I zipped on over to Wikipedia and what I thought naturopathy was wasn’t. On this point I apologize for calling your comment disingenuous, and add a fuckity-fuck for my screwing up. Eating well does equal naturopathy.
I’ve never suggested that my argument is anything more than “I don’t like his style.” I believe I am entitled to evaluate people according to my own opinion of them, as opposed to yours.
Am I not entitled to not like his style?
What exactly are you asking of me? What would you like me to concede? That he is clever - check. That he knows a lot about science - check. That he wrote one of the most important books in biology, that in my evaluation anyone who is remotely interested in natural sciences, should read - check. That he still has some - SOME - things of value to say - check.
That I take all his other books as gospel? no way. That I think he is a decent human being? no. That I want to read anything else he writes? nope.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
From my Terry Pratchett Quotes collection (visit my site for lots more 
):
If it were that simple it would upset no one. And if such thinkers could be isolated such that they are not an infectiously negative influence on some number of others, who are more apt to follow a leader uncritically than examine a claim or position skeptically, there would be nothing more to the story.
But the evidence speaks entirely to the contrary. People are buying what the snake-oilers are selling in droves, and, unfortunately, that doesn’t just hurt the buyers. Of course, ultimately, people must be free to make up their own minds, and they most surely do when given that freedom. What you seem to be saying is dissenters have no cause to care, if the argument somehow interferes with the process of finding your bliss or whatever. I firstly cannot see how it is the skeptics’ fault if objective assertions cause consternation, and if there is an uncertainty (and there most certainly should be), why is it wrong to argue for an evidence-based approach above all others for evaluating the efficacy of therapeutics, for instance? Why is it so difficult to see how damaging simply allowing other criteria to be used without vigorous dissent can be?
This goes, I’m afraid, for religion as well. It’s really not terribly convincing to me to be repeatedly reminded that some religious individuals are not criminals. The vast majority are not criminals. What of it? It’s not the good people like myself take issue with, obviously, but the bad that inevitably comes with it. Part of the critique is a rejection of the notion that personal experience can be the sole criterion for validity or accuracy when all other “evidence” is, even by necessity, completely lacking. It’s not an unreasonable objection to consider such matters unworthy of serious consideration, and those who would debate them have no business troubling others with their unsubstantiated superstitions. What is the well-reasoned, objectively verifiable alternative position? What great harm comes from demanding one?
I think anyone is justified if they insist upon verifiable external evidence to take most assertions seriously, especially if they pertain to questions that can be answered with verifiable external evidence. I think I’m also justified in viewing alternative approaches to living as “dangerous medicine”, given the trouble they’ve inevitably caused, and I cannot support them, no matter how good some people who do happen to be.
But you see, for me, it IS that simple. To complicate it would require assuming things about my argument/mindset that I have not stated, which is what I object to in post #36. On the face of it, my taking herbs or going to church or getting my tea leaves read is no problem for anyone.
But you see, I am such a thinker, and I ALSO agree with the majority of what Dawkins argues elsewhere. I don’t think anybody (except maybe you ) would describe me as an infectiously negative influence on anyone.
My problem is that I resent being lumped in with sellers of snake oil.
No, I’m saying (if indeed I am a dissenter) that if my practices (mine, not those of people who may share some of my beliefs) are causing nobody any harm, then no derision should be heaped upon me because of them.
Or are you saying that you are the dissenter, and that I think you have no cause to care about my taking herbs? Then yes. It’s true. I think it is none of your business what I grow in my garden and infuse into tea because I think it helps my rheumatism.
I wish I had that book now because I can’t evaluate your claim that his assertions are “objective.” That’s certainly not how I remember it. My objection when I read it was that he strayed well beyond the realm of objectivity, into the realm of his opinion of people who liked to read horoscopes, or go to naturopaths, or to church.
In the case of therapeutics, I would agree, but for things like religion and astronomy - people’s own, personal spirituality - an evidence-based approach is completely inappropriate. I don’t need you to prove that my god exists, in order for me to believe in her. You see what I’m saying? Do you see why I might resent it if somone said I did?
Well, as a counter-example, I take issue with the bad that “inevitably” comes with capitalism. Sweatshops, environmental destruction, resource wars - these all go along with capitalism. But I can see that there are benefits to it as well. The vast majority of capitalists are not criminals either.
But some of the things Dick objects to are about nothing more than personal experience. When it comes to my religious life, no evidence other than my own beliefs is relevant.
Did any tarot-card readers or naturopaths trouble Dawkins by asking him what he thought of them? Who, exactly, are they troubling?
I believe this is the crux of it, but I would replace “especially” with “only.” If it can’t be answered with verifiable external evidence, it passes out of the realm of “science” and into the realm of religion/spirituality/belief/faith/whatever.
So long as you don’t advocate it, and caution all others, if they volunatarily follow your lead, to make a skeptical inquiry into your habits, then you are indeed of no probable harm to anyone.
I’m not so sure of that. Some might say if you’re somehow functioning as an exponent, your mind’s been coopted to some degree into spreading the meme, and you quite literally can’t help it. Since this meme exists with no reference to external reality, and spreads itself solely as information from mind to mind, it’s viral in nature, and perhaps inherently dangerous. I’m not sure if I’m convinced of all the details of this hypothesis myself, but it’s worth considering, I think.
The users, then? And have you never born witness to your beliefs without the caveat that they are without evidential support, and may in fact have considerable evidence that contradicts any claim to benefit?
See above.
It is if you publically support the efficacy of such herbs in your garden against a preponderance of contrary data. If you’re willing, when appropriate, to concede the benefits of those herbs are most likely nothing more than a placebo effect, and hence taking them may be more risky than not, no one has cause to complain.
Having read Dawkins myself, I’m sure he made it clear, if he was derisive toward these people, that it was an oppinion, and not one he could compell others to hold other than with a strong, evidential argument.
You probably meant astrology. And if you can’t give me some evidence that your God is real, and that you’re anything but self-deluded, why should I take your argument seriously? Why is this even impolite?
There are laws, fortunately, against the excesses of unfettered capitalism, at least in some places. I shudder if the notion that God wants us to be capitalist gains wide acceptance. Economics is subject to evidence based scrutiny, and economic systems adjusted accordingly. Fortunately, there are no immutable truths in economics, only prescribed systems and experimentation with them. I happen to find “capitalist fundamentalists” abot as irrational and corrosive as any other kind.
Nor should your own beliefs be relevant to anyone else, I would say, unless you’ve got something other than your own witness to back up your assertions. If you’re happy with that, so am I.
I guess ethics and a sense of right and wrong might cause one to object to the practice of quackery, especially for profit.
And what of that “other realm” warrants application to real-word problems like, say, illness? Can you show me it’s more than snake oil? If not, are you right to support it?
Loopydude, I don’t think we’re disagreeing any more. To wit:
I don’t, other than to say “this works for me.”
Would you find it insulting if somebody told you that your mind has been co-opted and you can’t help your ignorant opinions? That’s not much of a rhetorical technique, and I’m not inclined to give much credence to anyone who uses it.
No. I do not bear witness to my beliefs, nor do most people I’ve met who believe in snake-oily things like astrology or religion or naturopathy. They are happy to talk about what works for them, but they do not evangelize. Perhaps the snake-oilers Dawkins knows are completely different from the ones over here.
Talk about strawmen!
Sure. I only said that they worked for me, I have never forwarded any hypotheses as to why they work.
Yes. My mistake.
Because I never asked for you to take my argument seriously, or to endorse the existence of my god. I don’t care if you believe in her. [Note this is all hypothetical in the sense that I am agnostic, but not in the sense that I don’t need your approval.] It would be presumptuous of you to assume that your evaluation is relevant to my belief.
I see what you’re saying, and agree that my analogy is not perfect. However, the essence remains that if we would write off religion because of all the horrors it perpetrates (despite all the benefits it brings to some), then under the same reasoning we should write off capitalism.
And we all know that nobody but a filthy Communist would even think of suggesting that we write off capitalism, even though it clearly brings about horrors. It’s just that its benefits are much more widely appreciated.
Hear hear!
That’s all I’ve been saying from the beginning.
When the other realm is applied to real-world problems as you describe, it automatically enters the category of things that could be demonstrated with “verifiable external evidence.”
Why do you suppose that is? And if you were honest about the reasons, why would you tell anyone else?
If I had a factual argument, as opposed to something like “it works for me”, yes I would be insulted, and I would have reason to be.
Do they argue with people who bring up evidence that it’s all a load of garbage and should be discouraged?
Are you being honest with people about this stuff or not? Do you tell them, when it works for you, that the best evidence demonstrates quack medicine, at best, does nothing for you at all? That you are well-informed about the quackery, but consume it anyway for personal reasons?
I have: The placebo effect. And there’s reason to be confident that’s precisely what it is, because these snake oils have been studied, and shown to lack additional efficacy beyond a placebo effect. Given that, it rather behooves me to spread the word, in case people are taken by quacks and are parted from their money like fools. You, clearly, have no interest in fighting such ignorance as long as it’s folks don’t believe they’ve been robbed. Works for them, right?
And as long as you never claimed your religious beliefs have relevance to the real world, nor took umbrage at a rebuttal if you did feel the need to make such a claim, I would indeed have no comment.
As one can evaluate market economies empirically, I simply cannot see the comparison. Do you wish to argue against the existence of markets? Can I not argue for or against the benefits and deficits of free markets based on evidence we all can evaluate objectively? Do economists, as a rule, make supernatural appeals to justify their position that Capitalism has worth and should be promoted, that it be accepted on faith, or, at best, based upon some personal revelation? If they did, should they be taken seriously? If all they had to recommend Capitalism was that it’s not all bad, even if otherwise completely unessential to the workings of real economies, I should myself find it a reasonable idea to promote it? Of course, if no one promoted it, because they admitted they had no better argument than “it works for me” it would be a non issue.
Ah, right. By “religion” you mean "the thing I am pointing at when I say ‘religion’ ", and your definition handily holds as irrelevant any God or claim for the existence of one. Indeed, a “religion” can expressly deny the existence of any God at all. Okay, in that case there’s nothing to argue over. Was Dawkins using your definition?
A criterion; you were expected to infer others from what I said about other useful forms of science which, in purely practical terms, I do rank some way above evolutionary theory. 'Course, if you’d rather get into angels-on-a-pinhead arguments about the descent of some modern species than make two ears of corn grow where one grew before, there may be nothing to argue over here either. Mind you, a few words on why my position was worthless would have carried more weight than a dismissive statement that such was the case, res ipsa loquitur and three cheers for Loopydude. :dubious:
Fascinating. To observe that a certain secretion from a certain mould kills disease bacteria without harm to the creature hosting the bacteria, one must understand the origin of species. Also see below.
Naturally your own statement as to the descent of man is intentionally quaint and oversimplified. But you’re missing the point by an embarrassingly wide margin. If man evolved, then we evolved without knowledge of the origin of species, at least until the 1800s, and the process seems to have worked perfectly well without our knowledge. We may owe our intelligence to evolution; we owe none of it to evolutionary theory. As a smart monkey could perhaps have told you. 
Well, do your best. :: looks interested ::
No, it won’t. Again, we selectively bred for millennia without the first idea about Darwin’s theories of the origin of species. That was really part of my point: We successfully bred tasty, docile and profitable kine, swine and ovines long before the Beagle hove in sight of the Galapagos Islands. I contend that we’d be doing so yet, Darwin or not; and, what’s more, that most of the successful animal breeders world-wide couldn’t state Darwin’s theories in a form that would stand up to five minutes’ casual criticism on the Dope. (Mind you, neither would an assertion that water is wet.)
You don’t need to understand or accept theories on the origin of species in order to gene-splice either. I’m not going to come down on either side of the GM crops debate for now, but you don’t need to know how (or whether) wheat evolved in order to play with its genetic coding; you just need to understand how the genetic code works. Darwin’s impact: minimal.
Similarly, we can understand that if we repeatedly expose disease bacteria to antibiotics, sooner or later you will have only bacteria that are descended from those that are less susceptible to antibiotics. We need no greater understanding of evolutionary theory for this than had a pre-Christian sheep farmer who knew that you should avoid breeding from sickly animals if you don’t want sickly descendants. Darwin’s impact: minimal.
That’s the one. Thanks, rjung. 
Conclusion: That evolutionary theory is supported by the preponderance of evidence and informed thought, I have no quarrel with. That it is our “greatest science”: pshaw.
Personally, I would sooner live in a cave with an explanation for my existence than in all-mod-con comfort with no idea of how I came to exist. I consider Charles Darwin to have advanced that explanation more dramatically than any other in history. To place ‘utility’ above that explanation is to ungratefully disown the incredible apparatus in one’s skull and effectively become more like livestock oneself. It is, IMO, to embrace ignorance.
Cool. Then Darwinism is your religion, since you are content for it to have no utilitarian justification whatever other than giving you a warm feeling in your belly about your place in nature.
So be it, for animals get no such feelings from anywhere.
I’ve no quarrel with that. But I’m content to get my warm fuzzies about my place in nature and my assurances for the future from my Christianity, and let science take care of the mundane trivia of feeding, housing, clothing and medicating myself, my family, my descendents, everyone else in the world for choice, and possibly have some time left over for cool stuff involving space travel.
Might I ask, have you ever tried getting warm fuzzies from a natural explanation for your existence? You absolutely must propose some supernatural being in order to initiate the necessary outputs from your limbic system?
Creationism and Darwinism occupy a sort of quantum superposition in my psyche, SentientMeat.
I don’t find it necessary to insist, even in private, that the world was created in 4004BC and all the rest of that. But I don’t think I could choose to disbelieve in God, through an act of will, any more than you could choose to believe that you were created last Tuesday with a full set of false memories designed to convince you of your assumed chronological age.
But I certainly didn’t enter this debate, what am I saying, this argument in order to justify my faith, or even to assert the superiority of Creationism to Darwinism, but only to say that IMHO evolutionary theory ain’t all that - certainly not the most significant of our sciences.
Ironically, a creature that viewed evolutionary theory as the most important science, to the exclusion of a spot of physics, chemistry, mathematics and non-evolutionary biology, would probably demonstrate its own unfitness to survive in short order.
I sincerely hope I’m looking at a Darwinist right now. In fact, I’ll take my leave in case my next observation reveals you to be a Creationist.