|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dawkins - The Greatest Show on Earth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Anyone read Dawkins latest book - "The Greatest Show on Earth"?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/...-Evidence-Evolution/dp/059306173X Anyone intend to read it soon? Anyone intending specifically not to read it? The aim of the book is to "explicitly set out" the evidence in favour of evolution and Dawkins says this about his intended audience:
Dawkins writes: The history-deniers themselves are among those who I am trying to reach. But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some perhaps members of their own family or church and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case. Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. Quote taken from an extract of the first chapter that can be found here: TLS - Times Literary Supplement Do you think he will get through to his stated target audience? Will creationists (or "history-deniers" as he calls them) read this book? Will those who are surrounded by "history-deniers" be better prepared as a result of this book? Or will it simply and inevitably be a case of preaching to the converted (I have my copy as yet unread)? I am particularly interested to know if any anti-evolutionists will be reading this book? Even if for "know thy enemy" reasons if nothing else. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
As an example of the superiority of scientific evidence over eyewitness testimony Dawkins discusses situations such as the following linked to awareness test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RVJMSdIYaQ Don't forget to count the passes as accurately as you can!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Straggler writes: As an example of the superiority of scientific evidence over eyewitness testimony One trouble with scientific evidence is that interpretation is involved in deciding just what is being evidenced. The trouble with Dawkins recent books is that they've already decided the evidence points to old hag. So there's nothing particularily interesting to be found in rehashing how that same conclusion is arrived at. I bought a new copy of The God Delusion and struggled along with a clumsy caricature of faith, upon which he built parts of his 'case'. Whilst taking particular delight in the anthropolgical experiment he cited, which concluded mankinds sharing of a common morality, I'll probably wait until a secondhand copy comes my way in this latest case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
One trouble with scientific evidence is that interpretation is involved in deciding just what is being evidenced. No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: No
quote: Some will, but they won't be convinced
quote: A little. It's not as good as Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True'.
quote: Largely, but I have to say I was a little bit disappointed with the book. There are some interesting experiments I learned about from it but in many areas I didn't learn that much from it - which I certainly did from 'Why Evolution is True'. He can't help insulting creationists - which is not exactly going to help meet his stated obhective of changing their minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
A little. It's not as good as Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True'. I'll give that one a look.
Largely, but I have to say I was a little bit disappointed with the book. There are some interesting experiments I learned about from it but in many areas I didn't learn that much from it - which I certainly did from 'Why Evolution is True'. Fair enough. Which were the interesting experiments mentioned?
He can't help insulting creationists - which is not exactly going to help meet his stated obhective of changing their minds. I haven't read it yet (beyond about the first 30 pages or so anyway) and I am quite prepared to believe that Dawkins just cannot resist some swipes at creationists. However I think his reputation often precedes him and that those who expect to be insulted by him will be more on the basis of style of actual argument than direct insult content. But it is a fair point you make about his stated target audience so I will bear it in mind when reading myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
One trouble with scientific evidence is that interpretation is involved in deciding just what is being evidenced. Well I would argue that the methods of science are exactly what they are explicitly because they promote objectivity at the expense of subjective interpretation of evidence. But that is a whole other thread........
I bought a new copy of The God Delusion and struggled along with a clumsy caricature of faith, upon which he built parts of his 'case'. I must admit that the 'anti-God' books I have read (Dawkins - The God Delusion and God: The Failed Hypothesis by Stenger are the two that spring to mind) have arguably not tackled some of the less easily dismissed pro-faith arguments that I have seen presented at EvC.
I'll probably wait until a secondhand copy comes my way in this latest case. Well at least you seem willing to see what he has to say on the subject. In some ways even a closed mind open to exposure of that which is disagreed with is a more open mind than most. That is true for all of us no matter which side of the debate we are on. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
One trouble with scientific evidence is that interpretation is involved in deciding just what is being evidenced. If only some part of the methodology was focussed on inventing and carrying out 'tests' that can discriminate between two different conclusions.
The trouble with Dawkins recent books is that they've already decided the evidence points to old hag. That's because the evidence does point to an old hag. Because tests have ruled out all but the most unfalsifiable of alternatives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Do you think he will get through to his stated target audience? No, probably not because he creates the impression of having a bias. He shot himself in the foot in that regard. His targeted audience doesn't trust him. Francis Collins would be a much more likely candidate because he shares their same faith, yet robustly defends science. "Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
No, probably not because he creates the impression of having a bias. He does have a "bias". It is more than an impression. Whether the bias is intellectualy justified or not is another question.
He shot himself in the foot in that regard. His targeted audience doesn't trust him. A fair point with regard to actual full scale creationists. What about his other audience and stated intent of equipping those who know creationists with the tools to counter their anti-evo arguments?
Francis Collins would be a much more likely candidate because he shares their same faith, yet robustly defends science. With regard to challenging creationists I think you are spot on. Dawkins, in my view, doesn't stand a snowman in hells chance of changing the mind of any creationist because the only reason they will read his books is to know what they are against (which is progress not to be neglected given the woeful ignorance of many anti-evolutionists). However given that 40% of Americans (figure from the book under discussion) believe in creationism of one sort or another there are perhaps many who simply cite what they have been raised to believe without too much thought who might be swayed by such a book. And there may also be a large minority of potential readers who can reach even more of those who are part of that 40%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SammyJean Member (Idle past 4102 days) Posts: 87 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
This book doesn't come out until September 22, here in the United States. So I'm going to have to wait but I do plan on reading it as soon as it's available.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This book doesn't come out until September 22, here in the United States. So I'm going to have to wait but I do plan on reading it as soon as it's available. One of those rare events where we get the things first on this side of the pond. I wonder why that is? Different publisher in the US? Some sort of marketting date? I cannot think why that would be the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
One of those rare events where we get the things first on this side of the pond. I wonder why that is? Different publisher in the US? Some sort of marketting date? I cannot think why that would be the case. Because he's British. He has, therefore, a British publisher, they get to go first. Like with the Harry Potter books. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Because he's British. Well I guess that is the answer. But I still don't understand why that is necessarily so in this global age.
He has, therefore, a British publisher, they get to go first. Like with the Harry Potter books. I didn't know the harry Potter books worked like that too. I still don't get why difference in publishing dates. Some sort of marketting advantage I suppose?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
SammyJean writes: I'm going to have to wait but I do plan on reading it as soon as it's available. That's what I thought I had to do when I saw it announced. But on a recent trip to Prague, I was astonished, after having walked into the first bookshop I encountered, to walk straight into it. It almost jumped from the shelf into my hands. Of course I didn't hesitate for one nanosecond to part with my money for the right of owning it. I have just finished the first chapter. It really whetted my appetite for the rest of the book. The only thing I deplore is Dawkins' idea of using 'theorum' - rhyming with 'decorum' - as a new term for a theory in the sense of a scientific theory, as opposed to a theory in the sense of a "mere" hypothesis. I think we should not have to make concessions of this kind, just to avoid confusion. Anyone with a bit of brains and a working knowledge of scientific terminology can effortlessly use the two senses in context without having to resort to linguistic novelty. If I have my way, the confused will simply have to learn the trick themselves. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024