Comments by Brian English

Comment #231253 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 3:57 am

Mike, pop quiz, which order would you choose?

(a) 1. Kant. 2. Freud. 3. Brian.
(b) 1. Freud. 2. Kant. 3. Brian.
(c) 1. Kant. 2. Brian. 3. Freud.
(d) 1. Freud. 2. Brian. 3. Kant.
(Hah! you'd never put Kant after me!)
(e) 1. Brian. 2. Kant. 3. Freud.
(Ditto!)
(f) 1. Brian. 2. Freud. 3. Kant.
(The ultimate insult?)
(g) 1. Brian is a moron who's a pain in the arse.

402. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231250 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 3:54 am

Mike, you should read some of my biological neuroscience texts. My last exam was on perception and the various parts of the brain involved and their interactions. Then again, your texts are probably much more advanced than mine. :)

403. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231248 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 3:51 am

Thanks Mike, fixed. Laurie and MPhil, I made the point yesterday of saying that we can recognize great thinkers and still say they were wrong in many things. Tyler was the proponent of the idea that psychoanalysis was scientific. I have no argument that it is fundamental in the young 'science' that is psychology, but I would not call it scientific by any definition I understand of science.

By the way Laurie, all my anti-Kantian comments have been because I just haven't yet understood what he means to say, except in the analytic a priori Boag's premium vs synthetic a priori Cooper's Sparkling Ale debate. Beer always makes things seem more intelligible, until the 4th or 5th beer then I don't care. :)

404. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231240 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 3:45 am

Tyler, Psychoanalysis has created great problems in the treatment of patients. For example, it was posited by psychoanalysis that Autism was caused by an uncaring parent. The fact is Autism has been demonstrated to be genetic as well as environmental. Many loving parents were made to feel guilt and remorse because the prevailing psychoanalytic method said it was so. Evidence for this conclusion? None. Quite unscientific.

From one of my 3rd year texts*: Although most of it remains unproven, psychoanalytic theory has had a strong influence...A major criticism of psychoanalysis is that it is basically unscientific, relying on reports by the patient of events that happened years ago. These events have been filtered through the experience of the observer and then interpreted by the psychoanalyst in ways that certainly could be questioned and might differ from one analyst to the next. Finally, there has been no careful measurement of any of the these psychological phenomena and no obvious way to prove or disprove the basic hypothesis of psychoanalysis. This is important, because measurement and the ability to prove or disprove a theory are the foundations of the scientific approach.

*Barlow David H, Durand V. Mark. Abnormal Psychology.

405. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231232 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 3:31 am

Tyler:

Just so I'm clear on this: are you saying that Freudian psychoanalysis is "unscientific"??

Yes, unless you can show the science. How were the theories of psychoanalysis tested? What criteria are in those theories the allow for their falsification? For example, how does one test that there is an ego, id and superego? How would one falsify such? Otherwise it's not scientific in any meaningful manner.

Case studies are useful, but are the least reliable form of gathering evidence because the gatherer is deciding what is interesting and what is not? Also, how do you know that someone's memory hasn't altered in the interim?

406. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230805 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:57 am

Tyler, how am I digging? What grounding does Freudian theory have in physiology, philosophy, mathematics or any other science?

What blind studies have been done to confirm the existence of the ego, id, or superego?

407. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230802 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:51 am

And if you think Freud's case studies were "Very unscientific", you haven't read Freud.

How many blind studies did Freud do? Or did he take down his notes and ideas in his case studies? So they were just his assertions? Not a chance of there being a bit of the old
confirmation bias going on there? That's why it was unscientific. Freud didn't try to disprove his theories, of make them falsifiable, he just interpreted his case studies to suit his thinking.

How do you falsify Freud's concept of the subconscious?

408. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230801 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:49 am

Well, I believe I've done my job of being contrary (self appointed task) here so I bid you all a good night/day. If I've upset you it was mostly because I'm a contrary bastard, the other possibility (false dichotomy?) being that I was joking but my wooden sense of humour translated into an annoying thud, not smooth Mahogany....

Fare thee well good men and women of the Barque HMS Richard Dawkins.......

409. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230798 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:43 am

Sorry, I should have said "boys hate their fathers at a certain point in their development".

The biggest problem with Freudian theory is that it's all just speculation. The idea of the id, ego and superego are just pure speculation, no relation to the human brain.

I think Freud was a great thinker, and worthy of respect, just like I think the same of Plato or Descartes. These great men gave us many insights, but it's OK to say they were wrong on many things.

410. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230793 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:32 am

Apologies, I'm a Freudian

Seriously? You believe that people fixate on shit and sex? You belive that boys hate their fathers because they desire their mothers? If so, how's about a little evidence, because Freud's theories were derived from a sexually repressed society based on case studies. Very unscientific.

No stressor can have an effect without a person being susceptible to that effect. So it's never one dimensional.....What causes that susceptibility? Genes? Upbringing? Environment? All of the above or something else?

411. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230783 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:08 am

This could be simply down to a single experience that you had that now affects only you.

Which could be partially due to a familial disposition to stress that occurred during your life when exposed to a stressor, so it may be reasonable to say it is partly genetic, but just has not presented in such a manner before. I'm not really making a point, except that single dimension explanations are not de jour these days in psychology. They're too simplistic and miss important interactions.

412. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230772 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 5:53 am

A major problem with me is, I KNOW a lot of my asthma is psychosomatic, and I loathe it.

Also, I don't know where my asthma comes from

You KNOW but don't know? Doesn't quite follow for my liking. ;)

413. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230759 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 5:22 am

Tyler, take congenic? leglessness for example, I think you'd be naturally selected for lion food if you had to drag yourself across the Serengeti for a few hundred meters while a lion was breathing down your neck.

The point is that some things are caused by mutations and aren't psychosomatic. Unless you're a Berkelian follower and think all reality exists in minds....

414. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230754 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 5:13 am

Echinoderms, you camel-faced nincompoop, which have their evolutionary history in bilaterally symmetrical creatures. This can be readily demonstrated in the embryological development of let us say, the starfish - as opposed to your starfish, which is likely to developed weeping, painful hemmorhoids, due to the constant insertion of your own head.

Such poetry. All I had was that he was talking about idea of a 'starfish' not any species of starfish.

Genius Reverend. Genius. :)

415. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230744 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 4:57 am

As the 500-million-year-old starfish pictured here proves, starfish have always existed as starfish, are not descended from any other life form, and never turned into any other species.

This is supposed to argue what? The term Starfish doesn't relate to a single animal species, it relates to an idea that humans have. The idea that encapsulates the 'starfish'. If we say that all fish that have fins are finned fish, we can quite truthfully say that finned fish have always existed as finned fish and are not descended from any other form because any ancestor that didn't have fins wouldn't be a finned fish. But none of this is a problem for evolution, evolution isn't concerned with how you define form or fish, its concern is describing how life has evolved.

The only issue is just an idiot saying that if it looks like a fish, it must be a fish, hence whales are fish and therefore whales can't be non fishies and have been land animals. Fool.

416. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230739 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 4:52 am

Battered sausage and chips? I hope you have a good exercise program, else you'll be adding chins to your avatar. ;)

417. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230732 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 4:44 am

I'd like to second whatever Quetz says, because he is mighty and benevolent and not at all into arbitrary distinctions regarding beverages.

418. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230724 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 4:39 am

Idiot, you don't understand evolution. Any animal species that has ever lived was evolved viz a viz its environment. There were never half-fish, half-amphibian, etc. They were all evolved lifeforms. It's only later, looking back from the prejudice of human thinking that we class them as less evolved or whatever group we decide they fit.
There are fossils of many animals that we class as transitional, not half this half that, because they are a transition. But at the time they existed, they were the perfect creatures to fit in that evolutionary environment, until the environment changed. They were the state of the art. So your point is meaningless. You're are saying that unless I see a chimera, I don't believe in evolution. Well, evolution doesn't deal in chimeras, so you're pissing in the wind dick wad.

419. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230717 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 4:23 am

So, princezephyr, how many trilobytes do you see in the oceans these days? How many edicarean fauna?

How many whale fossils from the same time as the Cambrian? How many rabbits from the Cambrian? After all if all life is the same then as now, surely we'd see Rabbits in the Cambrian fossils.....

420. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230714 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 4:12 am

Irate_atheist, Steve's blog has a discussion on this issue.

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/161614.html?view=644686#t644686

421. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230701 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 4:01 am

WE CHALLENGE DAWKINS TO A DISCUSSION BEFORE THE PUBLIC

What is it about creationists of the muslim variety that they think Capslock adds credibility to their points?

Princezephyr, you're an irredeemable idiot if you think that evolution is based on chance. Dawkins never said it was. Why do science if it's just chance? We do science to predict, we can only predict if things happen in a certain, non chance way. So, biology, being a science, wouldn't be about chance would it?

Fool.

422. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230679 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 3:41 am

Logicel, are those articles from the site I gave you? If so, I might read some more of them...

423. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230665 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 3:14 am

Logicel, I'm not an expert. Look at the article I posted and search on that blog. John Wilkins, the blogger, is a philosopher of biology and has published peer papers on species and cladistics. So I assume he knows something about it.

424. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230649 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 2:42 am

Logicel:

I would appreciate if someone could lead me in the right direction in understanding the implication of an clade.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/01/clade_1.php

Basically, primates are a Clade. Bovines are a clade. Clade = branch of the 'tree' of evolution. Some separable classification of life.

425. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #230572 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Me too. I can see 400 hundred thousand species, (paintings) with different canvas, colours and designs. I also can see the universe and solar system with perfect design.

You only imagine design. You have to prove design, for this you need a designer. So you have seen the designer of animals and the universe? No, then you have no idea of design.

So, please give me evidence of your designer, and his designs. Pointing at a man or the universe does not give you design. It gives you a man or a universe. Unless you have seen the designer at work, you cannot claim design.

426. God's Warriors

Comment #230559 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 9:56 pm

All you need by way of proof is the Cartesian blinder: if it's clear and distinct, it exists.

EDIT* removed a piece where I misquoted Hume, anway...Anyway, if all it takes is to have a clear and distinct idea of something then unicorns exist.

Good joke too. Have to remember that one. When I was young and more stupid (I hope) than I am now, I was dragged off to see Juan Pablo dos at Flemington. The joke would have worked just as well then. :)

427. God's Warriors

Comment #230549 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Then we shall have to meet here. Galbraith's, near the med school.

Typical, welching on our agreement that you'd come over here next summer to do a spot of man bra shopping and beer drinking!

428. God's Warriors

Comment #230546 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 8:41 pm

I dare say us in the pub would make interesting listening after a few jars :-D

I'm not sure Goldy, I know of no pub that serves warm beer around these parts. And as you don't like such beer it appears never the twain shall meet. ;)

429. God's Warriors

Comment #230544 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Goldy and J Mac, by your reasoning a hell of a lot of the so called proofs of God are totally useless. William Lane Craig, for example, maintains that in spite of the fact that we know of events without causes (Quantum Mechanics), the idea of every cause has an effect must be necessary and universal because he has a clear conception of it (he holds it to be a metaphysical truth). He also clearly conceives of the universe being an effect, thus he holds that his cosmological argument is true. But, you two evil atheists would take that away from him with your logic and evidence. For shame, you're pointing out the Emperor has no clothes.

430. God's Warriors

Comment #230539 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Boag's - pah! Needs to be served cold ergo the flavour needs to be masked.

What? No philosophical argument, just a simple, evidence based conclusion? You scientists are all alike, drawing conclusions based on evidence. There are other forms of knowledge, not sure what they are, but there are. Metaphysicians hold that whenever we have an adequate idea of an object then the object must be as held in that conception, and from this we may conclude that because I have a clear conception of the greatness of Boag's premium, it must be thus.

QED

431. God's Warriors

Comment #230533 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Mord, I see you're familiar with the predicate calculus of the inferential rationalist alcoholic!

432. God's Warriors

Comment #230530 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Good old Rene Descartes.

433. God's Warriors

Comment #230525 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Eshto, I think you'll find that a priori truths are necessarily and universally true and didn't come out last year. Thus, while James Boags and Son may have only existed for the last 150 years, the analytic a priori truth that Boag's premium is a great beer has always been necessarily and universally true. One may first discover this truth through an empirical intuition, usually Friday evening in front of the telli, watching the footy, but this phenomenal intuition of the matter of Boag's Premium only serves as the occasion, not cause of, said truth. Conclusively proving that it is not an a posteriori truth that has been arbitrarily given universality.

Hume however would argue that from all the evidence we have about Boags, from tasting, we can not justify the claim of universality and the feeling that it is necessary. He would say that custom or habit of the mind unites the great taste with the act of sipping Boags gives rise to feeling of cause and effect. But this is based on induction, which cannot be justified by previous examples as we are then assuming what we are attempting to show. However in this case Hume must've been pissed off his rocker to deny such a priori truths.

We need Monty Python's philosophers' drinking song about now.

434. God's Warriors

Comment #230522 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Poor old Roy and Edna. Well, poor old Roy, waiting for the end to come. :)

435. God's Warriors

Comment #230521 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Good idea Laurie, down to the pub for a chicken parma and a few Cooper's

436. God's Warriors

Comment #230516 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 7:28 pm

I could do with a Cooper's right now.....

437. God's Warriors

Comment #230514 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Laurie, I'm dissappointed in your limited understanding of synthetic a priori truths. There is no doubt that Cooper's sparkling ale is a great beer, in fact, to say otherwise is self contradictory. Thus it's an a priori truth that Coopers is a great beer. It is a synthetic a priori truth. There is nothing in the conception of Cooper's sparkling ale that when analyzed gives a predicate of being a great beer. However this doesn't change the status of Boag's Premium. That Space and Time are necessary, and synthetic truths is a given. From this one can deduce other, equally necessary truths, such as that of the status of Boag's Premium. For how could Space and time be given in intuition if not through the clear, sparkling, refreshing taste of Boag's Premium? Thus in the conception of Boag's Premium on can extract the predicate of being a great beer. So it is an analytic a priori truth. Anyway attempt to deny this necessary and universal truth will lead to a contradiction.

438. God's Warriors

Comment #230505 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Goldy, your statement is self-contradictory.
By the light of pure reason, intuition, it is universal and necessary that Boag's Premium is the best beer. That Boag's Premium is the best beer is an a priori truth. To deny this is to deny that a triangle has 3 angles. It's absurd. You don't need to taste said brew to know the truth of the statement.

439. God's Warriors

Comment #230503 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 6:38 pm

There's the flaw in your argument Goldy. You had a hitherto hidden assumption that said Winter Ale was better than a perfectly chilled Boag's Premium*. This is an unjustifiable assertion and thus scuttles your argument. I'm glad I have logic on my side.

Quod erat demonstrandum, demonstratum est.

*This is the older variant of Boag's Premium. I think they've changed the formula in the last 6 months or so. It's now just a good beer, not great.....sad. sniff.

440. God's Warriors

Comment #230500 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Goldy, picture this bucolic scene: after a hard week slaving over the petrie dishes and bunsen burners, young Goldy's thoughts turn to beer. Goldy walks into the door and reaches for a beer, only to find it's not the chilled refreshment he so sorely wants, but a cellar temperature, wine like sip that even though it may taste nice, will be the bitterest reward for his efforts as he contemplates the delicious, chilled beer he is now not imbibing.

QED.

441. God's Warriors

Comment #230480 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Goldy, when I was in Scotland I had some Tartan warm beer. 'Twas quite drinkable. But it still can't compete with a coldy after a long day of pretending to work. Your points are irrelevant. Bloody question begging warm-beer lovers.

442. God's Warriors

Comment #230474 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 5:44 pm

It can't just be religion or they'd probably all be doing it.

Warm beer then? I know I'd commit some crime if all I had was warm beer.....

443. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230456 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Morning Laurie, I think your second sentence could do with a that between clauses. After all, you have an standard to uphold.

Was it just a dream that I had about some flame-headed hydra accusing me...ME! of sexism?

Now isn't that better?

/runs and hides....

444. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230444 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 5:11 pm

8teist, were you involved in the attempted assassination of Helen Clark? You were the sniper on the grassy knoll who shot the guide (heart attack my arse)!

445. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230434 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Durant:

cherry picks the worst of religious fanaticism and props it up as a case against religion in general; makes no sociological distinction between moderates and fundamentalists, saying instead that moderates only serve to help the fundamentalists;

Your own comment refutes your point. If he'd made no sociological distinction or any distinction at all, how could he and you then talk about moderates propping up fundamentalists? Think about it, you proved that Dawkins has made a sociological distinction.

has declined to participate in unscripted, candid debates with serious theistic philosophers; dismisses responses to his propagandistic TGD as 'fleas' rather than replying to the objections;

Debates are not intellectual discussions, they are won with rhetoric and charisma. The end result isn't to approach the truth, it's to acclaim the guy who said something best or who agreed with your prejudices. Richard Dawkins is a fine speaker and well worth listening to, but why would he give oxygen to people who's only purpose it to spout rubbish and earn a living by perpetuating falsehoods?

employs monstrous fallacies throughout his work (e.g. the following question-begging: "Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. (p. 31)");

Let's see. We have no evidence of any creative intelligence that didn't evolve. Humans, and other higher animals being the only examples of creative intelligence we know of. Therefore, it is question begging in the extreme so say that there was a creative intelligence that didn't evolve (where's the evidence?) and that it's been around since the dawn of time (this is what you need to demonstrate, not assert).

446. Saudi Arabia Bans Dog Walking in Capital

Comment #230401 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Brian, I guess it must have been something he said... ;-)

Ouch!

447. Saudi Arabia Bans Dog Walking in Capital

Comment #230399 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Goldy, I see you Kiwis (assuming that you consider yourself a Kiwi) are trying to kill of Helen Clark. Why? Don't you like having an atheist PM?

448. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #230392 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Hi Theo, I don't think I've seen you round these parts before. Though you do have a few posts on this thread at least. How goes it?

From a brief look at the comments (very brief) it would seem you're defending design because you see the appearance of design and thus jump to an intelligent designer. Is this correct?

449. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229845 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 4:02 am

Simplest explanation for logically challenged wooter:

We see houses are designed and built by people. We see designs and building materials. So when we see other houses we know there was a person designing.

We see the painters painting works of art. We see paints and canvas. So when we see the Mona Lisa we know a person painted it.

We see the universe, we see no designer, we no designs, we seen no other universe that has been designed. So we cannot say there is a designer. Correct? Or have you seen the designer?

450. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229841 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 3:59 am

If you don't see the designer of a designed structure, that means, it happened by itself or "blind" blind watchmaker?

No, because we see many designers designing structures so we know they are designed.

If you did not meet maker ,Da vnci,, then, you will say Mona Lisa came out by evolution of black colour which was rained from the planets?

I have seen paint, canvas and painters creating paintings so I can infer from similar paintings.

Have you ever seen a universe designed before? Because by your own examples you claim design because you've seen design before. It's quite simple, unless you've seen the designer of the universe you can't claim design. How many designers of the universe have you seen?