tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post8257668208512628895..comments2024-03-27T06:56:10.255+00:00Comments on Broad Oak Magazine: Grumpy McGrumpface: Dawkins on Brexit, democracy and GodUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post-27511430109320926122019-10-09T20:07:09.664+01:002019-10-09T20:07:09.664+01:00@Pad - re 1 & 2 - if you are sufficiently inte...@Pad - re 1 & 2 - if you are sufficiently interested, you'd need to look at the links I posted. <br /><br />3. I know Charles Murray and several of his works pretty well - and rate him highly as a scholar and a person. His politics and ethics are mainstream US libertarian; so I don't agree with them (I don't agree with anyone!) - but they bear near-zero resemblence to the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany! <br /><br />I don't know where you got the idea that The Bell Curve was refuted by statistical errors, but it is rubbish. Herrnstein was Murray's co-author, professor and chair of Psychology at Harvard and a formidable statistician. But Murray himself uses stats exceptionally well, through all his work I've read, by my estimation. <br /><br />Far from being refuted, the Bell Curve led to a formal statement in support by some of the world's major intelligence researchers, which you can read in full here:<br /><br />https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.322.5525&rep=rep1&type=pdfBruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post-52115495647242335652019-10-09T04:06:45.717+01:002019-10-09T04:06:45.717+01:001. The most religious parts of the US are in the D...1. The most religious parts of the US are in the Deep South. They are actively anti-science – against evolution, cosmology, biology, geology and anything else which contradicts their Young Earth views.<br />2. I know a great many successful scientists. Some are quite religious, some quietly so, and many not at all. I do not see the trends that you claim to.<br />3. I would be very wary of Charles Murray's opinions. His most famous work, 'The Bell Curve' used Statistics which was Mathematically wrong, as dissected in the American Mathematical Monthly. Some of his writings remind me of the Nazi scientists who tried to prove that 'untermenschen' were genuinely inferior.Paddingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07952088638231881617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post-62331376958157177262019-10-08T12:08:55.660+01:002019-10-08T12:08:55.660+01:00@Pad - That is a secondary point - I was addressin...@Pad - That is a secondary point - I was addressing Dawkins's frequent assertion that a Religious society is hostile to science. That is empirically false. <br /><br />On the contrary, a society that has abandoned religion will soon abandon science - as has happened through the West. <br /><br />http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/<br /><br />But there is a lag. It is sufficient to have been brought-up a Christian (or Jew) in a Christian society - and abandoning the faith is young adulthood does not harm, but may even enhance, scientific perfomance. <br /><br />However, this only lasts one generation - and once society is materialist, and individuals are brought-up materialist - they essentially never (very very rarely) attain the highest level of scientific (or any other) accomplishment - mainly because without transcendent values they have no reason to be dedicated, will lapse into dishonesty and expedience. <br /><br />I got this mostly from the analysis and conclusion of Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment. It is one (of several) of the reasons why genius has become very rare in the world over the past half century. <br />Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post-61482473901871510312019-10-07T17:31:15.370+01:002019-10-07T17:31:15.370+01:00@Dr. Charlton - As one of the comments on your pie...@Dr. Charlton - As one of the comments on your piece suggests, the (arguable) preeminence of the US in science is in spite of the religiosity, not because of it. The country is split in many ways, not the least of which is a significant anti-intellectualism.<br /><br />The most religious parts of the country are the Deep South, which are also the least educated and most violent. Those are the parts of the country where you have to be careful if you even mention evolution.<br /><br />Much of the significant science work in the country was begun in the 1940's and 1950's by European immigrants escaping post-war construction, and the government and industry at that time strongly supported basic research, in almost anything.Paddingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07952088638231881617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post-3102137177453144582019-10-07T13:43:59.879+01:002019-10-07T13:43:59.879+01:00@S - OK. But rather than trying to guess what you ...@S - OK. But rather than trying to guess what you want; if you want to do the mash-up - including those aspects that interest you; then just check it with me and I will swiftly make any revisions or polishings. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post-82234158579058659412019-10-07T10:45:57.920+01:002019-10-07T10:45:57.920+01:00@Bruce Charlton: I stand corrected on the terminol...@Bruce Charlton: I stand corrected on the terminology, will note in the post.<br /><br />Shall read your pieces - would you consider making them into an amlgam for a fresh post here?Sackersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284329249862764601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post-80847388763906540752019-10-07T10:24:43.098+01:002019-10-07T10:24:43.098+01:00Coupla things - I used to work in the same academi...Coupla things - I used to work in the same academic domain as Dawkins, and he would be termed an *evolutionary biologist* (or evolutionary theorist) - Not a geneticist. <br /><br />l also used to think "at least he is honest"; but discovered from personal experience - which I described on my blog - that he is not; at least not nowadays.<br /><br />Presumably because corrupted by the temptations of power and being surrounded by sycophants; and with no solid rooted religious belief to prevent him drifting in the direction of corrupt expediency...<br /><br />https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html<br />https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-road-of-excess-leads-to-palace-of.html<br /><br />I would judge that Dawkins did nothing worthwhile after The Selfish Gene (1976) and The Extended Phenotype (1982); but he deserves credit for those significant (albeit not first rate) contributions. WD Hamilton was the real deep thinker 'behind' Dawkins; <br /><br />https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2015/08/group-selection-and-wd-hamilton.html<br /><br />...but without Dawkins's simplified and selective exposition of Hamilton, WDH probably would not have had the (albeit simplified and selective!) attention he has! Hamilton was (like most geniuses) an 'impossible' person, in several respects - and needed a populariser. <br />Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post-74083340109986862782019-10-06T20:57:46.042+01:002019-10-06T20:57:46.042+01:00@Paddington: As I have just said elsewhere, his ap...@Paddington: As I have just said elsewhere, his approach to truth is honest, but myopic and intolerant. I have to assume that his style of argument in his books is very different from the testy and arrogant piece I have discussed here.Sackersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284329249862764601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post-3046564875558746352019-10-06T19:07:36.878+01:002019-10-06T19:07:36.878+01:00I have not read all of Dawkins' books. However...I have not read all of Dawkins' books. However, his arguments are both logical and scientific. That's why people like the Young Earth Creationists can't stand him.<br /><br />What the Christian philosophers really hate is that, when push comes to shove, they can provide no real evidence at all, and that has been known for a long time, at least back to Russell.<br /><br />Despite Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria, the idea of pure philosophical thinking underpinning reality has been shown to be useless when confronted with tangible facts. This annoy many, especially when their pet beliefs are challenged.Paddingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07952088638231881617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5524682876220396502.post-85419203583021689602019-10-06T12:47:42.871+01:002019-10-06T12:47:42.871+01:00Dawkins doesn't know how to think. He pretends...Dawkins doesn't know how to think. He pretends to be a defender of reason but in essence he is merely logical instead of thinking (to paraphrase Niels Bohr)<br /><br />Why is Dawkins afraid of Rupert Sheldrake? - https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/dawkins-vs-sheldrake/Sackersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284329249862764601noreply@blogger.com