Discuss

[Keith Wilson]

Just to stir the pot a little, some interesting questions from Richard Dawkins' website. I think he tends to say just 'truth' when he means 'truth about the physical world', but it's interesting nonetheless. Humility isn't his strong point. (Source here.)

“We humans are the only animals capable of knowing why we exist, where we exist, what we are made of and how we are assembled. We are the only animals capable of revelling in the joy that such knowledge can bring.” Discuss.

“There is a real world out there, and the only way to learn about it is objective evidence gathered by the scientific method.” Discuss.

“There is no such thing as your truth as distinct from my truth. “There is just the truth, and that means evidence-based scientific truth.” Discuss.

“Truth is not obtained by tradition, authority, holy books, faith or revelation. Truth is obtained by evidence and only evidence.” Discuss.

“Truth is not obtained by private feelings but by publicly testable evidence.” Discuss.

“Some teachers of ‘Women’s Studies’ have suggested that ‘women do not engage in abstract linear reasoning, that they do not treat ideas with scepticism or evaluate them through rigorous debate, that they do not argue from general moral principles’. This, as Steven Pinker has said, is an insult to women.” Discuss.

What the hell is postmodernism? Have you ever met a self-styled postmodernist who could give you a coherent answer? Discuss.

What is a woman? Discuss.

If you are an adult human being with a penis and a Y-chromosome, you are a man. Discuss.

What is cultural relativism? Discuss.

Experimental intervention is the only way to advance from correlation to causation. Discuss.

The double blind control trial is the only completely secure guard against self-deception in science. Discuss.

There once existed a single individual female who was the most recent ancestor shared by you and a baboon. That one individual female had two individual children, one of whom is your ancestor, the other is the baboon’s ancestor. Discuss.

If we look sufficiently far into the future of humanity, you will be either the ancestor of everybody or of nobody. There are no half measures. Discuss.

Every animal who ever lived belonged to the same species as its parents, yet you are descended from a fish. Discuss.

Genetics today is a branch of information technology. Genetics in Darwin’s time was a branch of cookery. Discuss.

Newton’s achievements seem more difficult than Darwin’s. Yet humanity had to wait nearly two centuries after Newton before Darwin came along. Discuss.

Language evolution is uncannily similar to biological evolution, yet the underlying mechanisms are very different. Discuss.

If there is extraterrestrial life, no matter how strange and alien it may be, there is one thing it will have in common with Earth life. It will be Darwinian. Discuss.

If there is extraterrestrial life, no matter how strange and alien it may be, there is one thing it will have in common with Earth life. It will have digital genetics. Discuss.

Science is the zenith of human achievement, the jewel in humanity’s crown. Discuss.

Richard Dawkins

[LeeG]

Re: Discuss

pick just one please

[CWSmith]

Re: Discuss

For Dawkins there is only the physical world. His methods cannot address anything else, so he decides nothing else exists. I would not call him a whole human being. In fact, the phrase "egocentric" comes to mind.

[TomF]

Re: Discuss

Well. Humility isn't an aspirational goal, it seems.

As to the truth is only known through evidence, perhaps. It can of course be *preserved* in traditions and practices. And if sufficient generations go by, and the original evidence forgotten, does that make the truth preserved in those traditions and practices less true?

[Paul Pless]

Re: Discuss

We humans are the only animals capable of knowing why we exist, where we exist, what we are made of and how we are assembled. We are the only animals capable of revelling in the joy that such knowledge can bring.

seriously? dawkins has answered the 'why we exist' question?

[TomF]

Re: Discuss

I'm not sure at all that humans are the sole species capable of consciousness, self awareness, reflection. That's a reach beyond the evidence.

What we do know is that if other species do possess such, they don't express the notions to us in a manner we understand.

Some very interesting stuff being done with dogs, using the language tools (buttons to press which play a recorded word) used to work with people with communication difficulties. I follow one such person working with her two dogs on Instagram.

The dogs communicate with her with well over 100 words now, and with each other. Discussing feelings, daily activities, anxiety, even dreams. Now expanded to use verb tenses.

Ordinary pet dogs. Are we certain that canines in the wild have no communication with others in their packs?

There are birds using the same kinds of communication tools - crows, e.g. are we sure crows don't have consciousness or communicate with each other?

Maybe our conclusions - which date to before Aristotle - are not built on the evidence we suspect .

[keith66]

Re: Discuss

The idea that we alone of all the species that ever lived are concious or sentient is the height of arrogance & ignorance. Whales, dolphins, dogs, birds, all & everything else that lives is alive, maybe not sentient or concious in the same way as us just different!

[lupussonic]

Re: Discuss

Could we pick just one to discuss?

Sheesh.

[lupussonic]

Re: Discuss

I'm not sure at all that humans are the sole species capable of consciousness, self awareness, reflection. That's a reach beyond the evidence.

Meta-cognition is very highly likely in other higher mammals though. It's arrogant to think we are the only ones.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Discuss

I'm not sure at all that humans are the sole species capable of consciousness, self awareness, reflection. That's a reach beyond the evidence..

I quite agree. I'd bet a lot that there are other species which can do that to one degree or another. But that's not really what he said.

“We humans are the only animals capable of knowing why we exist, where we exist, what we are made of and how we are assembled. We are the only animals capable of revelling in the joy that such knowledge can bring.” Discuss.

Also note that he said 'capable of knowing why we exist', not that we have figured it out. And I suspect he might have a different concept of what 'why we exist' means than, say, TomF does; more like 'how we got here, rather than 'why'

[Too Little Time]

Re: Discuss

Just to stir the pot a little, some interesting questions from Richard Dawkins' website. I think he tends to say just 'truth' when he means 'truth about the physical world', )

Truth is dependent on the observer.

The blue dress is blue to people who experience one type of lighting during their normal day. It turns gold to those who experience a different type of life during their normal day.

I often see a different physical world than those around me. There may be no truth.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Discuss

Truth is dependent on the observer.

I sure as hell don't want you working on my car, or fixing my air conditioning.

[LeeG]

Re: Discuss

Truth is dependent on the observer.

The blue dress is blue to people who experience one type of lighting during their normal day. It turns gold to those who experience a different type of life during their normal day.

I often see a different physical world than those around me. There may be no truth.

The truth and visual perception are not the same thing just as a dinghy and a freighter are not the same thing. It’s not complex.

[lupussonic]

Re: Discuss

Let's not do the truth thing again. We did this.

[epoxyboy]

Re: Discuss

“There is no such thing as your truth as distinct from my truth. “There is just the truth, and that means evidence-based scientific truth.” Discuss.

I present what I call "The liver paradox".
Liver is one of the most disgusting, gag inducing foods on the planet. This is my truth.

I think this is different from the blue vs gold dress perception argument, because there, the actual colour can be objectively determined with a spectrometer.
Whereas liver is just vile. Word!

Pete