Originally posted by marinakatombTomorrow I shall slap you down. Until then I shall content myself with simply stating that Dawkins is an arrogant, self-serving narcissist, who has plagiarized pretty much everything he's ever written (from his PhD supervisor, Tinbergen, and J Maynard Smith, amongst others).
Yes, i've heard the theories as well. Don't they sound a lot like a leap of faith to you? I mean, i'm not just talking about life on Earth here, i'm talking about LIFE, all of it, beginning in a place that previously had none. It is so astronomically unlikely, yet here we are. It blows my mind to even think about it for more than a few seconds at a time ...[text shortened]... e begin? Dawkins is shouting in the dark until this question is asked properly.[/b]
Still, doesn't mean he's wrong.
Originally posted by telerionAh don't go down that road! That was almost a decent post. You were there, and then you let it slip away!
The humanities eh? Well that explains quite a lot. I should think one with your background would be less timid in a discussion and far less sensitive as well.
The reason that you and I so often end up in confrontation is that you are in such a rush to presume everyone's positions (anti-Christmas, anti-Christian, Dawkins' anus) and to follow up with s ...[text shortened]... omething to do with this), and you can see why I might find your insincerity worthy of rebuke.
Don't try and insult me, you just end up making yourself look foolish. You are (as is so often the case) rather prone to the behaviour that you claim to see and object to in others. You often misunderstand, or misinterpret the argument to make whatever point you are trying to put across. But I don't mind about that.
I'm sure I am very smug and self-righteous... maybe we've got something in common after all! đ
So, science, is it? That explains a lot, like your inability to make a logical, rhetorical case, and your constant difficulties with your mother tongue. But then, so much of this is "behind my knowledge", that I shouldn't really comment.
If we get into a science versus arts debate, then we might as well go the whole hog and buy a bunch of scarves and flags, each pick a colour, and then write on it "my fellows are better than your group of fellows, so there"! And then the classic thumb to nose, waggle fingers bit.
But you are wrong about me on that point- I'm less inclined to place myself in any tribe. I didn't divulge personal information to you on other topics purposefully, and let you draw your own mistaken conclusions about me. You prove me correct in being hesitant in giving such information, as the first thing I do let you know about me, you attempt to use to attack me.
Seriously, you did have a point there, and I'm sure I can be a terrible pain in the arse, but do look at yourself too. My point elsewhere regarding yourself was that you seemed to want to group the world into 'them' and 'us' a bit too much. I too might be tempted to draw certain conclusions about where you stand on things, just from experience of reading your posts, but although it makes life easier, I'd say it's best to try to avoid that mentality as much as possible whenever you can. As I said, it’s easy enough a habit to fall into, and I do it too, of course. However, I am now 'them' to you, so I am slotted in with all those Evangelical-far-right-neo-con-hawky-Republican meanies that you dislike so much (fairly accurate description of me, really, as that just about sums me up đ ) The world could even be a bit more complex than all that. We might even agree about something one day- anything's possible!
Take it handy,
sjeg
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, that's the theory, Bosse. Ideally people's education would include a strong grounding in both. Back in the day (up to 30 years ago) science graduates in a uni here had to do one full course of an arts subject, and vice versa. They dropped that, but it seemed an ok idea to me.
Could be good, as long as it's not too general. Art and science should complement each other...is that the reality today?
1 edit
Originally posted by sjegI agree, It's also impossible to understand quite a lot of modern art without some knowledge of science (and, in some cases, chess).
Back in the day (up to 30 years ago) science graduates in a uni here had to do one full course of an arts subject, and vice versa. They dropped that, but it seemed an ok idea to me.
Speaking of art, the Saatchi gallery has a new discussion forum:
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/forum/saatchi_forums.php?action=view&forumid=2
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNice design. Well, you would expect that from a gallery, but still... nice. đ
I agree, It's also impossible to understand quite a lot of modern art without some knowledge of science (and, in some cases, chess).
Speaking of art, the Saatchi gallery has a new discussion forum:
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/forum/saatchi_forums.php?action=view&forumid=2
In research science there is a technique used by professionals called the principle of parsimony, which is essentially old Occam’s razor where the most miserly explanation of any phenomenon is the preferred one i.e. Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity or in modern day parlance KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Life most likely began on this planet some 3.4 x 10e9 years ago in what is called the RNA world after the hypothesis put forward by the brilliant American scientist Wally Gilbert (please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world and references therein). Life was probably early on based on the ribosomal RNA (rRNA) operon as ALL life uses this repeated genic unit to make proteins and perform molecular cell functions and indeed even viruses co-opt this cellular machinery after infection of hosts. This extremely practical and hard won knowledge allows scientists to develop anti-retrovirals to treat disease and ultimately to lower human suffering. Religions possess much that is admirable and I agree great charitable work is done in the name of various branches of theology however it inevitably leads to violent human conflict because of the inability of people to confront reality and their own entrenched belief systems. As Monod said nothing is potentially so destructive as the certainty that one is right, nothing potentially so harmful as the truth one considers absolute. We do have to keep an open mind on many things but not so open everything else falls out. I also dislike Dawkin’s anti-religious fervor and he is not an experimental scientist anymore and reminds me a bit of the artist Dalí with his self-publicizing. The NOMA concept of Gould is the better position I feel but perhaps at some stage in human evolution we do have to confront the fact that we are descended from life that began as described above if only for the practical reason I feel that it is extremely unlikely humanity will survive if mass ignorance prevails.
Originally posted by catfoodtimCome on, lads, let's fight it out in a separate thread...(Which forum would be the best?).
i disagree.
modern art reflects contemporary politics and society.
over time it is appropriated by the ruling classes and then it becomes art establishment.
so newer artists strive to distance themselves...
and so on.
Originally posted by micarrNice work Micarr. Current thinking is that life is in the order of 3.95 BYO, I'm interested where your 3.4 BYO figure came from?
In research science there is a technique used by professionals called the principle of parsimony, which is essentially old Occam’s razor where the most miserly explanation of any phenomenon is the preferred one i.e. Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity or in modern day parlance KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Life most likely began on this planet so ...[text shortened]... al reason I feel that it is extremely unlikely humanity will survive if mass ignorance prevails.
I think the bigger Gould / Dawkins separation of thought was really based around the Gould concept of punctuated equilibrium. SJG being trained as a paleontologist and seeing the fossil record in 1cm / 10000 year intervals had a different perspective to RD who was trained as a geneticist / evolutionary biologist. RD was more of a classic Darwinian evolutionist, and a great publicist, but SJG brought a new idea to the fore. SJG's idea basically concerned what happens during Mass extinctions. Now, there have been 5 major mass extinctions during evolutionary time, the last 65 million years ago, but the largest, the permian extinction was 300 MYA. Basically, something comes along which wipes out a major proportion of the life on earth, pretty much independantly of it's "fitness". What is left after the event will inherit the earth, so to speak. In the case of the K-T extinction the dinosaurs (=fit) seem to have went (largely) extinct due to their apparently low metabolism, typically large size and social dominance. Once the meteor hit in Yucatan, the small, burrowing mammals apparently became 'fitter' (it may have been that mammals were always fitter than the dinosaurs, but just were not fit enough to displace them), and filled all the resultant niches. SJG hypothesized that if we replayed the tape of life again the result would be completely different. RD thinks not. I don't know what RD's problem was with this concept, which seems to work well, and works on a quite different time scale to his own work.
This is a half decent website on mass extinctions (it lists 6), although there are many, i'm sure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/massintro.htm
Originally posted by scottishinnzI was thinking of the early Archaean sediments from Isua, Western Greenland where the first forms of microfossiltic life are known from and were identified as blue green algae - the famous stromatalites. I have not kept up to date obviously! đ If the earth is ~4.5 × 10e9 years old it is really remarkable to me that something as "complicated" as a blue-green, photosynthetic prokaryote could appear so "quickly". It would appear once the earth had cooled sufficiently life popped up almost "right away" by means of auto-replicating/enzymatic RNA species. RNA does perform everything life needed for life to appear as I am such you well know being able to replicate itself and also perform enzymatic roles as demonstarted by Cech's Nobel prize winning work on the Tetrahymena thermophilia group I rRNA introns - the now famous ribozymes. I think most people including scientists find Dawkin's pompous and condescending and the nononsense New Yorker in Gould did so as well. SJG was an experimentalist whereas Dawkin's lacks credilbility in scientific circles apart from early work with Tinbergen as you mentioned hence being farmed out in Oxford as a populariser of science for the UK public. These notions of memes and a field of "memetics" he seems to be going on to develop in the next of the BBC programmes really makes me cringe and the notion of memetic drift by direct analogy with genetic drift is I think frankly absurd and Dawkin's plagarised this directly from early workers. Genes trasmit in a Mendelian fashion as you know and ideas, notions, inventions etc. by a process more akin to the unfairly in my view discredited theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics of the great 19th century French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. The new field of epigenetics and the histone code hypothesis is very exciting and I think shows how far Lamarck was ahead of his time.
Nice work Micarr. Current thinking is that life is in the order of 3.95 BYO, I'm interested where your 3.4 BYO figure came from?
I think the bigger Gould / Dawkins separation of thought was really based around the Gould concept of punctuated equilibrium. SJG being trained as a paleontologist and seeing the fossil record in 1cm / 10000 year interval ...[text shortened]... there are many, i'm sure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/massintro.htm
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI agree, Bosse. I am a graduate of a distinguished American liberal arts college where I completed two undergraduate majors: one in Spanish Language & Literature and the other in Economics. If I have my way, my daughter will attend a similar institution.
Could be good, as long as it's not too general. Art and science should complement each other...is that the reality today?
While I have chosen to pursue a social science professionally, I have a great deal of respect for the Arts. Even when the Arts do not complement the Sciences, they should be esteemed based upon their own independent merits.
Anything that I have written indicating otherwise is not a genuine indication of my regards for the humanities but rather a product of sustained exposure to the shallow, caustic writings of sjeg.