September 29, 2007
Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder
Richard Dawkins delivers his brilliant 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Posted by Abbas Raza at 04:09 PM | Permalink
|
|
Help 3 Quarks DailyBookmark This Page
3QD ADVERTISING
Compare prices
Please Visit Wikio
Recent Comments
Ludwik Kowalski on My Summer with Stalin
Marcell Rodden on My Summer with Stalin
Ludwik Kowalski on My Summer with Stalin
Marcell Rodden on My Summer with Stalin
John Bunting on No Nobel for You: Top 10 Nobel Snubs
Ludwik Kowalski on My Summer with Stalin
Ludwik Kowalski on My Summer with Stalin
morgan meis on the doo-doo 32 and other signs of doom
Abbas Raza on the doo-doo 32 and other signs of doom
Ludwik Kowalski on My Summer with Stalin
Ludwik Kowalski on My Summer with Stalin
Steven Augustine on perceptions
Marcell Rodden on My Summer with Stalin
Acclaim For 3QD
Best Non-European Weblog Winner
Best Group Blog and Blog Most Deserving of Wider Attention Finalist
"I couldn't tear myself
away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on
this superb site."—Steven
Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.
"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard
Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual. |
Comments
Did he actually compare the preference of one of two rival systems of explanation and description to racial profiling?
In terms of unfair preference for a type of thing, sure, but that's like saying "There is a show about pie making, with a lemon creme pie and a banana creme pie, and every week the banana creme pie wins."
To place the act of paranormal explanation in the same moral sphere as racism is simply an unjust implication.
Posted by: Damien Williams | Sep 29, 2007 4:31:07 PM
Seems pretty fair to me since both are not fundamented on evidence.
We don't need either racial profiling or paranormal explanation for just that simple reason.
Posted by: Hugo A. M. Torres | Sep 29, 2007 9:01:04 PM
The point is that paranormal explanation is founded on evidence, it is simply not the Same evidence as science.
So what happens is that the argument against paranormal explanation A) is a straw man comparison, positing a form of paranormal explanation that looks ridiculous and B) begs the question of scientific explanation as the correct form of explanation, and reason as the justifiable standard by which to judge all things.
And never admits that it is founded on an inherently shaky premise, doing the best it can.
The idea that different explanations could apply to different realms of knowledge isn't given credence, and that's a problem.
Posted by: Damien | Sep 29, 2007 10:41:32 PM
t
h
a
n
k
u
for
posting
these
clips
Posted by: Isebrand | Sep 30, 2007 12:44:40 AM
'Brilliant,' it sure is!
Bite-sized chunks of enjoyable Thought, these..
Although I don't quite concur with the viewpoint that the Arts are 'relatively easier to score in,' esp. in varsity papers, I thought Prof. Dawkins' lecture evoked vast similarities between the Sciences and the Arts.
As someone who is evidently - and admirably so - greatly fond of his Discipline (ie. Science) such that he's able to beautifully portray the need to share the Wonderment provided by Science with such an intense urgency, Prof. Dawkins is indeed enjoyable to listen to.
Humbly, may I add this, too: That, perhaps this Wonderment that he describes is exactly that first glimpse of Mystery that sparks flames in the heart-minds of most lovers of Literature, as well.
For, it is the self-same unquenchable thirst to Wonder, to learn from/about others/ their lives and beliefs, to wander through their lives, or as Atticus Finch'd say, "to climb into [one's] skin and walk around in it," to empathise with others, even if they be different from us as we'd imagined.
Like the "appreciation for Science" that Prof. Dawkins so ardently espouses, literary appreciation today hinges crucially, on substantiation by evidence - not solely by unsupported subjective views of every reader.
One has to proffer one's responses with relevant evidence gleaned ever so critically from the texts at hand, all the while retaining that first mystical beauty that overwhelmed one at the first (or subsequent) readings.
And, of course, when one starts off with a non-judgmental and open mind to the Knowledge disciplines, regardless of whether they hail from the Arts or the Sciences, then that door to the first glimpse of Wonderment is ajar, and just waiting to be discovered, anew.
Thank you, for sharing this beautiful Lecture.
Wishes, minerva*
Posted by: minerva* | Sep 30, 2007 10:37:42 AM
I still say someone didn't hold the man enough as a child.
The difference between the X Files and some hypothetical show where the criminals are all black is that the prejudice favoring UFOs and conspiracy theories isn't inherently inethical, whereas the prejudice equating skin pigment with criminality clearly is.
Dawkins characterizes the X-Files as antiscientific because Mulder prevails over Scully (almost) every time. But he does so not by affirming the primacy of superstition or divine revelation, but by essentially proving to her satisfaction that he is right, using more or less the same methods as any police procedural.
There *is* a bias on the show against conventional wisdom and common scientific paradigms, and we could call that antiscientific if really needed something new to complain about. But it's perfectly reasonable to consider this as a metaphor for the very real and valid sense we have that the authorities are not being straight with us. Not about science in our case, but about political and economic matters.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 30, 2007 12:05:05 PM
Chris--
Your ability for speculation is quite astounding, and brings some interesting conclusions to think about. Ideas and speculation are fun (I have lowered myself into this act more than once one this site), however, that is Dawkins point--
Let's not think mental masturbation, no matter how satisfing, is on par with actual science and observation.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 30, 2007 12:50:27 PM
Dave, about that last paragraph -- as Aristole said, we teach what we need to learn.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Sep 30, 2007 1:52:00 PM
Elatia--
Aristole is someone who got just about everything wrong, and that is why the church and elites love him.
But, I'll take a look at that premise, and get back to you.
But a word of caution-- don't believe everything you think.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 30, 2007 2:38:55 PM
The introducer was so slow-talking and boring that I began writing this note and then the main speaker began speaking and guess what...same-o, same-o. This guy is actually reading his presentation instead of speeching! More than half of his words could be edited out, they're neither germaine nor productive toward the goal. Feynman please come back!!
Posted by: choim | Oct 9, 2007 6:37:04 PM
"The idea that different explanations could apply to different realms of knowledge isn't given credence, and that's a problem."
Because that's a statement that doesn't deserve credence.
Posted by: zen | Oct 23, 2007 9:57:12 AM
Also, Speeching isn't a verb, you twat.
Posted by: zen | Oct 23, 2007 9:58:05 AM
I'd like to inform about these new discovery and new problems:...
PHOTOSTORIES CREATED IN CLOUDS "LOOKS" FACT.
Martino Martini, Psychokinesis -Art, SCIENCE,CREATIVITY, BY MINDI GIVE TO INTENTIONAL SHAPE IN THE MATTER IN CLOUDS CREATING THE PK. PORTRAITS,ESTABLISHED AREA IN CLOUDS BEFORE THE TESTS, 70 PHOTOS EVIDENCE: TEST RESULTS OF THE PK. SHORT RESEARCH,PORTRAITS MADE IN THE CLOUDS IN THE VARNISH, THE PORTRAITS IS TAKEN FOR THE PK.CREATION FROM THE ARTWORK BY LEONARD, CARAVAGGIO,SACRED SHROUD OF TURIN, OPERA: REQUIEM, THE MAGIC FLUTE,by AMADEUS MOZART,LUDWIG V.BEETHOVEN:Symphony n°5,9
Thanks.
Martino
Posted by: martino | Mar 27, 2008 9:39:09 AM
Post a comment