have some kind of legislative authority.
70. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens
Comment #56566 by robert s on July 16, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I suspect that on your evangelical mission you'll find that rationalists will be as scathing of the poverty of your evidence and arguments as they are here and the theists will ask you for money.
71. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West
Comment #56563 by robert s on July 16, 2007 at 12:33 pm
He manages to get the title of both TGD and GNG wrong.
He seems to think that it will soon be illegal for men to marry, or have sex with, women. As far as I'm aware no such legislation is currently being considered anywhere in Europe or North America.
He seems to think cells duplicating themselves is a new thing that's only possible through science.
He's worried that cloning will create super-soldiers (I'd be much more worried about remote-controlled and autonomous fighting machines - clones are still people, but no-one's going to be marching in the streets to bring home our brave UAV's).
And he paints the Independent as the last, lone voice of Christianity in the West, being "drowned out" by the sales of hard-cover books.
The rest is just too silly to comment on.
72. 'Purity' ring case in High Court
Comment #56523 by robert s on July 16, 2007 at 5:37 am
BBC is reporting that the High Court has ruled in favour of the school.
Comment #56274 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Martha, H is referring to 'original sin' - you seem to have missed the word 'delusion' in his sentence.
Comment #56255 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Serrano, it's about a week since Hitch debated with someone who claimed, in all seriousness, that praying with his kids was something that could not be done by a non-believer.
To misquote JBS Haldane, believers say things that are sillier than you can imagine.
75. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World
Comment #56246 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 3:41 pm
He should have done it himself, but I'll point out that when darwin2 says things like that, he's talking 'subjectively', he freely admits that reality is likely not as he describes it.
Comment #56227 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 2:43 pm
serrano, even though I don't believe, I can say "I believe in God and I think murder is wrong".
You can't even claim that a christian was the first to assert that murder is wrong.
Not only have you failed to demonstrate that you're smarter than Hitchens, I'm currently doubting whether you're smarter than a rock.
77. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens
Comment #56197 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 12:10 pm
So, when it comes to doctors and lawyers, other people's 'subjective' opinions are to be avoided. What counts is reality and you want your advisors to be as 'objective' as possible.
You've already admitted your belief in the survival of consciousness has no objectivity, so what makes your 'subjective' belief more interesting than that of your doctor or lawyer?
78. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens
Comment #56190 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 11:16 am
The trouble is many of the functions of consciousness have been mapped on to specific structures of the brain. For example your visual cortex enables you to see. Your visual cortex will be destroyed when you die. Do you expect to be able to see after that? (If yes, why do you think the loss of the visual cortex causes blindness?)
Similarly hearing, movement, touch, memory and personality (among many others, I'm sure) have been mapped to specific structures.
If your consciousness survives death without those faculties, in what sense is it 'you'?
79. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens
Comment #56186 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 11:03 am
When you go to a doctor or a lawyer, do you ask for their 'objective' or 'subjective' opinions?
80. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission
Comment #56051 by robert s on July 13, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Poles and wires???
Can't an omniscient being read a map?
81. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens
Comment #56028 by robert s on July 13, 2007 at 11:38 am
Do you not think it hypocritical to claim 100% confidence in a proposition you admit you calculate to have only a 50% chance of being true?
82. The Republican War on Science Rages On
Comment #56004 by robert s on July 13, 2007 at 7:20 am
So is the GOP meeting its milestones on crushing science, or is it turning into another quagmire?
83. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens
Comment #55840 by robert s on July 12, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I strongly believe extraterrestrial intelligence is abundant throughout the universe. I think it would be a fair assumption to say that most scientists agree on this statement.
They would probably quibble a bit, but, broadly, yes.
However, we have no evidence to back this claim. For all we know we could be the first and only planet to have developed intelligent life.
It is completely wrong to claim we have no evidence pertaining to this question. If that were true, most scientists would say 'we don't know', which as you observed, they tend not to say that.
I'll grant that the evidence is not great, but you can certainly have a rational discussion about it. You don't have to say things like 'I'm sure aliens will visit us after we're both dead'.
The two obvious evidences to bring up are the failure to find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligences in our solar system. This suggests that intelligent life is quite uncommon. This observation can also be used to support the assertion that we are the first advanced life form in this galaxy.
And of course the Drake equation, which attempts to model the probabilities of advanced life arising near the average star. Some of the elements of the equation can be estimated with great confidence, unfortunately others can only be wild guesses.
However, as there are approximately 100 billion stars in our galaxy, unless you assign really small values to the more uncertain values, the equation still comes up with estimates of very large numbers (ie at least millions) of advanced civilisations in our galaxy. (Unfortunately the size of the galaxy works against us too - even with millions of them, the chances of there being one within detection range is very slight).
As most people who consider the Drake equation do not assign the required very low values, they conclude that extraterrestrial life is abundant.
Perhaps could express the reasons for your belief that consciousness survives death in those sort of terms?
84. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson
Comment #55799 by robert s on July 12, 2007 at 10:49 am
Perhaps one could ask, with equal futility, what is the objective basis for thinking that bank notes have value?
We all agree that they do, we all have done for hundreds of years, but atheists claim that God is not involved. How, then, can atheists claim that bank notes have value? Aren't they just pieces of paper?
The atheist might argue that a bank note is a contract. Sterling notes have the contract printed on them: "I promise to pay the bearer..." and are signed by the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England. But that's not 'objective' value, the Chief Cashier is just a human, the Bank is just a human institution, the contract might be a forgery.
At this point we can claim that US Dollars are better - they have 'In God we trust' printed on them, afterall. Therefore they have an objective value that Sterling notes do not.
Nevermind that the Federal Reserve is also a human institution, nevermind that US currency is the most forged in the world. Stirling notes don't mention God, so Dollars are better.
85. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson
Comment #55548 by robert s on July 11, 2007 at 1:37 pm
But here is some evidence for you, in no particular order.
The engineering that went into ankles.
The taste of beer.
That Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, just like he said.
A woman's neck.
Bees fooling around in the flower bed.
The ability of acorns to manufacture enormous oaks out of stuff they find in the air and dirt.
Forgiveness of sin.
Storms out of the North, the kind with lightning.
Joyous laughter (diaphragm spasms to the atheistic materialist).
The ocean at night with a full moon.
Delta blues.
The peacock that lives in my yard.
Sunrise, in color.
Baptizing babies.
The pleasure of sneezing.
Eye contact.
Having your feet removed from the miry clay, and established forever on the rock. From page 5
So, trick question, out of that list, which items are actuallly evidence?
86. The Panel
Comment #55498 by robert s on July 11, 2007 at 9:56 am
Well, I suppose it depends on how deep a 'why' you mean.
If you take the question as analagous to 'why does the double slit experiment need a wave model of light when the photoelectic effect requires a partical model', then the answer would involve the quantum mechanical model of light.
Similarly, with this question we're still at the point of saying 'sometimes you need one model and sometimes the other, but the two can not be reconciled into a unified theory'.
Explaining why the structure of the universe has caused us to reach this rather unsatisfactory state requires a Grand Unified Theory.
But, you're right, that might be over-thinking it.
So, to answer the more limited question, I suppose it comes from the two very different world-views that lead to those theories.
In QM all forces are mediated by particles and there is good experimental evidence for the existence of these particles for the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces. So it's natural to posit gravitons, even if there's no evidence for them. Gravitons often pop up out of theoretical models like super symmetry and string theories, which seems to be regarded as a Good Thing, although it's hardly a substitute for evidence.
General Relativity arises from positing as an axiom that being in a gravitation field and being in an accelerating frame of reference are fundamentally the same thing. Particles don't come into it.
87. The Panel
Comment #55488 by robert s on July 11, 2007 at 9:22 am
A solid answer to that question will win you a Nobel Prize and make you a celebrity.
88. Small, Yes, but Mighty: The Molecule Called Water
Comment #55229 by robert s on July 10, 2007 at 9:48 am
The boiling point is the temperature at which the liquid and gaseous phases are in equilibrium.
The situation of water evaporating in cool air results from the fact that because the molecules in the liquid have a spread of energies, some of them at the surface have enough to break free and enter the atmosphere. In a closed vessel, eventually the concentration of water vapour would rise to the point where molecules from the gas would re-enter the liquid at the same rate as liquid molecules evaporate.
In the open, though, the loose molecules blow away, so the rate of condensation is always lower than the rate of evaporation.
With water at boiling point, the average molecules have enough energy to break free, but evaporation removes energy from the liquid (the latent heat of vapourisation), therefore once some water has boiled off, the temperature drops and boiling ceases.
You have to keep the burner on under a pan to keep the water boiling, but the heat does not increase the temperature of the liquid, instead, that energy is carried away in the steam.
Edit - Must type faster! Well done Greg
89. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens
Comment #54867 by robert s on July 9, 2007 at 7:31 am
I first came across the 'north of the North Pole' concept in A Brief History of Time.
90. The Panel
Comment #53846 by robert s on July 3, 2007 at 2:22 pm
RFO:
1 - Dissolving salt: This is not a redox reaction. The important point is that the oxygen atoms in water molecules are slightly negative and the hydrogens slightly positive, even though the bonds are covalent.
This is why water (and some other polar molecules like ethanol) have a higher boiling point that non-polar molecules of similar mass (eg methane or CO2). The oxygen atoms are attracted to the hydrogen atoms in adjacent molecules forming bonds (called hydrogen bonds) that are much weaker than the intramolecular bonds, but much stronger than the intermolecular bonds.
Salts are ionically bonded - the atoms are held together because they are electrically charged. When you add a polar solvent, the oxygens are attracted to the positive atoms and the hydrogens to the negative ones. When the atoms detach from the matrix (and thus dissolve), they are surrounded by clusters of water molecules and thus find it difficult to reattach to the crystal.
4 - Twins: It's really a horrible question. Identical twins are strongly similar to clones, so it depends on what sort of twin you mean, what sort of clone you mean and how similar two things have to be before you can describe them as 'the same'.
5 - Blue skies: The scattering of blue light is apparent from the yellowness of the Sun. The Sun is actually white, but some of the blue light that was originally headed your way when you look at the Sun has been scattered away, making the Sun look yellow. However sunlight is not yellow as the blue light from the sky also lands on the objects you're looking at, which restores the colour balance.
Rtambree: you're an evil man :)
91. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women
Comment #53824 by robert s on July 3, 2007 at 11:54 am
The nails seem to be more symbolic than dangerous in themselves.
The propane seems to have been there as a fuel-air explosive to initiate the attack. It would have been the gasoline dispersed by that, relatively small, explosion that would have caused most of the damage.
I hardly have to refer you back to recent nightclub fires to point out that this in itself would have caused dozens, if not hundreds of fatalties through smoke inhalation and crush injuries in the club.
So while this is a less dangerous than a truck load of high explosives, it did come very close to killing a lot of people using only materials that are very easy to acquire without raising suspicion.
92. The Panel
Comment #53766 by robert s on July 3, 2007 at 4:41 am
The electrons are the charge carriers; you can't talk about the charge moving independently of the electrons!
The point is that there are so many electrons in the wires that the required energy can be transferred without the electrons having to move very far.
However, you might talk about the electric field in the circuit, which changes at close to the speed of light and therefore does manage to run back to the 'power company' within the time frame of the AC cycle.
The field is what causes the electrons to move and determines how much energy each electron carries (fields exert forces on charged particles, stronger fields exert bigger forces, bigger forces mean more energy).
I was disappointed that none of the responses - not even the 'right' one - attempted to address what happens in the light bulb to convert the electricity into light. There's some important physics there, particularly when you compare GLS and fluorescent lamps.
93. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops
Comment #53475 by robert s on July 1, 2007 at 3:29 pm
So if something happens that the Church disapproves of, but the weather remains OK in the following week, can we expect to see the Bishops owning up to their being wrong and God infact approving of whatever it was they were complaining about?
Comment #51546 by robert s on June 23, 2007 at 10:59 am
Chad, if someone asserts 'A implies B', you saying 'Ah-ha, but not A does not imply not B, does it? DOES IT!' does not rebut their argument in the slightest.
Comment #51503 by robert s on June 23, 2007 at 7:00 am
But how is it that the majority of the world's great philosophers, composers, scholars, artists and poets have been believers, often of a very devout kind?
I might be being dense, but surely the answer is simply, 'because if they hadn't professed belief they would've been executed and their works burned'.
Hard to believe a bishop doesn't know that.
96. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?
Comment #50967 by robert s on June 20, 2007 at 6:28 pm
I believe the speed of light is 186,000 miles an hour
Your belief is wrong by a factor of 3,600
97. Atheists: stand up and be counted
Comment #50659 by robert s on June 19, 2007 at 9:07 am
So if 'Adam' is not intended to be read as refering to an actual person, because the name means 'mankind', can we do the same for 'Jesus'?
That name means 'Jehovah saves', therefore the Gospels should be read as telling us about how wonderful God's salvation is through the metaphorical story of a man's life and death and only stupid atheists with their literal caricatures of religion would think Jesus was actually a real person.
98. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex
Comment #19167 by robert s on January 25, 2007 at 10:58 am
There is a moral plumb line, and we need to rise up to it.
Does he really not realise a plumb line hangs vertically?
Comment #17187 by robert s on January 11, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Surely 'knowledge of design' is only useful if organisms are actually designed.
If they're not, then such knowledge might predjudice one to see design even when looking at the results of a natural process.
Comment #14581 by robert s on December 23, 2006 at 1:51 pm
I am not the litigious type, but you are libelling me
Well it looks like God has struck him dead for bearing false witness, so He's saved you the trouble of suing.
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 | Next
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
