Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Delusion-Questions-Culture/dp/1612192009 this could be interesting, excerpt (which gets a bit muddled at the end) here - http://jacobinmag.com/2013/06/dna-a-parasite-that-builds-its-own-host/

A writer who transitions (using the words "For example") from this paragraph

This is a dramatic example of science borrowing from art. But some scientists do not limit themselves to borrowing from the paint box; they want to argue that, so far as beauty is concerned, they have entirely displaced the arts.

. . . to an excerpt from one of Dawkins's books in which he has lunch with James Watson and discusses whether life has a purpose; but that writer pretends that he hasn't changed the subject from "art" to "religion," has not written a book that I care to read.

Interesting stuff!

that jacobin mag article made no sense to me.

i mean, it made literal sense, but i have no idea why the author thinks he's discovered some kind of damning hypocrisy in contemporary scientific discourse.

I only skimmed it on my phone but it does seem to point to a maddening thing about Dawkins in particular: he can't help but try to express science according to values of aesthetics or religion. Hence the "Romantic" turn that scientific discourse seems to take. This is only pernicious because it's in the service of making his ideology immune to criticism from those very perspectives. Not unlike how fundamentalists embrace "scientific" proof of the Flood or whatever. It's folding everything into the one master discourse he feels is the legitimate one.

Not sure if White is any better in that regard, really, but if he's drawing on romanticism that's obviously a complex and highly fraught tradition in its own right.

mhm, I don't think the points that the article has are really anything we haven't said here but they're points it would be useful to have out there in a more public space. In mainstream public intellectual terms Dawkins and his crew go fairly unchallenged. It seems White may not have quite the right response - the closing passages suggest a romanticism that opens itself to being taken as a relativism, and that kind of misreading of this intellectual tradition is one of the reasons for nu-scientism emerging in the first place - but I feel that him doing this is basically a good thing.

Yeah otm. It's a better discussion to be having in any case--one that at least can acknowledge the historical context of the debate in a way that goes beyond "dark ages" vs "enlightenment."

i agree that dawkins's elevating of "science" as being superior to all other human activity is willful and kind of ridiculous on its face. and i think his romantic (or Romantic, which is not entirely the same thing) paeans to science are typically kind of shallow and corny. but I don't think any of that invalidates the apparently gloomy idea that we are just "products" of natural evolution. art and culture can be understood in terms of evolution, as adaptive or exaptive -- probably a little of both.

i mean we're all trying to find moment-to-moment ways of making meaning in a universe--it might be built in to our construction of a self--that doesn't really serve to "mean" anything. i don't really begrudge dawkins's attempts to do the same, no matter how hackneyed.

maybe i am misunderstanding. (i have all kinds of problems w/ dawkins btw. just not really this one, again if i am understanding it correctly.)

I don't begrudge him that either! I do begrudge his attempts to make his own meaning-making universal.

seems to me that whether or not you find being the product of a mind-bogglingly complex series of processes "amazing" is entirely dependent upon personal perspective. You could say that you are "just" a product of natural evolution or you could say that being a product of natural evolution fills you with wonder. There's no quantitative difference in the state being described.

as far as my own temperament and as far as popular commentators on these ideas go these days I'm probably closest to John Gray. What can i say, I am seduced the "romance" of pessimism.

But of course that's one thing and it's quite another to go around acting like that perspective is a necessary consequence of "rational" and scientific thinking. I think what these perspectives lack is a relativising (and that's not the same as relativism) function "built in" to the world view they are propagating. But maybe that's asking too much of popular discussions of these issues. But I do think it's something that's desperately needed in discourses about modernity.

I think maybe the deeper problem than Dawkins offering a universal scientific version of meaning is that he kind of takes meaning as a given - he has no interest in interrogating it or taking its cultural construction into consideration. The seeming problem with the Jacobin article and Dawkins alike is that yes, meaning is culturally constructed, but also yes, meaning is a product of evolution, and this is both a very simple statement and very difficult thing to work through.

I don't see why the wonder scientists sometimes express at the complexities of nature is somehow seen as a bad thing by the writer of this article.

Surely what scientists mean when they describe science as beautiful is simply that it provides much material for intellectual stimulation and can provide emotional fulfillment through satisfying our curiosity about how nature works. I don't see this as a bad notion.

I would imagine that the reason many popular science writers include these notions about beauty and wonder in the first place is because they know that some people perceive scientific truths as bleak or depressing and they are merely trying to counteract that by pointing out that there are other ways to interpret it too.

i have a hard time understanding what's so bleak and depressing about science. i mean, like, everything that exists and that is considered beautiful exists because of some natural phenomenon and can be understood at some level through science, so it's kind of tautologically true that science is beautiful. unless you prefer not understanding things & just being in ignorant awe, which i understand, too; some musicians don't learn music theory because they like the mystery, the intuition. but people who find science dreadful don't seem to approach it that way, and it's kind of ironic that an ugly or bleak or depressing process could create a beautiful world. but then i'm someone who, like, thinks a lot of math is beautiful, so i can appreciate that my sense of aesthetics might be out of wack. not sure if this has to do with what guy who wrote a book about richard dawkins said but just re that sentiment

Also might be to make science not seem difficult and boring?

I think, per especially that William James quote I posted up thread, that the "science is bleak" thing is basically a hold over from the 19th century understanding of entropy, determinism, and especially Darwin. all of those pictures are of course much different now. or maybe we've just gotten over it.

as now we see that entropy is related to complexity/growth of dissipative systems. but I don't know if I'd say this changes the question of pessimism so much as defers it.

incidentally this is why I think Schopenhauer vs Hegel is such an instructive contrast--its both dissolution and recapture.

Surely what scientists mean when they describe science as beautiful is simply that it provides much material for intellectual stimulation and can provide emotional fulfillment through satisfying our curiosity about how nature works. I don't see this as a bad notion.

I really hope scientists have some experience of beauty in their life that transcends 'intellectual stimulation' and the satiation of curiosity. It seems quite bleak.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

only a god can save ys

haha that typo is strangely appealing

i feel like the pragmatic response to this essay is that we can't be experts at everything and we can all use a little humility

I suppose in a death of metaphysics, Heidegger on Nietzsche kind of way that philosophy IS dead but at then at the same time when people say that it seems to me that they just stopped reading philosophy. I mean in answer to what that quote asks for just turn to the "academic discourse is purposely obfuscatory" thread.

humility helps

In my interview with Watson at (Cambridge), I conscientiously put it to him that, unlike him and (Francis) Crick, some people see no conflict between science and religion, because they claim science is about how things work and religion is about what it is all for. Watson retorted, “Well, I don’t think we are for anything. We’re just products of evolution. You can say, ‘Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don’t think there’s a purpose.’ But I’m having a good lunch.” We did have a good lunch, too.

That first sentence there is actually hinting at a good idea which is just taken out and sacrificed in the name of polarization. I think the hypocrisy lies in this polarization. Supposedly the big problem with religion is that is closes minds, it separates ideas and people into GOOD ideas and BAD ideas, it makes overarching statements about knowing what is objectively more true. Yet here we go undermining religion with sweeping and intellectually dishonest statements. "I don't think we are for anything" and "We're just products of evolution" are both statements about two completely different ideas, yet the way they are spoken one after the other makes it seem like they are closely related concepts. I guess the train of thought is that meaning is derived solely through understanding how things work. Then this train of thought is abandoned when his happiness is questioned. Having a good lunch is not 'how things work', and he should have said "I don't think we are for anything other than philosophical trolling and sensory gratification".

can never remember if it's Watson or Crick who's the fucking racist. they're both misogynists iirc

Like if you are going to discount personal meaning as a valid reason for someone to take comfort then immediately hold up the meaning of an experience as an example of why life is OK then go for it.

I really hope scientists have some experience of beauty in their life that transcends 'intellectual stimulation' and the satiation of curiosity. It seems quite bleak.

― Mordy , Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:59 AM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But I did not mean that that's all you need in order to experience beauty or be happy. Of course you also need things like human relationships, art, love and so on. I just thought that would be self evident and so did not spell it out.

always get a kick out of the fact that Crick was into panspermia!

you also need things like human relationships, art, love and so on

Science not necessarily very good at explaining these either.

There was a set of trials that demonstrated mondrians were about as effective as acupuncture

I mean fake mondrians were as well received as real ones, not that they applied mondrians to treat backaches

You mean my certification in colored rectangle therapy is useless?!

you also need things like human relationships, art, love and so on

Science not necessarily very good at explaining these either.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:56 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't know about that.

This 'scientific view of the universe is bleak and depressing' vs 'scientific view of the universe is full of wonder!' debate, as played out not so much here but in many conversations and just in the discourse generally.

It seems to me to be groping at but missing a more important question - is 'the scientific view of the universe' something you can actually live with.

If it is, it doesn't matter if it's depressing; if it isn't, it doesn't matter if it's full of wonder.

I don't know what the answer is, but I feel it might be different for different people, and for the same person in different situations.

I also think a much better advertisement for science would be 'We can use these methods to find ways to make planes fly or to make new medicines', rather than 'Wow, isn't everything wonderful and amazing'.

The first one is not really debatable, the second probably just goes round and round in circles, no?

Cardamon otm

from 4.45 o_O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFn-ixX9edg

lol x10

WAT

theeeee dayyyyy killlllroooooooy loooooooost hiiiis miiiiiiiiiind

his best work since The Blind Watchmaker imo

i still prefer daft punk to richard dawkins

I guess the shirt was a fair warning

Needs to be mashed up with Mister Rogers' "Garden of Your Mind"

i think it needs the outro to new slaves tacked onto the end

The electronic clarinet solo was a fitting outro