Gould vs. Dawkins
Henry Flam
been impressed with his writings. What I find interesting is his skilful
method in explaining the many complex questions in the study of
evolution. So it came as a shock to discover the bitter polemical
debate between Gould and Dawkins. I've tried to understand the points of
difference between the two but since I dropped all science courses in
high school, as soon I could it do, I find myself lost. I've attempted
to read some articles by Dawkins to learn his side of the debate and I'm
offended by nastiness of his attack on Gould. Is there any book or
article which could help me begin to understand the debate and why it
got so bitter? Was there ever any attempt of reconciliation between
them, before Gould died?
Gene Ward Smith
Henry Flam wrote:
> Is there any book or
> article which could help me begin to understand the debate and why it
> got so bitter?
I haven't read it, but "Dawkins vs. Gould : Survival of the Fittest" by
Kim Sterelny might help.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Henry Flam" <hf...@telus.net> wrote in message news:hflam-67E940....@news.telus.net...
One of Dawkins recent books ("Devil's Chaplain" ?) contains an essay
which is a bit of a memoriam to Gould. Take a look at that. But I
think that the answer to your question has to be 'no'.
As to why it got bitter: I think that it goes back to the "Sociobiology"
debate of the 1970s. A lot of people never forgave Gould for his part
in that. See Segerstrale's book "Defenders of the Truth" for the story
of that rather ugly mixing of science and politics.
But Gould and Dawkins have found themselves at opposite ends of many more
issues since that time. The main one is multi-level selection. Gould
thinks that it exists and is important. Dawkins thinks that it barely
exists, and is unimportant in any case. But don't ask me to explain
what the dispute is about. That would take far too long. Probably
someone else can provide some links.
Full disclosure: I tend to agree more with Dawkins than with Gould on
most issues. Dawkins is definitely nasty - perhaps without noticing
that he is doing it. But Gould is very nasty too, in a more subtle
and manipulative way. For example, read Gould's most famous paper:
http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2004s/ees227/01/spandrels.html
and then read this humorous critique by Queller:
http://www.georgealozano.com/teach/evolution/papers/Queller1995.pdf
If you get a reply from Larry Moran, you will probably have a viewpoint
better informed than mine, but with complementary biases. Larry
prefers Gould's position on most scientific issues, but likes Dawkins's
evangelism on the subject of atheism - the thing that I find most
distasteful and nasty about Dawkins.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> If you get a reply from Larry Moran, you will probably have a viewpoint
> better informed than mine, but with complementary biases. Larry
> prefers Gould's position on most scientific issues, but likes Dawkins's
> evangelism on the subject of atheism - the thing that I find most
> distasteful and nasty about Dawkins.
Just curious ... do you oppose evangelism of all kinds, or is atheism
unique in being repulsive to evangelize?
KWW
John Wilkins
Kim's book is very one-sided. I'm not saying it's bad, but he's a friend
and supporter of Dawkins.
I think the reason it got bitter is because of the 1% of things on which
they disagree, overall, those things are most closely what they
respectively identified as their unique defining views.
In other words, one is the Judean People's Front, while the other is the
People's Front of Judea.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Wakboth
Kevin Wayne Williams kirjoitti:
Possibly it's the way Dawkins evangelizes his atheism that PinP finds
distasteful?
-- Wakboth
Perplexed in Peoria
"Kevin Wayne Williams" <kww.n...@verizon.nut> wrote in message news:12hc3ua...@news.supernews.com...
I said 'distasteful', not 'repulsive'. And I do find some forms of
religious evangelism distasteful - the co-worker who can't take a hint,
the door-to-door Jehovah's Witnesses who wake me up every Saturday
afternoon, and creationists who want aspects of their religion taught
in public schools.
However, you are right. Though I am an atheist myself, I do find
evangelical atheism more distasteful than most evangelical religions.
In part, this is due to the fact that I was taught to be respectful
of other religions, and in particular of religious duties - the fact
that several religions forbid certain activities on the Sabbath,
prescribe certain kinds of dress and certain haircuts (or lack thereof)
etc. And I know that one duty in some (mostly Christian) religions
is evangelism. In fact, I guess I would view a religion of
universal salvation which does not impose a duty of evangelism as
something of an abomination.
But atheism imposes no such duty on its believers. Nor does it
promise salvation. Converting someone to atheism gains no transcendental
good karma for either party. So I find evangelical atheists just as
annoying as the guy who has taken it upon himself to convince the
world that they should be using Linux. He may be right, but he is
still annoying as hell.
michael...@worldnet.att.net
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
[snip]
Why evangelism of any sort makes me uneasy is that it always seems to
have an undercurrent, or overcurrent, of hatred. Those who disagree are
something less than human.
-- Mike Palmer
Perplexed in Peoria
Hmmmm. I was going to respond "That too!".
But then, I thought a bit more. No, Dawkins is evangelizing atheism
in the same way he is evangelizing evolution. And I *like* the way
he does that. Oh, I suppose that there is more negativity in his
atheism work - more attacks on the opposing position and less careful
construction of his own position - but then I guess that atheism just
doesn't have a complicated metaphysics that needs explanation.
His style is annoying, but that is tolerable. It is the religious
ferver that he brings to the task that I consider to be in bad
taste.
Noelie S. Alito
Uh-oh: "Ditto!"
Also, independent of my annoyance by evangelism (atheism, Amway,
golf), in Dawkins' case it distracts from his rational work in
popularizing the understanding of evolution-related concepts.
--
Noelie
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 46 years."
Nic
Thanks for the links - I'd been wondering why the word "spandrels"
crops up from time to time.
I only vaguely detect polarisation on this issue in this newsgroup.
Would it be correct to describe Dawkins as representing the
conservative pole?
r norman
wrote:
The Wikipedia article on Gould mentions much of the issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
The "spandrels" stem from a rather (in)famous paper by Gould and
Lewontin. The rather aggressive and confrontational nature of the
paper is indicated by its full title: "The Spandrels of San Marco and
the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme."
(Proc Roy Soc B 205 (1979) 581-598).
Gould very aggressively promoted his own ideas and himself. He did
write magnificently for the public, as evidenced by his columns in
Natural History and the subsequent books. However many evolutionary
biologists angrily resented the way he gave such little (or no) credit
to others for the work he reviewed in those articles which gave the
general public that they were all brilliant ideas and syntheses of his
own, rather than just well written reviews of other people's work.
And his enormous final work gives full expression to his view that he,
and he alone, should be viewed as the creator of the "New New
Synthesis".
Gould's personal style, especially his enormous ego and his arrogance,
did not do much to promote his popularity among his colleagues. I
knew him from one summer at the Bermuda Biological Station back in the
60's when he was just starting out and his ambition (and arrogance)
was evident even then.
I don't know Dawkins but, from his writing, he seems as aggressively
arrogant in his own way so a clash of egos would well be expected.
Both Dawkins and Gould had their own social issues that they pushed
unhesitatingly onto others.
Henry Flam
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Henry Flam wrote:
> >
> > > Is there any book or
> > > article which could help me begin to understand the debate and why it
> > > got so bitter?
> >
> > I haven't read it, but "Dawkins vs. Gould : Survival of the Fittest" by
> > Kim Sterelny might help.
>
> Kim's book is very one-sided. I'm not saying it's bad, but he's a friend
> and supporter of Dawkins.
>
> I think the reason it got bitter is because of the 1% of things on which
> they disagree, overall, those things are most closely what they
> respectively identified as their unique defining views.
>
> In other words, one is the Judean People's Front, while the other is the
> People's Front of Judea.
Thanks to all the people who answered my OP and gave me references. I
will follow them up.
pzm...@gmail.com
r norman wrote:
> Gould very aggressively promoted his own ideas and himself. He did
> write magnificently for the public, as evidenced by his columns in
> Natural History and the subsequent books. However many evolutionary
> biologists angrily resented the way he gave such little (or no) credit
> to others for the work he reviewed in those articles which gave the
> general public that they were all brilliant ideas and syntheses of his
> own, rather than just well written reviews of other people's work.
I've just started writing a magazine column for lay readers myself, and
I have to say that part of that problem is the painful transition in
style. In peer-reviewed science writing, we're used to sprinkling
everything densely with parenthetical shorthand (Jones, 2006). You
can't do that in a column -- your readers aren't familiar with the
conventions. And if you write out "Jane Jones wrote an article
published in The Journal of Comparative Neurology in 2006 that said..."
you find your word count climbing too fast and even simple points
become awkwardly wordy as you try to give credit to everyone. In
columns like Gould's, you have to just charge in and explain the ideas,
and you don't have space or the familiar conventions needed to explain
all of your sources.
It's unfortunate, but readability is paramount in that kind of writing.
> And his enormous final work gives full expression to his view that he,
> and he alone, should be viewed as the creator of the "New New
> Synthesis".
I've read the book. I don't see what you're saying is in it.
>
> Gould's personal style, especially his enormous ego and his arrogance,
> did not do much to promote his popularity among his colleagues. I
> knew him from one summer at the Bermuda Biological Station back in the
> 60's when he was just starting out and his ambition (and arrogance)
> was evident even then.
Uh, I'm trying to think of a few top-ranked scientists who lack an ego
or arrogance. Can you help me out here?
I think the quiet, unassuming ones tend to vanish into the woodwork,
and we don't end up arguing about their opinions on a popular, open
forum like talk.origins.
pzm...@gmail.com
Noelie S. Alito wrote:
>
> Also, independent of my annoyance by evangelism (atheism, Amway,
> golf), in Dawkins' case it distracts from his rational work in
> popularizing the understanding of evolution-related concepts.
I think it complements the understanding of evolution.
How many people expressed their annoyance with the irrational
evangelism in Ken Miller's book in 1999? How about the absolutely
looney-tunes pareidolia and post-hoc rationalizing of Francis Collins'
recent book? The default has always been for scientists to sidle over
and make some room for religious nonsense -- and Gould, much as I loved
his writing, was one of the worst offenders with that NOMA crap in
_Rocks of Ages_ -- so I don't think Dawkins is at all offensive to
speak up and question this peculiar deference so many exhibit for old
superstitions and anti-scientific apologia.
Ferrous Patella
>
> Uh-oh: "Ditto!"
>
> Also, independent of my annoyance by evangelism (atheism, Amway,
> golf), in Dawkins' case it distracts from his rational work in
> popularizing the understanding of evolution-related concepts.
>
>
And he becomes a poster boy for those "Atheists are out to gets us" types.
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
r norman
>
>r norman wrote:
>
>> Gould very aggressively promoted his own ideas and himself. He did
>> write magnificently for the public, as evidenced by his columns in
>> Natural History and the subsequent books. However many evolutionary
>> biologists angrily resented the way he gave such little (or no) credit
>> to others for the work he reviewed in those articles which gave the
>> general public that they were all brilliant ideas and syntheses of his
>> own, rather than just well written reviews of other people's work.
>
>I've just started writing a magazine column for lay readers myself, and
>I have to say that part of that problem is the painful transition in
>style. In peer-reviewed science writing, we're used to sprinkling
>everything densely with parenthetical shorthand (Jones, 2006). You
>can't do that in a column -- your readers aren't familiar with the
>conventions. And if you write out "Jane Jones wrote an article
>published in The Journal of Comparative Neurology in 2006 that said..."
>you find your word count climbing too fast and even simple points
>become awkwardly wordy as you try to give credit to everyone. In
>columns like Gould's, you have to just charge in and explain the ideas,
>and you don't have space or the familiar conventions needed to explain
>all of your sources.
>
>It's unfortunate, but readability is paramount in that kind of writing.
Perhaps just a short note at the end stating something like "this
essay draws heavily on the work of xxx, yyy, and zzz".
>> And his enormous final work gives full expression to his view that he,
>> and he alone, should be viewed as the creator of the "New New
>> Synthesis".
>
>I've read the book. I don't see what you're saying is in it.
Well, just consider some chapter and section titles. The introductory
chapter is "Defining and Revising the Structure of Evolutionary
Theory", part I ends with a chapter "The Modern Synthesis as a Limited
Consensus" and part II is "Towards a Revised and Expanded Evolutionary
Theory". This, indeed, is the "NeoModern Synthesis".
>> Gould's personal style, especially his enormous ego and his arrogance,
>> did not do much to promote his popularity among his colleagues. I
>> knew him from one summer at the Bermuda Biological Station back in the
>> 60's when he was just starting out and his ambition (and arrogance)
>> was evident even then.
>
>Uh, I'm trying to think of a few top-ranked scientists who lack an ego
>or arrogance. Can you help me out here?
>
>I think the quiet, unassuming ones tend to vanish into the woodwork,
>and we don't end up arguing about their opinions on a popular, open
>forum like talk.origins.
I once ran an undergraduate seminar where students chose Nobel Prizes
in biologically related areas and presented something about both the
work that won the prize and biographical information about the prize
winners. A surprising number (that is, surprisingly not zero) were
widely described as warm, generous in time and assistance, and
genuinely good people.
I knew Roger Sperry to be such a person. Linus Pauling had a knack
for self promotion but was still rather unaggressive and genuinely
warm in his manner. Richard Feynman certainly manipulated popular
opinion about himself, but he had a fine sense of humor about it.
Those are just some Nobelists that I have had the privilege of having
interacted with personally. Barbara McClintock is supposed to be a
model of such a person. And Edward Wilson, the bitter foe of Gould
and Lewontin over Sociobiology, is widely known to be the absolute
opposite of Gould in demeanor and character. In fact, both taught
widely popular and well received core curriculum Science courses at
Harvard. Both received rave reviews from students in the student
produced guide to the curriculum about the quality and brilliance of
their lectures. However Gould, year after year, drew comments about
his arrogance, pomposity, and condescending attitude while Wilson drew
equally fervent comments about his friendliness, openness, and
approachability.
Larry Moran
Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
[snip]
>> But atheism imposes no such duty on its believers. Nor does it
>> promise salvation. Converting someone to atheism gains no
>> transcendental good karma for either party. So I find evangelical
>> atheists just as annoying as the guy who has taken it upon himself to
>> convince the world that they should be using Linux. He may be right,
>> but he is still annoying as hell.
Believing in Linux does no harm and your children won't suffer if you
brainwash them into following your preference in operating systems.
As far as I know there are no Linux envagelicals who kill other people
just because they like Windows XP or (ugh!) Mac OSX.
If you find speaking out against the evils of religious extremism to be
annoying then you should re-examine your priorities.
> Uh-oh: "Ditto!"
>
> Also, independent of my annoyance by evangelism (atheism, Amway,
> golf), in Dawkins' case it distracts from his rational work in
> popularizing the understanding of evolution-related concepts.
It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
a religion or a belief.
Dawkins is merely applying to religious superstition the same skeptical
process one uses in science every day. I can understand why religious
people don't want religion to be examined too closely but don't try
and avoid the issue by criticizing the messenger.
Larry Moran
Larry Moran
[snip]
> I only vaguely detect polarisation on this issue in this newsgroup.
> Would it be correct to describe Dawkins as representing the
> conservative pole?
Yes. Dawkins represents the conservative types of evolutionist who haven't
changed their position on evolution since the hardening of the Modern
Synthesis in 1950's.
They are only interested in adaptation and the appearence of design. They
tend to focus almost exclusively on natural selection as the only
significant mechanism of evolution. They are mainly interested in
complex animals and they attribute much of animal behavior to genes and
adaptations.
About 80% of the regulars on talk.origins have a worldview that is closer
to Dawkins than to Gould.
Larry Moran
pzm...@gmail.com
> >> And his enormous final work gives full expression to his view that he,
> >> and he alone, should be viewed as the creator of the "New New
> >> Synthesis".
> >
> >I've read the book. I don't see what you're saying is in it.
>
> Well, just consider some chapter and section titles. The introductory
> chapter is "Defining and Revising the Structure of Evolutionary
> Theory", part I ends with a chapter "The Modern Synthesis as a Limited
> Consensus" and part II is "Towards a Revised and Expanded Evolutionary
> Theory". This, indeed, is the "NeoModern Synthesis".
What would you have had him title the chapters? Mayr, for instance, has
whole books titled "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology" and "This is
Biology". Darwin wrote a book called "Origin of Species." How about
E.O. Wilson, "On Human Nature"?
Do you take away from those books that Mayr should be viewed as the
sole creator of biology (OK, maybe...)? That Wilson is the first and
only guy to write about human nature?
>
> >> Gould's personal style, especially his enormous ego and his arrogance,
> >> did not do much to promote his popularity among his colleagues. I
> >> knew him from one summer at the Bermuda Biological Station back in the
> >> 60's when he was just starting out and his ambition (and arrogance)
> >> was evident even then.
> >
> >Uh, I'm trying to think of a few top-ranked scientists who lack an ego
> >or arrogance. Can you help me out here?
> >
> >I think the quiet, unassuming ones tend to vanish into the woodwork,
> >and we don't end up arguing about their opinions on a popular, open
> >forum like talk.origins.
>
> I once ran an undergraduate seminar where students chose Nobel Prizes
> in biologically related areas and presented something about both the
> work that won the prize and biographical information about the prize
> winners. A surprising number (that is, surprisingly not zero) were
> widely described as warm, generous in time and assistance, and
> genuinely good people.
I met Gould once. He was charming, warm, and friendly.
>
> I knew Roger Sperry to be such a person. Linus Pauling had a knack
> for self promotion but was still rather unaggressive and genuinely
> warm in his manner. Richard Feynman certainly manipulated popular
> opinion about himself, but he had a fine sense of humor about it.
> Those are just some Nobelists that I have had the privilege of having
> interacted with personally. Barbara McClintock is supposed to be a
> model of such a person. And Edward Wilson, the bitter foe of Gould
> and Lewontin over Sociobiology, is widely known to be the absolute
> opposite of Gould in demeanor and character. In fact, both taught
> widely popular and well received core curriculum Science courses at
> Harvard.
We're moving from "ambitious and arrogant" to "generally nice person."
I suspect those people were and are also ambitious and confident in
their abilities (which, if you disagree with them, will be called
"arrogance").
It's easy to find people who think Wilson is arrogant. He's the fellow
who founded the discipline of sociobiology (which many also question as
a good thing) and wrote that the "humanities and social sciences shrink
to specialized branches of biology".
> Both received rave reviews from students in the student
> produced guide to the curriculum about the quality and brilliance of
> their lectures. However Gould, year after year, drew comments about
> his arrogance, pomposity, and condescending attitude while Wilson drew
> equally fervent comments about his friendliness, openness, and
> approachability.
Ah, student reviews. I've noticed an interesting correlation between
how well students think they're doing in a course and their reviews of
the instructor. I've seen mine: they wander from "Most brilliant
professor ever!" to "He's cruel and unfair and funny-looking."
Ernest Major
<harris...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>I only vaguely detect polarisation on this issue in this newsgroup.
>Would it be correct to describe Dawkins as representing the
>conservative pole?
>
conservative, but the answer is not obviously in the affirmative.
Scientifically, Dawkins is best known as a spokesman for the view that
in many cases evolutionary processes are more easily understood as the
differential replication of genes (he uses the older, pre-molecular
biology, concept of a gene as a unit of inheritance), rather than the
differential reproductive success of individuals, and for the
introduction of the metaphor of the meme. Some people who have that the
former, which is not original to Dawkins, but goes back to the work of
Hamilton on kin selection (at least) is radical. (I'm not sure whether
the extension of the concept of the phenotype beyond the bounds of the
individual, as in "The Extended Phenotype" is original with Dawkins.)
Gould is best known for "Punctuated Equilibrium", which in its weak form
(that morphological change in evolution is episodic) is an even older
idea, going back to Darwin, and championed by Mayr. Regardless of how
far Gould pushed the concept (and his views appear to me to have varied
over time), he deserves credit from bringing the implications of the
concept on the fossil record to attention.
Gould and Dawkins come from different research traditions; Gould from an
observationalist, natural history tradition, and Dawkins from an
experimentalist (population genetics, ethology) tradition.
Labelling one as conservative and the other as radical doesn't seem a
meaningful categorisation; they're different but the differences don't
appear to be aligned with that axis.
Politically both Dawkins and Gould are on the left (Gould is widely
described as a Marxist; I don't know whether this is accurate or
polemical or both. Dawkins was described earlier on talk.origins as "
"so liberal it hurts". I haven't taken the time to inform myself of
their political positions - their scientific work stands on its own
merits - but the impression I have is that if you want a simplistic
description of the differences Gould is "Old Left" and Dawkins "New
Left".
In less relevant fields - culture, social values, religion - from what
little I know of their respective views Gould appears to be the more
conservative.
--
alias Ernest Major
Free Lunch
"pzm...@gmail.com" <pzm...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1159121841....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:...
>We're moving from "ambitious and arrogant" to "generally nice person."
>I suspect those people were and are also ambitious and confident in
>their abilities (which, if you disagree with them, will be called
>"arrogance").
>
>It's easy to find people who think Wilson is arrogant. He's the fellow
>who founded the discipline of sociobiology (which many also question as
>a good thing) and wrote that the "humanities and social sciences shrink
>to specialized branches of biology".
>
>> Both received rave reviews from students in the student
>> produced guide to the curriculum about the quality and brilliance of
>> their lectures. However Gould, year after year, drew comments about
>> his arrogance, pomposity, and condescending attitude while Wilson drew
>> equally fervent comments about his friendliness, openness, and
>> approachability.
>
>Ah, student reviews. I've noticed an interesting correlation between
>how well students think they're doing in a course and their reviews of
>the instructor. I've seen mine: they wander from "Most brilliant
>professor ever!" to "He's cruel and unfair and funny-looking."
Did both comments come from the same student?
r norman
wrote:
>
>r norman wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2006 09:24:03 -0700, pzm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >r norman wrote:
>
>> >> And his enormous final work gives full expression to his view that he,
>> >> and he alone, should be viewed as the creator of the "New New
>> >> Synthesis".
>> >
>> >I've read the book. I don't see what you're saying is in it.
>>
>> Well, just consider some chapter and section titles. The introductory
>> chapter is "Defining and Revising the Structure of Evolutionary
>> Theory", part I ends with a chapter "The Modern Synthesis as a Limited
>> Consensus" and part II is "Towards a Revised and Expanded Evolutionary
>> Theory". This, indeed, is the "NeoModern Synthesis".
>
>What would you have had him title the chapters? Mayr, for instance, has
>whole books titled "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology" and "This is
>Biology". Darwin wrote a book called "Origin of Species." How about
>E.O. Wilson, "On Human Nature"?
>
>Do you take away from those books that Mayr should be viewed as the
>sole creator of biology (OK, maybe...)? That Wilson is the first and
>only guy to write about human nature?
You pick a very strange choice of works to prove your point. Or,
rather I should say, to undermine your point. Mayr was, indeed, one
of the primary agents of the original "New Synthesis". Darwin
certainly created an entirely new branch of biology. And Wilson was
deliberately creating a new field of study in Sociobiology. That is
was Gould was attempting to replicate.
I indicated that virtually all the students credited Gould with being
a brilliant lecturer. Anyone who reads student evaluations knows the
difference between a disgruntled student unhappy with the grade and a
serious student providing critical evaluation. The students who
organized and produced the Harvard course guide were experienced at
reading student evaluations and culled very large numbers of responses
to make publish their guide.
Perplexed in Peoria
<pzm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159115043.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Uh, I'm trying to think of a few top-ranked scientists who lack an ego
> or arrogance. Can you help me out here?
You may be right about ego. But some manage to hide or suppress the
arrogance.
I never met them, but in evolutionary biology, how about Bill Hamilton
or John Maynard Smith?
An interesting hypothesis arises. Is there something about trying to
write for a popular audience that brings out native arrogance? Or
is it that only the very arrogant even attempt this form of writing?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:slrnehdc0n....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
> evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
> a religion or a belief.
... he said, dogmatically.
pzm...@gmail.com
And...?
Seriously, that doesn't undermine my point at all. Scientists who are
gutsy and bold right gutsy and bold books, with gutsy and bold titles
and chapter headings. So? It's easy to find critics of Mayr and Wilson
and their ideas. It's easy to find critics of Gould. The claim that
their flaw is "arrogance" is specious; you want to disagree with
sociobiology or punctuated equilibrium or Mayr's adaptationism, go
ahead, but it's silly to say the problem is that the authors of those
ideas were too arrogant.
Yes, we are familiar with how to read student evaluations, and when we
got comments about "arrogant" and "condescending", we tend to ignore
that in favor of comments about the quality and brilliance of their
lectures. Those kinds of personal complaints are much less important
than finding out whether students learned something.
The student who's evaluation commented on my appearance got a good
ha-ha from the review committee, but they gave me tenure anyway.
CreateThis
OK, not a religion, but...
I believe it. Doesn't that make it a belief for me, even if I have
strong logical reasons to believe it? My only choices aren't "know
it" or "disbelieve it", are they?
pzm...@gmail.com
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> <pzm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159115043.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Uh, I'm trying to think of a few top-ranked scientists who lack an ego
> > or arrogance. Can you help me out here?
>
> You may be right about ego. But some manage to hide or suppress the
> arrogance.
>
> I never met them, but in evolutionary biology, how about Bill Hamilton
> or John Maynard Smith?
An accusation of arrogance usually means, "how dare that person
disagree with my position on this issue!"
Is Maynard Smith's comment about Gould that he was "a man whose ideas
are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with" an example of
arrogance?
>
> An interesting hypothesis arises. Is there something about trying to
> write for a popular audience that brings out native arrogance? Or
> is it that only the very arrogant even attempt this form of writing?
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the conventions of writing
for a popular audience vs. writing for a science journal are very
different, and that those conventions can give a reader a false
impression. I give freshmen students science papers to read, and they
initially freak out -- it's too dense, they can't follow the shorthand
prose, they have a hard time picking up the context, and they think
scientists are snooty and opaque. Give some scientists a paper written
for a non-science audience on a topic they are close to, and they're
looking for their name and due acknowledgment of their vast
contributions, and when it's missing, they wonder if the author is
trying to steal their credit. Look at the literature cited section for
most primary research papers -- 50 papers are easy to find. Look at
something in Natural History or National Geographic -- no formal
citations at all, and they might briefly acknowledge one or a very few
PIs in the body.
CreateThis
Most of us only hear about the ones who write for popular audiences.
The other ones
"... tend to vanish into the woodwork, and we don't end up arguing
about their [personalities] on a popular, open forum like
talk.origins."
Unless they're t.o loiterers.
CT
r norman
wrote:
You are perfectly right in insisting that the quality of the work
counts, not the personality of the individual. Even though students
criticized Gould for his personality they still flocked to take his
class. Even though some scientists may have disliked Gould for his
personality, they still had to deal with his large and impressive body
of work. I heard Gould speak several times, both on scientific and
social issues, and always enjoyed and appreciated his content and
style. And I generally agree with him on those subjects I feel
competent to evaluate.
As for Gould and any possible "arrogance", I merely relate what I
personally felt and saw, what I personally heard a number of my
colleagues including some working in evolutionary biology say, and
what I have heard from students I know personally, whose opinions I
trust, and who actually took his course. Other opinions may differ.
When it comes to the notion of a feud, especially one that gets very
personal and involves some highly charged personalities like those of
Gould and Dawkins, the nominal subject of this thread, then
personalities do play a significant role in the dynamics.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran):
<snip>
>It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
>evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
>a religion or a belief.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. One only need read some of
the posts here on t.o to see examples of evangelical
antireligious behavior (for example, see most of the posts
by snex arguing that religion must follow the rules of
scientific research), as defined in def 6 (from the AHD)
below. Using this definition *any* zealotry can be classed
as evangelical behavior.
e·van·gel·i·cal (¶”v²n-jµl“¹-k…l, µv”…n-) also e·van·gel·ic
(-jµl“¹k) --adj. Abbr. evan., evang. 1. Of, relating to, or
in accordance with the Christian gospel...salvation by
faith. 6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm;
zealous: an evangelical liberal. --n. Evangelical. A member
of an evangelical church or party. --e”van·gel“i·cal·ly adv.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Perplexed in Peoria
<pzm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159127722....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > <pzm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159115043.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Uh, I'm trying to think of a few top-ranked scientists who lack an ego
> > > or arrogance. Can you help me out here?
> >
> > You may be right about ego. But some manage to hide or suppress the
> > arrogance.
> >
> > I never met them, but in evolutionary biology, how about Bill Hamilton
> > or John Maynard Smith?
>
> An accusation of arrogance usually means, "how dare that person
> disagree with my position on this issue!"
>
> Is Maynard Smith's comment about Gould that he was "a man whose ideas
> are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with" an example of
> arrogance?
I wasn't aware of that particular quote. Thank you. It appears that
Maynard Smith was inspired by Medawar's famous assessment of de Chardin.
But no. It is not an example of arrogance, per se. Now if he had
followed that by saying "My ideas, on the other hand, ..." ...
> > An interesting hypothesis arises. Is there something about trying to
> > write for a popular audience that brings out native arrogance? Or
> > is it that only the very arrogant even attempt this form of writing?
>
> That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the conventions of writing
> for a popular audience vs. writing for a science journal are very
> different, and that those conventions can give a reader a false
> impression. I give freshmen students science papers to read, and they
> initially freak out -- it's too dense, they can't follow the shorthand
> prose, they have a hard time picking up the context, and they think
> scientists are snooty and opaque. Give some scientists a paper written
> for a non-science audience on a topic they are close to, and they're
> looking for their name and due acknowledgment of their vast
> contributions, and when it's missing, they wonder if the author is
> trying to steal their credit. Look at the literature cited section for
> most primary research papers -- 50 papers are easy to find. Look at
> something in Natural History or National Geographic -- no formal
> citations at all, and they might briefly acknowledge one or a very few
> PIs in the body.
Oh, I agree with your analysis of the difficulties of writing for a
popular audience. And I wasn't exactly implying that you yourself
are arrogant. That would hardly be worth saying.
Zachriel
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnehdc0n....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> But atheism imposes no such duty on its believers. Nor does it
>>> promise salvation. Converting someone to atheism gains no
>>> transcendental good karma for either party. So I find evangelical
>>> atheists just as annoying as the guy who has taken it upon himself to
>>> convince the world that they should be using Linux. He may be right,
>>> but he is still annoying as hell.
>
> Believing in Linux does no harm and your children won't suffer if you
> brainwash them into following your preference in operating systems.
> As far as I know there are no Linux envagelicals who kill other people
> just because they like Windows XP or (ugh!) Mac OSX.
People kill for all sorts of reasons, not all of them religious.
>
> If you find speaking out against the evils of religious extremism to be
> annoying then you should re-examine your priorities.
>
>> Uh-oh: "Ditto!"
>>
>> Also, independent of my annoyance by evangelism (atheism, Amway,
>> golf), in Dawkins' case it distracts from his rational work in
>> popularizing the understanding of evolution-related concepts.
>
> It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
> evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
> a religion or a belief.
Recent claim about atheistic efforts: "10% is a lot of people, and we are
gaining."
His prose reads just like the worst creationist, unbending, unforgiving, a
refusal to consider contrary arguments, or even to discuss most any other
topic. He apparently considers it his "duty" to stamp out what he sees as
superstition. Whether you agree with his goals or not, his methods are
strongly analogous to fire-and-brimstone evangelism, and he is clearly
committed.
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres — one
epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
pzm...@gmail.com
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:19:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran):
>
> <snip>
>
> >It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
> >evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
> >a religion or a belief.
>
> Sorry, but I have to disagree. One only need read some of
> the posts here on t.o to see examples of evangelical
> antireligious behavior (for example, see most of the posts
> by snex arguing that religion must follow the rules of
> scientific research), as defined in def 6 (from the AHD)
> below. Using this definition *any* zealotry can be classed
> as evangelical behavior.
It is kind of a dirty trick, though. Use a sufficiently loose
definition of anything to fit any individual, and apply it to a person
you don't like with the implication that he is exhibiting the traits of
an objectionable subset. You could, for instance, look up Republican in
the Oxford American Dictionary, find one definition -- "a person
advocating or supporting republican government" -- and then accuse me
of being a Republican at the next meeting of the Minnesota DFL caucus
or at our nightly Bush-effigy-burning, and be literally correct, but
completely wrong in the sense that my fellow Democrats would interpret
it.
Noelie S. Alito
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:22:37 -0500,
> Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> But atheism imposes no such duty on its believers. Nor does it
>>> promise salvation. Converting someone to atheism gains no
>>> transcendental good karma for either party. So I find evangelical
>>> atheists just as annoying as the guy who has taken it upon himself to
>>> convince the world that they should be using Linux. He may be right,
>>> but he is still annoying as hell.
>
> Believing in Linux does no harm and your children won't suffer if you
> brainwash them into following your preference in operating systems.
> As far as I know there are no Linux envagelicals who kill other people
> just because they like Windows XP or (ugh!) Mac OSX.
>
> If you find speaking out against the evils of religious extremism
> to be annoying then you should re-examine your priorities.
I'm all for speaking out against the evils of extremism, the
result of a combination of ignorance and emotion (usually fear),
whether it comes in the form of coercive religion, deadly
violence by sports fans, or Pol Pot's killing fields. Many
people's religious and spiritual beliefs, however, provide a
personal source of healing and coping with the shit life often
deals out, without approaching which I would call extremism.
I don't think Dawkins makes that distinction.
>> Uh-oh: "Ditto!"
>>
>> Also, independent of my annoyance by evangelism (atheism, Amway,
>> golf), in Dawkins' case it distracts from his rational work in
>> popularizing the understanding of evolution-related concepts.
>
> It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
> evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
> a religion or a belief.
I was going by the more general definition of evangelism,
hence my inclusion of Amway and golf in the examples.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evangelism
"Sharing news of something in order to convince someone
to join or otherwise accept it."
> Dawkins is merely applying to religious superstition the
> same skeptical process one uses in science every day. I can
> understand why religious people don't want religion to be
> examined too closely but don't try
> and avoid the issue by criticizing the messenger.
Ah, but I find strident advocacy on any topic equally annoying,
independent of whether I agree with the base concept or not.
OK, perhaps I am *more* annoyed by people presenting, in an
emotional or contemptuous way, the positions that I see myself
as having reached via rational thought. I'm vain that way.
Noelie
--
"Be more rational, you ignorant turd!"
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> "Wakboth" <Wakbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1159077692....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Kevin Wayne Williams kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>>>Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you get a reply from Larry Moran, you will probably have a viewpoint
>>>>better informed than mine, but with complementary biases. Larry
>>>>prefers Gould's position on most scientific issues, but likes Dawkins's
>>>>evangelism on the subject of atheism - the thing that I find most
>>>>distasteful and nasty about Dawkins.
>>>
>>>Just curious ... do you oppose evangelism of all kinds, or is atheism
>>>unique in being repulsive to evangelize?
>>
>>Possibly it's the way Dawkins evangelizes his atheism that PinP finds
>>distasteful?
>
>
> Hmmmm. I was going to respond "That too!".
>
> But then, I thought a bit more. No, Dawkins is evangelizing atheism
> in the same way he is evangelizing evolution. And I *like* the way
> he does that. Oh, I suppose that there is more negativity in his
> atheism work - more attacks on the opposing position and less careful
> construction of his own position - but then I guess that atheism just
> doesn't have a complicated metaphysics that needs explanation.
>
> His style is annoying, but that is tolerable. It is the religious
> ferver that he brings to the task that I consider to be in bad
> taste.
>
Perhaps he is excercising his frustration that people still insist on
accepting things so strongly, without demanding any evidence, that leads
his fervor?
Sam Harris:
"The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million
Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never *doubt the
existence of God* should be obliged to present evidence for his
existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless
destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day."
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
I think Dawkins has a right to his fervor.
--
"Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes
characterized by profound confidence in the governing power, joined with
a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever."
Herbert Spencer
Robert Carnegie
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Kevin Wayne Williams" <kww.n...@verizon.nut> wrote in message news:12hc3ua...@news.supernews.com...
> > Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> >
> > > If you get a reply from Larry Moran, you will probably have a viewpoint
> > > better informed than mine, but with complementary biases. Larry
> > > prefers Gould's position on most scientific issues, but likes Dawkins's
> > > evangelism on the subject of atheism - the thing that I find most
> > > distasteful and nasty about Dawkins.
> >
> > Just curious ... do you oppose evangelism of all kinds, or is atheism
> > unique in being repulsive to evangelize?
>
> religious evangelism distasteful - the co-worker who can't take a hint,
> the door-to-door Jehovah's Witnesses who wake me up every Saturday
> afternoon, and creationists who want aspects of their religion taught
> in public schools.
>
> However, you are right. Though I am an atheist myself, I do find
> evangelical atheism more distasteful than most evangelical religions.
But the logical outcome of successful evangelical atheism is that the
people you mentioned in the previous paragraph will not be bugging you
any more. They'll have been converted to atheism.
On second thoughts, they might come bug you with that. "Don't you ever
feel that at the foundation of the universe, there isn't a purpose?"
Larry Moran
[snip]
> I met Gould once. He was charming, warm, and friendly.
I met him three times. He was charming, warm, and friendly every time.
There's a strong correlation between how you judge a person and whether
they are telling you something you don't want to hear or agreeing with
you.
I will say one thing about Gould; he doesn't suffer fools and that gets
him into all kinds of trouble with fools. I don't know whether that's
a serious character flaw or not. I tend to like such people and dislike
those who put up with fools.
People like Gould and Dawkins get some bad reviews from certain students.
Apparently, you aren't supposed to tell university students that they
are being foolish.
Larry Moran
Larry Moran
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:19:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran):
>
><snip>
>
>>It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
>>evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
>>a religion or a belief.
>
> Sorry, but I have to disagree. One only need read some of
> the posts here on t.o to see examples of evangelical
> antireligious behavior (for example, see most of the posts
> by snex arguing that religion must follow the rules of
> scientific research), as defined in def 6 (from the AHD)
> below. Using this definition *any* zealotry can be classed
> as evangelical behavior.
You are confused about definitions. You can be opposed to belief in
the tooth fairly but that doesn't turn you into an evangelical
a-toothfairyist.
Larry Moran
Larry Moran
Zachriel <angelm...@zachriel.com> wrote:
> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrnehdc0n....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
[snip]
> People kill for all sorts of reasons, not all of them religious.
Really. That's amazing. I didn't know that.
I must be really stupid.
Larry Moran
Larry Moran
[snip]
>> If you find speaking out against the evils of religious extremism
>> to be annoying then you should re-examine your priorities.
>
> I'm all for speaking out against the evils of extremism, the
> result of a combination of ignorance and emotion (usually fear),
> whether it comes in the form of coercive religion, deadly
> violence by sports fans, or Pol Pot's killing fields. Many
> people's religious and spiritual beliefs, however, provide a
> personal source of healing and coping with the shit life often
> deals out, without approaching which I would call extremism.
> I don't think Dawkins makes that distinction.
Yes he does, but he points out that even mild forms of delusion
contribute to the bigger problem.
[snip]
> > Dawkins is merely applying to religious superstition the
> > same skeptical process one uses in science every day. I can
> > understand why religious people don't want religion to be
> > examined too closely but don't try
> > and avoid the issue by criticizing the messenger.
>
> Ah, but I find strident advocacy on any topic equally annoying,
> independent of whether I agree with the base concept or not.
Really? I find that strange. How do you think we should have
opposed Hilter? By speaking quietly and not trying to insult him
or his followers?
Of course not. What you really mean to say is that you only oppose
strident advocacy on certain topics. Now all we need to do is find
out which ones and why.
> OK, perhaps I am *more* annoyed by people presenting, in an
> emotional or contemptuous way, the positions that I see myself
> as having reached via rational thought. I'm vain that way.
Ahhh ... that explains it.
Personally, I have a fondness for intelligent people who hold opinions
that are different than mine and are willing to defend them. Those
are the ones I can learn from.
Larry Moran
Larry Moran
Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
><pzm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
[snip]
>> Is Maynard Smith's comment about Gould that he was "a man whose ideas
>> are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with" an example of
>> arrogance?
>
> I wasn't aware of that particular quote. Thank you. It appears that
> Maynard Smith was inspired by Medawar's famous assessment of de Chardin.
>
> But no. It is not an example of arrogance, per se. Now if he had
> followed that by saying "My ideas, on the other hand, ..." ...
Here's the full quote ...
"Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be
seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist.
In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have
discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so
confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who
should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our
side against the creationists."
I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to claim that John Maynard Smith
was a humble man.
Larry Moran
Zachriel
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:56:22 -0400,
> Zachriel <angelm...@zachriel.com> wrote:
>> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
>> news:slrnehdc0n....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
>
> [snip]
<re-inserting snipped portion>
>>> But atheism imposes no such duty on its believers. Nor does it
>>> promise salvation. Converting someone to atheism gains no
>>> transcendental good karma for either party. So I find evangelical
>>> atheists just as annoying as the guy who has taken it upon himself to
>>> convince the world that they should be using Linux. He may be right,
>>> but he is still annoying as hell.
>
> Believing in Linux does no harm and your children won't suffer if you
> brainwash them into following your preference in operating systems.
> As far as I know there are no Linux envagelicals who kill other people
> just because they like Windows XP or (ugh!) Mac OSX.
Really. That's amazing.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Zachriel" <angelm...@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:12hear1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrnehe285....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> > On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:56:22 -0400,
> > Zachriel <angelm...@zachriel.com> wrote:
> >> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:slrnehdc0n....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> >
> > [snip]
>
> <re-inserting snipped portion>
Hey! Thats not fair! ;-)
> >>> But atheism imposes no such duty on its believers. Nor does it
> >>> promise salvation. Converting someone to atheism gains no
> >>> transcendental good karma for either party. So I find evangelical
> >>> atheists just as annoying as the guy who has taken it upon himself to
> >>> convince the world that they should be using Linux. He may be right,
> >>> but he is still annoying as hell.
> >
> > Believing in Linux does no harm and your children won't suffer if you
> > brainwash them into following your preference in operating systems.
> > As far as I know there are no Linux envagelicals who kill other people
> > just because they like Windows XP or (ugh!) Mac OSX.
>
>
> Really. That's amazing.
>
>
>
> >
> >> People kill for all sorts of reasons, not all of them religious.
> >
> > Really. That's amazing. I didn't know that.
> >
> > I must be really stupid.
No. You just act stupid. And Zachriel is right to point it out.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:slrnehe2n2....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
'Godwin's law alert! This thread will end shortly. Get your
opinions expressed quickly.
> Of course not. What you really mean to say is that you only oppose
> strident advocacy on certain topics. Now all we need to do is find
> out which ones and why.
>
> > OK, perhaps I am *more* annoyed by people presenting, in an
> > emotional or contemptuous way, the positions that I see myself
> > as having reached via rational thought. I'm vain that way.
>
> Ahhh ... that explains it.
>
> Personally, I have a fondness for intelligent people who hold opinions
> that are different than mine and are willing to defend them. Those
> are the ones I can learn from.
And that last happened ... when?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:slrnehe36u....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
And thanks to you too for the quote.
> I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to claim that John Maynard Smith
> was a humble man.
Up thread somewhere, I made a distinction between ego and arrogance.
PZ had said something to the effect that all top scientists have both.
I agreed on ego, but offered Maynard Smith and Hamilton as possible
examples of top scientists without arrogance.
Notice that Maynard Smith attributed the assessment of Gould to 'evolutionary
biologists with whom I have discussed his work'. Dawkins would not
have been so indirect, I think. Gould would not have mentioned the
target of his criticism by name, but would have fulminated against
phrenologists and the fictional characters of Voltaire instead.
Hmmm. Is it possible that ego is an objective fact, but arrogance is
in the eye of the beholder?
Desertphile
> Larry
> prefers Gould's position on most scientific issues, but likes Dawkins's
> evangelism on the subject of atheism - the thing that I find most
> distasteful and nasty about Dawkins.
If a physician warns people about lung cancer and suggests people not
smoke tobacco, do you find that "distasteful and nasty" also?
Nic
Larry Moran wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2006 07:08:22 -0700, Nic <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I only vaguely detect polarisation on this issue in this newsgroup.
> > Would it be correct to describe Dawkins as representing the
> > conservative pole?
>
> Yes. Dawkins represents the conservative types of evolutionist who haven't
> changed their position on evolution since the hardening of the Modern
> Synthesis in 1950's.
>
> They are only interested in adaptation and the appearence of design. They
> tend to focus almost exclusively on natural selection as the only
> significant mechanism of evolution. They are mainly interested in
> complex animals and they attribute much of animal behavior to genes and
> adaptations.
>
> About 80% of the regulars on talk.origins have a worldview that is closer
> to Dawkins than to Gould.
Thanks, and to others who have responded.
It seems to me talk.origins people are more partisan on matters of
style and personality than they are on the science - but to be fair, I
didn't ask an overtly scientific question. Perhaps that shows certain
questions have remained open ever since the 50s (re speciation
mechanisms and gradual morphological change in the fossil record).
Nic
>
> Larry Moran
Perplexed in Peoria
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159149912.2...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Well, I suppose that I should clarify that it is Dawkins' evangelism
that is distasteful (i.e. in poor taste). The nastiness is just
something that Dawkins himself brings to the task. Other evangelical
atheists are less nasty but equally distasteful.
I suppose that I should be grateful that you are equating religion
to a cigarette habit (not a bad analogy), rather than, like Larry,
equating it to Nazism.
Full disclosure: I am an addicted smoker. And I do sometimes get
annoyed at evangelical anti-smoking activists. Don't even get me
started on the lawyers who mounted a class-action lawsuit on 'my behalf'
and got rich when they settled with the tobacco companies in a way
that left me paying several bucks a pack more for cigarettes and the
companies more profitable than ever. But that is OT.
One thing about both anti-smoking evangelists and atheism evangelists
that I find distasteful is that they both spout their arguments as if
you hadn't already heard them. I can't count the number of times here
I have seen the "Who created the creator?" argument, for example.
Do evangelical atheists really think that theists have never considered
that question? Have they ever really listened carefully to the answer?
(Don't ask me for my answer - I am an atheist too. Ask a theist.
Ask several theists. And listen - try to understand what they say.)
William Morse
news:1159132337.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:19:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran):
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
>> >evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
>> >a religion or a belief.
>>
>> Sorry, but I have to disagree. One only need read some of
>> the posts here on t.o to see examples of evangelical
>> antireligious behavior (for example, see most of the posts
>> by snex arguing that religion must follow the rules of
>> scientific research), as defined in def 6 (from the AHD)
>> below. Using this definition *any* zealotry can be classed
>> as evangelical behavior.
>
> It is kind of a dirty trick, though. Use a sufficiently loose
> definition of anything to fit any individual, and apply it to a person
> you don't like with the implication that he is exhibiting the traits of
> an objectionable subset.
Bob is not doing that. He is describing someone who exhibits zealotry.
This can reasonably be applied to someone such as Dawkins who is
"evangelical" in his atheism. He is (I would argue correctly) classifying
Dawkins in a subset. You are the one who is saying the traits of the
subset are objectionable.
You could, for instance, look up Republican in
> the Oxford American Dictionary, find one definition -- "a person
> advocating or supporting republican government" -- and then accuse me
> of being a Republican at the next meeting of the Minnesota DFL caucus
> or at our nightly Bush-effigy-burning, and be literally correct, but
> completely wrong in the sense that my fellow Democrats would interpret
> it.
While I would love to argue the benefits of republican vs. "pure"
democratic government (a national town hall), under what conditions
each works well, and similar issues, I think that is a separate question.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Henry Flam
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1159106902.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Nic
> <harris...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >I only vaguely detect polarisation on this issue in this newsgroup.
> >Would it be correct to describe Dawkins as representing the
> >conservative pole?
> >
> To answer this question requires us to know what you mean by
> conservative, but the answer is not obviously in the affirmative.
>
> Scientifically, Dawkins is best known as a spokesman for the view that
> in many cases evolutionary processes are more easily understood as the
> differential replication of genes (he uses the older, pre-molecular
> biology, concept of a gene as a unit of inheritance), rather than the
> differential reproductive success of individuals, and for the
> introduction of the metaphor of the meme. Some people who have that the
> former, which is not original to Dawkins, but goes back to the work of
> Hamilton on kin selection (at least) is radical. (I'm not sure whether
> the extension of the concept of the phenotype beyond the bounds of the
> individual, as in "The Extended Phenotype" is original with Dawkins.)
>
> Gould is best known for "Punctuated Equilibrium", which in its weak form
> (that morphological change in evolution is episodic) is an even older
> idea, going back to Darwin, and championed by Mayr. Regardless of how
> far Gould pushed the concept (and his views appear to me to have varied
> over time), he deserves credit from bringing the implications of the
> concept on the fossil record to attention.
>
> Gould and Dawkins come from different research traditions; Gould from an
> observationalist, natural history tradition, and Dawkins from an
> experimentalist (population genetics, ethology) tradition.
>
> Labelling one as conservative and the other as radical doesn't seem a
> meaningful categorisation; they're different but the differences don't
> appear to be aligned with that axis.
>
> Politically both Dawkins and Gould are on the left (Gould is widely
> described as a Marxist; I don't know whether this is accurate or
> polemical or both. Dawkins was described earlier on talk.origins as "
> "so liberal it hurts". I haven't taken the time to inform myself of
> their political positions - their scientific work stands on its own
> merits - but the impression I have is that if you want a simplistic
> description of the differences Gould is "Old Left" and Dawkins "New
> Left".
>
> In less relevant fields - culture, social values, religion - from what
> little I know of their respective views Gould appears to be the more
> conservative.
I agree that it's wrong to judge scientific work based on the political
positions of the author but I do think that the social history of TOE
has always been significant. Both the left and the right have at various
times claimed that TOE has supported them. On the left, Karl Marx sent a
copy of the first volume of Das Kapital to Darwin. I don't know what
Darwin's reaction to receiving the book was. He probably was puzzled by
the gift. On the other Herbert Spencer's appropriation of the phrase,
"Survival of the Fittest" was heaven sent to the 19th century
capitalists, who use the idea to attack unions.
Gould's parents were Jewish immigrants from Tsarist Russia. They shared
the ideas of the Jewish Bund, classical pre-WW1 Social Democracy. One
aspect of this form of Marxism was strong humanism with a heavy emphasis
on education and concern for fellow human beings. This cultural
formation go far to explain why he became a scientist and also explains,
to me at least, why he always felt that the sciences and humanities
offered something to each other. I don't buy his MOMA ponderings but I
respect his attempt to deal with the science/humanities chasm, to ask
what is the responsibility of scientists to society, for the negative
effects of what their work has produces.
Chimp
> that I find distasteful is that they both spout their arguments as if
> you hadn't already heard them. I can't count the number of times here
> I have seen the "Who created the creator?" argument, for example.
> Do evangelical atheists really think that theists have never considered
> that question? Have they ever really listened carefully to the answer?
I've never heard "Who created the creator?" used except as
a reply to "How did the universe come into being without a
creator?". In other words, it is the theist who starts by
presuming that the opponent has never considered the
question: the atheist is simply making the familiar reply just
as a chess player might respond to "e4" with "e5".
And yes, there _are_ many theists who will _not_ have
considered the "Who created the creator?" question!
Though of course there are many others who have.
And yes, I have listened carefully to the answers, and
never heard anything that doesn't lead to a dead drawn
game. Which is notable since the theist is playing "White"
in this game and trying to make the claim; the atheist
is merely rebutting.
Chimp
Robert Grumbine
>
>> Uh, I'm trying to think of a few top-ranked scientists who lack an ego
>> or arrogance. Can you help me out here?
>
>You may be right about ego. But some manage to hide or suppress the
>arrogance.
>
>I never met them, but in evolutionary biology, how about Bill Hamilton
>or John Maynard Smith?
>
>write for a popular audience that brings out native arrogance? Or
>is it that only the very arrogant even attempt this form of writing?
It's something of a job requirement -- it takes a pretty major
conceit/arrogance/... to think that what you have to say is worth
other people reading, and paying you for the priviledge. This may
apply to older folks more than kids growing up with web pages and
now blogs being freely available. More locally, consider the denizens
of t.o. vs. a random sample of even their immediate professional
neighbors.
As Paul described, it's also something of a requirement that to write
for the general audience, you have to do things that your professional
peers will find arrogant/conceited/unprofessional/... If you spend most
of your time discussing the qualifiers, limitations, uncertainties of
the remainder, and fully documenting who said what and contributed the
other, you're not going to have a column much longer. Few will wade
through that for the tiny bit of meat present.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Perplexed in Peoria
"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message news:12hfujp...@corp.supernews.com...
> As Paul described, it's also something of a requirement that to write
> for the general audience, you have to do things that your professional
> peers will find arrogant/conceited/unprofessional/... If you spend most
> of your time discussing the qualifiers, limitations, uncertainties of
> the remainder, and fully documenting who said what and contributed the
> other, you're not going to have a column much longer. Few will wade
> through that for the tiny bit of meat present.
Yes. The "qualifiers, limitations, uncertainties" get in the way of
the exposition of the story. But they are exactly the thing that give
the story its credibility. Even the better literary storytellers
recognize this, though, admittedly, the best selling popular storytellers
do not.
Robert Grumbine
Yet you ignored a qualifier that was present in what you responded
to. Why is it you want qualifiers present?
You can, in practice, spend relatively little of your time on the
uncertainties unless the purpose of your article is simply to talk
about uncertainties (and your readers agree). There's a difference
between most, relatively little, and none.
Your knee-jerk response, though, itself illustrates part of the point.
Larry Moran
Please explain.
Did I say that religion is responsible for all killing?
What I said was there's a big difference between those who are passionate
about Linux and those who are passionate about the evils of religion. People
who put religion opponents in the same category as Linux proponents are
stupid.
Larry Moran
Larry Moran
> wrote in message news:slrnehe2n2....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
[snip]
>> Personally, I have a fondness for intelligent people who hold opinions
>> that are different than mine and are willing to defend them. Those
>> are the ones I can learn from.
>
> And that last happened ... when?
Yesterday. Why do you ask?
Larry Moran
Perplexed in Peoria
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:slrnehg3os....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
You didn't say that? That is amazing. I didn't know that!
Larry, your stupidity is manifested in the fact that you habitually
use cheap debating tricks that even some creationists would be ashamed
to try in public. And you don't even realize you are doing it.
Among those tricks are:
1. Distorting the opponent's statements to make them look absurd.
2. Gross exaggerations. For example, your argument that zeal in
attacking religion can't be wrong if zeal in attacking Hitler is
right.
3. Frequent resort to false reductio-ad-absurdum analogies, as
in your frequent invocations of Santa Claus and the FSM.
4. Sarcasm, usually when no sarcasm is called for.
5. Out of context quotation.
Grow up, Larry. Write some more textbooks or something.
> What I said was there's a big difference between those who are passionate
> about Linux and those who are passionate about the evils of religion.
And what I said is that they are both annoying, when evangelical. And I
implied that they are annoying for similar reasons.
> People
> who put religion opponents in the same category as Linux proponents are
> stupid.
Well, that is true. I have rarely seen a Linux bigot compare Bill Gates
to Hitler.
Zachriel
I may have misunderstood your original statement. (You might have tried
to correct my misinterpretation rather than being "snippy".)
Nevertheless,
The original claim concerned merely annoying behavior when people who
hold strong beliefs will seek out confrontation, whether over Linux or
atheism. You brought up the extreme case of people killing people. I
may have wrongly assumed you were asserting that religious beliefs were
uniquely responsible for such extreme behavior, when clearly, the
twentieth century is replete with examples of radical anti-religious
behavior.
And as far as operating systems, I have seen some seriously damaged
computer monitors due to OS-rage.
;-)
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Zachriel
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:slrnehg3os....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
<snip>
>
> > People
> > who put religion opponents in the same category as Linux proponents are
> > stupid.
>
> Well, that is true. I have rarely seen a Linux bigot compare Bill Gates
> to Hitler.
Um.
http://www.geeknewz.com/imagedb/displayimage.php?album=topn&cat=0&pos=11
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Perplexed in Peoria
"Zachriel" <ange...@zachriel.com> wrote in message news:1159212207.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Whoops!
It *is* a cute picture. I'm glad they didn't spoil it with a fake
moustache.
Bob Casanova
>On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:26:50 -0400, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:19:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran):
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
>>>evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
>>>a religion or a belief.
>>
>> Sorry, but I have to disagree. One only need read some of
>> the posts here on t.o to see examples of evangelical
>> antireligious behavior (for example, see most of the posts
>> by snex arguing that religion must follow the rules of
>> scientific research), as defined in def 6 (from the AHD)
>> below. Using this definition *any* zealotry can be classed
>> as evangelical behavior.
>
>You are confused about definitions.
I don't think so, but see below.
> You can be opposed to belief in
>the tooth fairly but that doesn't turn you into an evangelical
>a-toothfairyist.
No, it doesn't *necessarily* turn you into one, which
doesn't mean you can't be one.
Please explain how the definition...
"6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm;
zealous: an evangelical liberal"
....doesn't fit some of the fanatically antireligious posts
seen fairly regularly here.
It seems the dictionary must also be confused about
definitions.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "pzm...@gmail.com"
<pzm...@gmail.com>:
>
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:19:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran):
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
>> >evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
>> >a religion or a belief.
>>
>> Sorry, but I have to disagree. One only need read some of
>> the posts here on t.o to see examples of evangelical
>> antireligious behavior (for example, see most of the posts
>> by snex arguing that religion must follow the rules of
>> scientific research), as defined in def 6 (from the AHD)
>> below. Using this definition *any* zealotry can be classed
>> as evangelical behavior.
>
>It is kind of a dirty trick, though. Use a sufficiently loose
>definition of anything to fit any individual, and apply it to a person
>you don't like with the implication that he is exhibiting the traits of
>an objectionable subset. You could, for instance, look up Republican in
>the Oxford American Dictionary, find one definition -- "a person
>advocating or supporting republican government" -- and then accuse me
>of being a Republican at the next meeting of the Minnesota DFL caucus
>or at our nightly Bush-effigy-burning, and be literally correct, but
>completely wrong in the sense that my fellow Democrats would interpret
>it.
Perhaps you're correct, but both the AHD and I seem to agree
that "evangelical" doesn't necessarily apply only to
religion, and I'd assume that whether it does or not should
be obvious from context. FWIW, I've always tended to equate
"zealous" and "evangelical", with evangelical denoting a
greater tendency toward preachiness (another word which
doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion) and
zealous denoting a greater tendency toward action. None of
those I've had discussions with over the past 40 or so years
in which the terms came up seemed to misunderstand my
meaning.
Mark Isaak
But then devoting considerable time and energy trying to get others to
agree with your views about the lack of a tooth fairy does turn you
into an evangelical a-toothfairyist.
At least that (the campaigning, not the tooth-fairy nonbelief), to me, is
the essence of evangelism.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Larry Moran
[snip]
> Larry, your stupidity is manifested in the fact that you habitually
> use cheap debating tricks that even some creationists would be ashamed
> to try in public. And you don't even realize you are doing it.
>
> Among those tricks are:
> 1. Distorting the opponent's statements to make them look absurd.
I try not to distort my opponent's statements. They're often absurd
enough without my having to change them.
> 2. Gross exaggerations. For example, your argument that zeal in
> attacking religion can't be wrong if zeal in attacking Hitler is
> right.
I never said that. You are distorting my words. That's a cheap debating
trick.
> 3. Frequent resort to false reductio-ad-absurdum analogies, as
> in your frequent invocations of Santa Claus and the FSM.
All my reductio-ad-adsurdums are perfectly valid ways of exposing the
false logic of some arguments. If the same argument about God can be
used equally for Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster then I'll
point that out. It helps us to recognize the stupidity of some religious
arguments.
The problem is that some people don't like to hear that their favorite
argument in support of religion can also be applied to silly things like
the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They are insulted when they should be
embarrassed.
> 4. Sarcasm, usually when no sarcasm is called for.
Perhaps. I like sarcasm.
> 5. Out of context quotation.
I don't do that on purpose. If I've done it in error then I apologize.
> Grow up, Larry. Write some more textbooks or something.
Hmmm ... I think we're touching a nerve here.
>> What I said was there's a big difference between those who are passionate
>> about Linux and those who are passionate about the evils of religion.
>
> And what I said is that they are both annoying, when evangelical. And I
> implied that they are annoying for similar reasons.
And I stated flat out that it's stupid to equate the two.
Larry Moran
Perplexed in Peoria
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:pan.2006.09.25....@earthlink.net...
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:36:44 +0000, Larry Moran wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:26:50 -0400, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:19:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
> >> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran):
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
> >>>evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
> >>>a religion or a belief.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I have to disagree. One only need read some of
> >> the posts here on t.o to see examples of evangelical
> >> antireligious behavior (for example, see most of the posts
> >> by snex arguing that religion must follow the rules of
> >> scientific research), as defined in def 6 (from the AHD)
> >> below. Using this definition *any* zealotry can be classed
> >> as evangelical behavior.
> >
> > You are confused about definitions. You can be opposed to belief in
> > the tooth fairly but that doesn't turn you into an evangelical
> > a-toothfairyist.
>
> But then devoting considerable time and energy trying to get others to
> agree with your views about the lack of a tooth fairy does turn you
> into an evangelical a-toothfairyist.
>
> At least that (the campaigning, not the tooth-fairy nonbelief), to me, is
> the essence of evangelism.
Amen, brother!
Perplexed in Peoria
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:slrnehgbr5...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:12:45 GMT,
> Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Larry, your stupidity is manifested in the fact that you habitually
> > use cheap debating tricks that even some creationists would be ashamed
> > to try in public. And you don't even realize you are doing it.
> >
> > Among those tricks are:
> > 1. Distorting the opponent's statements to make them look absurd.
>
> I try not to distort my opponent's statements. They're often absurd
> enough without my having to change them.
Well, see the last part of this exchange. The key word is "equating".
> > 2. Gross exaggerations. For example, your argument that zeal in
> > attacking religion can't be wrong if zeal in attacking Hitler is
> > right.
>
> I never said that. You are distorting my words. That's a cheap debating
> trick.
Well, lets look at it.
--------
> > > Moran:
> > > Dawkins is merely applying to religious superstition the
> > > same skeptical process one uses in science every day. I can
> > > understand why religious people don't want religion to be
> > > examined too closely but don't try
> > > and avoid the issue by criticizing the messenger.
> > Noelie:
> > Ah, but I find strident advocacy on any topic equally annoying,
> > independent of whether I agree with the base concept or not.
> Moran:
> Really? I find that strange. How do you think we should have
> opposed Hilter? By speaking quietly and not trying to insult him
> or his followers?
--------
So, we will let the lurker's decide who is distorting words.
> > 3. Frequent resort to false reductio-ad-absurdum analogies, as
> > in your frequent invocations of Santa Claus and the FSM.
>
> All my reductio-ad-adsurdums are perfectly valid ways of exposing the
> false logic of some arguments. If the same argument about God can be
> used equally for Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster then I'll
> point that out. It helps us to recognize the stupidity of some religious
> arguments.
>
> The problem is that some people don't like to hear that their favorite
> argument in support of religion can also be applied to silly things like
> the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They are insulted when they should be
> embarrassed.
Your argument is valid, but I don't see that it applies to the cases
in which you actually invoke the FSM. It seems to me that the FSM
usually makes an appearance in the following context:
Larry: God doesn't exist because of X.
Opponent: But that is a bad argument because of Y.
Larry: But the Y argument not only defends God, it also defends the FSM!
That is, I am noticing that X really is a bad argument (because of Y)
against either God or the FSM. But you seem to suggest that anyone
using argument Y has to also believe in FSMs and Santa Claus and Loki
and all sorts of other nonsense. There may be other arguments against
the FSM that don't apply to God.
> > 4. Sarcasm, usually when no sarcasm is called for.
>
> Perhaps. I like sarcasm.
>
> > 5. Out of context quotation.
>
> I don't do that on purpose. If I've done it in error then I apologize.
>
> > Grow up, Larry. Write some more textbooks or something.
>
> Hmmm ... I think we're touching a nerve here.
What I meant to suggest is that your science writing is good, clear,
and persuasive. Your forays into philosophical disputation could
use some of the same benevolence, clarity, and straight-out logic.
> >> What I said was there's a big difference between those who are passionate
> >> about Linux and those who are passionate about the evils of religion.
> >
> > And what I said is that they are both annoying, when evangelical. And I
> > implied that they are annoying for similar reasons.
>
> And I stated flat out that it's stupid to equate the two.
So who is equating them? An analogy is being drawn for purposes of
illustration and exploration of logic. Quite similar in a way to what
you claim as the virtues of FSM references.
Zachriel
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mcWRg.4538$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Try
http://www.zachriel.com/images/BillGatesBorg.gif
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Noone Inparticular
/de-lurk
Well, since you asked, to this lurker it seems to me that you have
distorted Dr Moran meaning, if not his words. Directly after the
paragraph you cite above, Dr. Moran writes;
"Of course not. What you really mean to say is that you only oppose
strident advocacy on certain topics. Now all we need to do is find out
which ones and why."
He was obviously making a point. I suppose it could be argued that his
words are literally a "gross exaggeration", but I hardly think his
point is.
YMMV, of course.
/re-lurk
Robert Carnegie
> "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:mcWRg.4538$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Zachriel" <ange...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
> > news:1159212207.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> >> > "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:slrnehg3os....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> > > People
> >> > > who put religion opponents in the same category as Linux proponents
> >> > > are
> >> > > stupid.
> >> >
> >> > Well, that is true. I have rarely seen a Linux bigot compare Bill Gates
> >> > to Hitler.
> >>
> >>
> >> Um.
> >>
> >> http://www.geeknewz.com/imagedb/displayimage.php?album=topn&cat=0&pos=11
> >>
> >
> > Whoops!
> >
> > It *is* a cute picture. I'm glad they didn't spoil it with a fake
> > moustache.
> >
>
>
> Try
> http://www.zachriel.com/images/BillGatesBorg.gif
Assimilate, extend, extinguish?
Can we see one - by someone else - where he is portrayed or described
as Dracula?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Noone Inparticular" <unre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159224601.8...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:slrnehgbr5...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:12:45 GMT,
> > > Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > Larry, your stupidity is manifested in the fact that you habitually
> > > > use cheap debating tricks that even some creationists would be ashamed
> > > > to try in public. And you don't even realize you are doing it.
> > > >
> > > > Among those tricks are:
> > > > 2. Gross exaggerations. For example, your argument that zeal in
> > > > attacking religion can't be wrong if zeal in attacking Hitler is
> > > > right.
> > >
> > > I never said that. You are distorting my words. That's a cheap debating
> > > trick.
> >
> > Well, lets look at it.
> > --------
> >
> > > > > Moran:
> > > > > Dawkins is merely applying to religious superstition the
> > > > > same skeptical process one uses in science every day. I can
> > > > > understand why religious people don't want religion to be
> > > > > examined too closely but don't try
> > > > > and avoid the issue by criticizing the messenger.
> >
> > > > Noelie:
> > > > Ah, but I find strident advocacy on any topic equally annoying,
> > > > independent of whether I agree with the base concept or not.
> >
> > > Moran:
> > > Really? I find that strange. How do you think we should have
> > > opposed Hilter? By speaking quietly and not trying to insult him
> > > or his followers?
> >
> >
> > --------
> >
>
> /de-lurk
>
> Well, since you asked, to this lurker it seems to me that you have
> distorted Dr Moran meaning, if not his words. Directly after the
> paragraph you cite above, Dr. Moran writes;
>
> "Of course not. What you really mean to say is that you only oppose
> strident advocacy on certain topics. Now all we need to do is find out
> which ones and why."
>
> He was obviously making a point. I suppose it could be argued that his
> words are literally a "gross exaggeration", but I hardly think his
> point is.
>
> YMMV, of course.
>
Hmmm. What constitutes a quorum of lurkers? Well, one is enough,
I guess, if he makes a good point. And besides, I now notice that
Larry was talking about "Hilter", not "Hitler".
Larry, on this point I apologize. I saw red when you mentioned Nazis,
and didn't stop to analyze whether this was a context where the
reference might be appropriate. With the missing paragraph that
Noone Inparticular has supplied, I now see that your use of this
example was quite valid. My bad.
Geoff
news:1hm6d06.6v807d1u4htynN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
> Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Henry Flam wrote:
>>
>> > Is there any book or
>> > article which could help me begin to understand the debate and why it
>> > got so bitter?
>>
>> I haven't read it, but "Dawkins vs. Gould : Survival of the Fittest" by
>> Kim Sterelny might help.
>
> Kim's book is very one-sided. I'm not saying it's bad, but he's a friend
> and supporter of Dawkins.
>
> I think the reason it got bitter is because of the 1% of things on which
> they disagree, overall, those things are most closely what they
> respectively identified as their unique defining views.
>
> In other words, one is the Judean People's Front, while the other is the
> People's Front of Judea.
Who is the Judean Popular People's Front?
Splitters!
Geoff
news:0oadnbp_1MT4hIrY...@comcast.com...
> Perhaps he is excercising his frustration that people still insist on
> accepting things so strongly, without demanding any evidence, that leads
> his fervor?
>
> Sam Harris:
>
> "The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million
> Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never *doubt the existence
> of God* should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and,
> indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent
> human beings we witness in the world each day."
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
>
> I think Dawkins has a right to his fervor.
Indeed. But he runs the risk of pissing people off...such as PinP.
Geoff
news:wipRg.4055$vJ2....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> But atheism imposes no such duty on its believers. Nor does it
> promise salvation. Converting someone to atheism gains no transcendental
> good karma for either party.
I think Dawkins point is that there is a more immediate benefit.
Matt Silberstein
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) in
<slrnehdc0n....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>
>It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
>evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
>a religion or a belief.
Nonsense. Evangelical means an enthusiastic attempt to spread an idea.
Apple Computers rather famously had evangelists. There are plenty of
evangelical, even fundamentalist, atheists who work hard to spread
their view that there is no g(G)od(s).
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Larry Moran
Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:36:44 +0000, Larry Moran wrote:
[snip]
>> You are confused about definitions. You can be opposed to belief in
>> the tooth fairly but that doesn't turn you into an evangelical
>> a-toothfairyist.
>
> But then devoting considerable time and energy trying to get others to
> agree with your views about the lack of a tooth fairy does turn you
> into an evangelical a-toothfairyist.
I tend to think of evangelicals as people who promote a particular belief
or point of view as opposed to people who argue *against* something. The
evangelical belief is Protestant Christian.
I'm happy with being called anti-religion or even passionately anti-religion
but the "evangelical" label carries the connotation that lack of belief in
Gods is a form of religion and I reject that notion. "Evangelical" is a
loaded word and I suspect you know that.
> At least that (the campaigning, not the tooth-fairy nonbelief), to me, is
> the essence of evangelism.
I'm sure you're aware of the fact that most dictionaries define "evangelical"
as follows (from the Oxford English dictionary) ...
A. adj.
1. Of or pertaining to the Gospel.
a. Of or pertaining to the Gospel narrative, or to the Four
Gospels; contained or mentioned in the Gospels.
b. Of or pertaining to, or in accordance with, the faith or
precepts of the Gospel, or the Christian religion; pertaining
to, or characteristic of, the Gospel dispensation.
c. evangelical prophet
d. Of a person: Imbued with the spirit of the Gospel. rare.
2. Since the Reformation adopted as the designation of certain theological
parties, who have claimed that the doctrines on which they lay especial
stress constitute `the Gospel'. This claim is of course disallowed
by their adversaries, but (as in the case of other self-assumed party
names) the designation has received the sanction of general usage.
a. = Protestant. Now only with reference to Germany and Switzerland,
where its German and French equivalents are also applied in narrower
sense to the Lutheran as distinguished from the `Reformed' or
Calvinistic Church. In the German Empire `The Evangelical Church'
was the official name of the established Protestant Church of Prussia,
formed in 1817 by the union of the Lutheran and Reformed churches.
b. From 18th c. applied to that school of Protestants which maintains
that the essence of `the Gospel' consists in the doctrine of salvation
by faith in the atoning death of Christ, and denies that either good
works or the sacraments have any saving efficacy.
3. Of or pertaining to an evangelist, or preacher of the Gospel. rare.
B. sb.
1. A Protestant; esp. a German Lutheran, or an adherent of the national
church of the German Empire. See A. 2 a.
2. A member of the Evangelical party, esp. in the Church of England.
Cf. A. 2 b
Larry Moran
Matt Silberstein
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) in
<slrnehe23s....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:26:50 -0400, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:19:35 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by
>> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran):
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
>>>evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
>>>a religion or a belief.
>>
>> Sorry, but I have to disagree. One only need read some of
>> the posts here on t.o to see examples of evangelical
>> antireligious behavior (for example, see most of the posts
>> by snex arguing that religion must follow the rules of
>> scientific research), as defined in def 6 (from the AHD)
>> below. Using this definition *any* zealotry can be classed
>> as evangelical behavior.
>
>You are confused about definitions. You can be opposed to belief in
>the tooth fairly but that doesn't turn you into an evangelical
>a-toothfairyist.
True. But when you spend lots of effort to convince people that the
tooth fairy does not exist then you become an evangelical
a-toothfairyist. It is not the position that makes one an evangelical,
it is the action.
Larry Moran
Apology accepted. On this point you were mistaken. Let's forget about it.
Do you stand by the rest of your assertion? Here's what you said ....
"Larry, your stupidity is manifested in the fact that you
habitually use cheap debating tricks that even some creationists
would be ashamed to try in public. And you don't even realize
you are doing it."
Larry Moran
Larry Moran
> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrnehgbr5...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:12:45 GMT,
>> Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Larry, your stupidity is manifested in the fact that you habitually
>> > use cheap debating tricks that even some creationists would be ashamed
>> > to try in public. And you don't even realize you are doing it.
[snip]
>> > 3. Frequent resort to false reductio-ad-absurdum analogies, as
>> > in your frequent invocations of Santa Claus and the FSM.
>>
>> All my reductio-ad-adsurdums are perfectly valid ways of exposing the
>> false logic of some arguments. If the same argument about God can be
>> used equally for Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster then I'll
>> point that out. It helps us to recognize the stupidity of some religious
>> arguments.
>>
>> The problem is that some people don't like to hear that their favorite
>> argument in support of religion can also be applied to silly things like
>> the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They are insulted when they should be
>> embarrassed.
>
> Your argument is valid, but I don't see that it applies to the cases
> in which you actually invoke the FSM. It seems to me that the FSM
> usually makes an appearance in the following context:
>
> Larry: God doesn't exist because of X.
> Opponent: But that is a bad argument because of Y.
> Larry: But the Y argument not only defends God, it also defends the FSM!
I have never, ever, claimed to have proof of the non-existence of God. In fact,
I have been quite clear about the fact that nobody can ever prove a negative.
So, when you put the following words in my mouth, "God doesn't exist because
of X" I interpret that as a dishonest trick on your part. This seems quite
ironic since your goal here is to convince everyone else that *I* am dishonest
(and stupid).
> That is, I am noticing that X really is a bad argument (because of Y)
> against either God or the FSM. But you seem to suggest that anyone
> using argument Y has to also believe in FSMs and Santa Claus and Loki
> and all sorts of other nonsense. There may be other arguments against
> the FSM that don't apply to God.
I can't make any sense out of what you're saying. It seems to rely on a
false premise about argument X.
>> > 4. Sarcasm, usually when no sarcasm is called for.
>>
>> Perhaps. I like sarcasm.
>>
>> > 5. Out of context quotation.
>>
>> I don't do that on purpose. If I've done it in error then I apologize.
>>
>> > Grow up, Larry. Write some more textbooks or something.
>>
>> Hmmm ... I think we're touching a nerve here.
>
> What I meant to suggest is that your science writing is good, clear,
> and persuasive. Your forays into philosophical disputation could
> use some of the same benevolence, clarity, and straight-out logic.
I'm doing my best on a difficult topic. If you believe my logic is
flawed then you're more than welcome to refute it. So far, you seem to
prefer insulting me rather than disputing the logic of my argument.
Larry Moran
Zachriel
Larry Moran wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:59:33 GMT,
> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:36:44 +0000, Larry Moran wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> You are confused about definitions. You can be opposed to belief in
> >> the tooth fairly but that doesn't turn you into an evangelical
> >> a-toothfairyist.
> >
> > But then devoting considerable time and energy trying to get others to
> > agree with your views about the lack of a tooth fairy does turn you
> > into an evangelical a-toothfairyist.
>
> I tend to think of evangelicals as people who promote a particular belief
> or point of view as opposed to people who argue *against* something. The
> evangelical belief is Protestant Christian.
>
> I'm happy with being called anti-religion or even passionately anti-religion
> but the "evangelical" label carries the connotation that lack of belief in
Atheism can have aspects of a belief-system, e.g., that religion is
necessarily at the root of social evils. As an extreme case, communists
saw religion as one of the ancient institutions that stood in the way
of the mythical future they had embraced. As such, it represented an
important component of the communist belief-system - the enemy that
must be destroyed. Atheism, i.e. radical anti-religiosity, can be an
irrational belief-system. (We should distinguish rational arguments
about any deleterious effect of religous institutions with irrational
beliefs, such as, in the extreme, communists who have adopted a utopian
vision.)
> ... "Evangelical" is a
> loaded word and I suspect you know that.
Evangelical, marked by militant or crusading zeal
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evangelical
I understand that you see "evangelical" as a loaded term, but it does
seem to apply in some instances. Anytime people aggresively seek to
spread their message, it is often referred to as "evangelism" by
analogy with the early itinerate Christian preachers.
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Zachriel
I am not suggesting that the appellation "evangelical" should be
applied to yourself.
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Perplexed in Peoria
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:slrnehi6dm....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
Well, strike the 'stupidity' part - that was a cheap debating trick on
my part (which made some sense in context but whose context is not worth
recreating). And strike the comparison to creationists - another cheap
trick on my part.
However, I still am of the opinion that your writings in this group
regarding the epistemics of religious belief are too often flawed
by unsound rhetorical practices. We can continue to discuss this, or
not. Your choice.
However, since I saw you as unreasonable and unsound on the Nazi thing,
and I was wrong on that instance, maybe I am also wrong in my perceptions
of other instances. Perhaps the best approach would be to disengage.
Next time I imagine that I perceive a "cheap trick", I will reread
carefully before complaining. And I will complain only if the relative
frequency of 'tricks' to sound logic seems particularly high in a
particular thread. Fair enough?
Nic
Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <1159106902.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Nic
> <harris...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >I only vaguely detect polarisation on this issue in this newsgroup.
> >Would it be correct to describe Dawkins as representing the
> >conservative pole?
> >
> To answer this question requires us to know what you mean by
> conservative, but the answer is not obviously in the affirmative.
>
> Scientifically, Dawkins is best known as a spokesman for the view that
> in many cases evolutionary processes are more easily understood as the
> differential replication of genes (he uses the older, pre-molecular
> biology, concept of a gene as a unit of inheritance), rather than the
> differential reproductive success of individuals, and for the
> introduction of the metaphor of the meme. Some people who have that the
> former, which is not original to Dawkins, but goes back to the work of
> Hamilton on kin selection (at least) is radical. (I'm not sure whether
> the extension of the concept of the phenotype beyond the bounds of the
> individual, as in "The Extended Phenotype" is original with Dawkins.)
>
> Gould is best known for "Punctuated Equilibrium", which in its weak form
> (that morphological change in evolution is episodic) is an even older
> idea, going back to Darwin, and championed by Mayr.
You see, Id have said "... and haunting of Mayr". That episodicity is
still around. Maybe now it is more in perspective. Still, is it not
surprising that fossils resolve themselves in to species *at all* if
gradualism were true?
> Regardless of how
> far Gould pushed the concept (and his views appear to me to have varied
> over time), he deserves credit from bringing the implications of the
> concept on the fossil record to attention.
>
> Gould and Dawkins come from different research traditions; Gould from an
> observationalist, natural history tradition, and Dawkins from an
> experimentalist (population genetics, ethology) tradition.
>
> Labelling one as conservative and the other as radical doesn't seem a
> meaningful categorisation; they're different but the differences don't
> appear to be aligned with that axis.
>
> Politically both Dawkins and Gould are on the left (Gould is widely
> described as a Marxist; I don't know whether this is accurate or
> polemical or both. Dawkins was described earlier on talk.origins as "
> "so liberal it hurts". I haven't taken the time to inform myself of
> their political positions - their scientific work stands on its own
> merits - but the impression I have is that if you want a simplistic
> description of the differences Gould is "Old Left" and Dawkins "New
> Left".
>
> In less relevant fields - culture, social values, religion - from what
> little I know of their respective views Gould appears to be the more
> conservative.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Perplexed in Peoria
"Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message news:wN-dnVBxTulsfoXY...@comcast.com...
Oh, I'm not 'pissed off' by Dawkins's fervor. I just consider it
to be in bad taste. Impolite. Not done in the best circles.
Harris is something else. Am I reading him right? "The atheist ...
believes that [theists] should be obliged to present evidence ...".
Many religions impose obligations upon their adherents. (Jewish
dietary rules, etc.) But Harris seems to be saying that if you
are an atheist, you thereby impose obligations on others. Cool!
snex
why do you think people should be allowed to make claims about the
nature of life and not be questioned or challenged on it? if you dont
want to do the questioning or challenging - fine, nobody is forcing
you. but why complain when others pick up your slack?
Larry Moran
> news:wN-dnVBxTulsfoXY...@comcast.com...
>> "Pithecanthropus Erectus" <tui...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:0oadnbp_1MT4hIrY...@comcast.com...
[snip]
>> > I think Dawkins has a right to his fervor.
>>
>> Indeed. But he runs the risk of pissing people off...such as PinP.
>
> Oh, I'm not 'pissed off' by Dawkins's fervor. I just consider it
> to be in bad taste. Impolite. Not done in the best circles.
This is the attitude that Dawkins is fighting.
We criticize the foolishness of people who believe in UFO's, communicating
with the dead, fake moon landings, Young Earth Creationism, etc. Why should
standard religions get a free pass?
Why is it in bad taste to question someone who thinks the Apollo moon
landings took place in a large hanger but not someone who thinks a visit to
Lourdes will cure cancer?
You are contributing to the problem when you try to protect religion from
critical analysis by calling all criticism "impolite" and "not done in the
best of circles."
Larry Moran
Ernest Major
<harris...@hotmail.com> writes
Gradualism, is the sense of a smooth morphological gradient over time,
unlocalised in space, is, in my opinion, a strawman. I'd be surprised to
find many workers in the field that subscribed to it.
Even if it were true, for many groups of organisms, the fossil record is
so poor that even if gradualism in that sense was true, the gaps between
finds are so great as to give the appearance of separation by
interspecific (or even intergeneric) gaps. Even when the record contains
more than one or two finds of a taxon the record is non-uniformly
distributed - some times and localities, for a variety of reasons, are
more fossiliferous than others.
Where the record is better the non-arbitrary resolution of fossils into
species is, as I understand the matter, not always so clear.
The non-strawman version of gradualism is that evolution proceeds by
small steps - the competing hypothesis is not punctuationism, but
saltationism.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Geoff"
<geb...@yahoo.nospam.com>:
The sworn enemies of the Judean Front for Popular People, of
course.
>Splitters!
....of hairshirts.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Atheism can have aspects of a belief-system, e.g., that religion is
> necessarily at the root of social evils.
Two separate concepts. Atheism simply indicates the absence of religion.
It is quite compatible with either the belief that another person's
religion is a harmless hobby or the root of all social evils.
KWW
Zachriel
"Kevin Wayne Williams" <kww.n...@verizon.nut> wrote in message
news:12hjt9k...@news.supernews.com...
Atheism *can* have aspects of a belief-system. It doesn't necessarily have
those aspects, which was clear from the context.
atheism, 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that
there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism
disbelief, mental rejection of something as untrue.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/disbelief
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
>
> KWW
>
Matt Silberstein
<pzm...@gmail.com> in
<1159126986.7...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
>The student who's evaluation commented on my appearance got a good
>ha-ha from the review committee, but they gave me tenure anyway.
Had they not met you in person?
Glenn
Larry Moran wrote:
>
> It's not possible to be an evangelical atheist. That's like being an
> evangelical opponent of the tooth fairy or astrology. Atheism is not
> a religion or a belief.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Strong or positive atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. It is
a form of explicit atheism. A strong atheist consciously rejects theism
and may even argue that certain deities logically cannot exist."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
"A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials
violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a
religion."
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to
start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief
in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said."
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm
They take donations.
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
"Chapman Cohen, the third president of the National Secular Society,
Britain's largest Atheist organization, was a noted orator and writer
on behalf of the Atheist cause."
What one thing is required when one has a cause, Larry. You can find it
all above, religion, faith, belief and evangelism.
Matt Silberstein
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) in
<slrnehe36u....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:55:30 GMT,
>Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>><pzm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1159127722....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>>> Is Maynard Smith's comment about Gould that he was "a man whose ideas
>>> are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with" an example of
>>> arrogance?
>>
>> I wasn't aware of that particular quote. Thank you. It appears that
>> Maynard Smith was inspired by Medawar's famous assessment of de Chardin.
>>
>> But no. It is not an example of arrogance, per se. Now if he had
>> followed that by saying "My ideas, on the other hand, ..." ...
>
>Here's the full quote ...
>
> "Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be
> seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist.
> In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have
> discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so
> confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who
> should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our
> side against the creationists."
>
>I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to claim that John Maynard Smith
>was a humble man.
John Maynard Smith is a humble ma ...
John Maynard Smith is a humble ma ...
John Maynard Smith is a humble ...
Larry, I tried, but I just can't do it.
John Wilkins
John Maynard Smith, from my brief encounter, was an unassuming,
generous, and constructive man. Is that humility? I don't know...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Matt Silberstein
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) in
<1hmoi80.1fp9717pba71uN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
Well, of course he was humble in your presence. We all are.
r norman
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Google "John Maynard Smith arrogant" and you get over 50,000 hits. Of
course, many of them don't refer to John, himself, as the arrogant
one.
Google "Stephen Gould arrogant" and you get over 100,000 hits of which
a far higher percentage do seem to refer to Stephen, himself. And
Stephen verifies that he is, indeed, "the most arrogant of literati"
on page 47 of his brick.
John Wilkins
Matt Silberstein
<r_s_norman@_comcast.net> in
<kjj7i2t9bpvpckk2k...@4ax.com> wrote:
"John Maynard Smith humble" produces 1,120,000 hits.
>Google "Stephen Gould arrogant" and you get over 100,000 hits of which
>a far higher percentage do seem to refer to Stephen, himself. And
>Stephen verifies that he is, indeed, "the most arrogant of literati"
>on page 47 of his brick.
>
I like the idea of argument by google hit count. We should not try to
read the pages, just count the hits.
"John Maynard Smith humble" produces 1,120,000 hits.
"John Maynard Smith arrogant" produces 50,000 hits.
JMS has a humble to arrogant rating of approx 22.
"Stephen Gould humble" produces 250,000 hits.
"Stephen Gould arrogant" produces over 100,000 hits.
SJG rating is only 2.5.
Clearly JMS is almost 10 times as humble to arrogant as SJG.
John Wilkins
You have too much free time. Tell Cathy to give you some work to do
around the apartment.
r norman
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
No, we certainly must not actually read the hits!
Especially not when the first one for "Stephen Gould humble" produces
the following:
As almost everyone knows, Steve was not a modest person. ... Steve
knew he was arrogant, but he also believed that he was humble where it
mattered, in the world of ideas. He once wrote that "the most
important lesson that every decent scholar must learn sooner or later"
was humility. He then added, giving a hint of the internal complexity
of this remarkable man: "Some who know me might deny that I have ever
encountered such a notion, but external appearance and internal
conviction do not always match, and only the latter is a constant
companion"
Yes, he did manage to keep his humility under control so that was not
noticeable whatsoever. That is true humility, indeed!