[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[david buchanan]

Ian glendinning said:
All I'm saying is that at its edges science has precious little evidence, 
and what is believed, often explicitly metaphoriocally, requires something 
pretty close to faith (but not faith) in working assumptions to make 
progress. I've called it a "suspension of disbelief" on more than one 
occasion.

dmb says:
At its edges? I don't know what you mean. First of all, the "Suspension of 
disbelief" is a term that comes from drama and does not (or at least should 
not) have anything to do with science. Secondly if it has precious little 
evidence, then its not a scientific belief. If a scientist chooses to 
believe such an unsupported thing, then he is not much of a scientists. I 
mean, your points seem to be predicated on extremely dubious use of the key 
terms in question and the unethical behavior of un-named people with 
un-named beliefs. I think it would be overly generous to characterize your 
argument as weak. A frank critic might say it was pure drivel.

Ian also said:
Some scientists working in one area, (and I picked on Dawkins in the example 
that set these threads running), express their belief in these boundary 
conditions and assumptions so dogmatically, that you can understand the 
"faithful" being attacked by such scientists claiming "foul". Many a 
religious person (real non-extremist individual) is less dogmatic than a 
Dawkins in what they actually believe.

dmb says:
Boundry conditions? What's that? Again, your point has nothing to do with 
the distinction in question. You are simply characterizing personalities. 
Unless Dawkins has reformed the scientific method and banned the circulation 
of peer reviewed scientific papers, this is more drivel. Its bogus reasoning 
and logically flawed. Its really, really bad philosophizing.

Ian said:
If science is going to engage in that kind of argument, it needs to be 
squeaky clean in avoiding dogmatism. Since it cannot be totally free of 
contingency, it's a losing battle, but ... my long-standing point ... it's 
the wrong battle ...

dmb says:
Squeaky clean? Oh, Jeez. Now you're the public relations agent for science? 
Nice work, Now you are three for three. Each of your comments was bogus and 
irrelevant. The question is not about who is nicer about what they believe. 
Everybody knows that fanatics and dogamists come in all shapes and flavors 
but so what? We are talking about the qualtiy and nature of belief, the 
distinction between faith and reason, etc.

Ian said:
The pointless binary debate "I'm right, you're wrong" No winners. Again I'll 
leave it there .... let's build one point at a time.

dmb says:
Huh? If one is right and one is wrong then there would be a winner. The one 
who was right would be the winner. And the point would be that we and 
everybody else would learn something from the debate. Hopefully, people 
would be interested in how and why one was wrong and one was right. I don't 
think its pointless at all. I think that is pretty much THEE point of 
debating anything; to think carefully about which positions hold water and 
which ones don't. Then, if the illegitimate perspectives are eliminated by 
this process, everybody wins. Even you.

Where did you ever get the idea that "binary" debate is pointless? Are you 
suggesting no debate? Are you suggesting three sides rather than two? I 
mean, why is it a "binary" debate? Or is that just a way of saying that you 
don't want me to say that you're wrong about anything? Is that possibility 
just too far fetched for you, that you could be wrong about something? Not 
for me. I think you are wrong many times every day. I know for a fact that I 
am. Anyway, as you MUST have gathered by now, I'm only offended by that kind 
of weasle talk.  I mean, has anyone here ever said there is no middle 
ground. Has anybody ever asserted that there are only two options? Has 
anybody said anything about dividing things up into winners and losers? It 
seems you prefer strawman debates over "binary" debates or any other kind. 
Why? I really don't know. Perhaps its because you live in fear of (gasp) 
clarity. (Diabolical laugther).

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series.  Who will win? 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001