# Salon.com interview: Dawkins dumbs down **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2005, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833 "2005-04-30T05:00:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/101 "2005-05-06T10:12:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Very well, his writings have not advanced human knowledge any appreciable amount. _Eric Idle_: No it isn’t. > [@](#): > > I won’t have much to say about consciousness other than that we don’t understand it very well. As I said, I think we’re skipping an _enormous_ number of steps here in this thread - I’ll go back to basics in an OP on Monday. Meanwhile, [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304969) might provide helpful background for future conversations. > [@](#): > > Would you care to tell me what slogan I’ve been honing? Thank you. Your post #60 you said “If I could sum up the field in one line, it would be, “Consciousness is no big deal, and the brain is doing it.”” I replied that that was oversimple sloganeering. You asked where Dennett warned against that, so I told you. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t disagree on that level. But has cog-sci allowed us to understand consciousness or related things in the same way as we understand chemistry; does it give us the same power over nature? No way. And the reason isn’t that cog-sci sucks; it’s simply that it’s a field in its infancy–like chemistry or physics in the 1500s. I wouldn’t disagree that it is only decades old as a science, but the comparison with chemistry and physics is, I suggest, less accurate than a comparison with, say, computer science and evolution. Experiments and explanatory models in CS or evolutionary biology don’t simply involve adding compounds or even observing paths in a particle accelerator: they require large samples of _indirect_ data and a great deal of ingenuity to tease out testable consequences which might [falsify](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#Dema) crucial elements of the model. (Incidentally, not to harp on about one single guy in an enormous field, but Dennett _does_ provide a whole Appenix B full of experiments which _could_ bring his model crashing down completely - I understand that the ones which _have_ been carried out are _not_ so harmful.) > [@](#): > > Someday I suspect that we will understand consciousness, and Dennett’s best or most influential opus will be seen as the precurser to the precurser to the phlogiston theory. Again, I think we’re actually a lot further along than this, perhaps even to the level of different models of what killed the dinosaurs. But I’ll leave that until another time. > [@](#): > > According to your physicalism “My” physicalism is, as far as I know, not significantly different to [physicalism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/) as the term is generally understood. > [@](#): > > you do _not_ have a distinction between Physical Things and Metaphysical Things, since the latter cateogry to you is void … Hence, “physicalism” as you define it is without meaning. Void being _the same as_ or _different to_ **not** void? Whatever, these semantic quibbles always put me in mind of learning Klingon: an entertaining diversion, perhaps, but of no real import. My cognitive output is that everything, including cognitive outputs, is ultimately an entity or process involving only atoms, wave/photons and fundamental forces in spacetime. If that position is “meaningless”, well, I would point to the activity in the modules of the brain which process “meaning” when I read that sentence and wonder whether it is really the correct word to use. > [@](#): > > “Socrates is a man” is a premise but is certainly subject to both empirical examination and philosophical analysis. I’d suggest that the truth of the premise itself is _only_ subject to empirical examination. > [@](#): > > there is still an entire background (linguistic/scientific/philsophical) behind the terms “book” and “blue” that is subject to a check for relevence and correctness (e.g., is the person calling an aquamarine book blue out of ignorance, or is that a fair cateogorization, etc.). Agreed, those _arbitrary criteria_ I talked about being _how the brain works_. One cannot be **certain** that one is not _wrong_, either in categorisation or empirical method. Philosophy and logic are themselves only _languages_: no matter how grammatically correct my sentence “the cat sat on the mat”, it still says precisely nothing about whether the _real_ cat _really did_ sit there. However, this is a different path entirely, so I’ll leave you the last word on this. > [@](#): > > The Divine is a principle within Reality; it is not the creator of Reality. The things you mentioned all (I should think) have varying explanations, the vast proportion of which are unknown to us. There are proposed scientific explanations, and explanations which _aren’t_ scientific, some being _theistic_. To _default_ to the theistic is God-of-the-Gapping. > [@](#): > > Even if we don’t go to the philsophy zone on this one, in order to ascribe a probability to anything we need a model. But in post #25 you admitted that we can say “the CD is _probably_ in my house”. Do we need to construct a CD spatial-location model to do so? You then said > [@Aeschines](#): > > talking about God in such fuzzy-logic probabalistic terms is to do little more than to say “It seems not so.” That’s not good enough. And once one’s reasoning does get good enough (I myself think there are excellent arguments against a monotheistic that by no means rely on probabalistic reasoning), it’s not about probability. Throughout this thread, all I have tried to convince you of is that no matter what philosophical, logical or empirical tools you employ, your conlcusions **might still be wrong**. There **might still** be a monoGod, or ghosts, or unicorns. In fact, your next quote I absolutely agree with: > [@](#): > > Hence, there is no way to ascribe a probability to His existence, and your feeling about such a probability is nothing more than a gratuitous personal feeling. And you know what I say to that. **Personal feelings is _all we are_.** Are they “gratuitous” or “uncalled for”? I’d suggest that, on the contrary, they are _how the brain functions **at all** _. > [@](#): > > I didn’t merely say I think it’s moot, I proved that it’s moot. You didn’t show that it was **impossible** for us to find the giveaway in the simulation. > [@](#): > > If we determine that A = B (as we must), then indeed the imposter concept B’ is revealed as without evidence, or false. “Without evidence” **!=** “false”. That is largely the point of this entire thread. > [@](#): > > Do you mean **Liberal**? I’m sure he’d agree with me on the whole about this simulation argument. Bring it on. Well, **Lib** , sorry to drag you into this, but does A=B prove -B? Since my other points don’t appear in your reply, friend **Aeschines** , I guess that you found them either slightly convincing or a waste of time even bothering with. I’ll leave you the last word here, so if you’ll indulge me I’ll give my personal summary of the thread: [ul][li]You objected to the word “delusion”. I agreed that it was unnecessarily contentious, although directed you to a more complete essay in which it did not appear.[/li][li]You said you could **prove** things like the nonexistence of MonoGod, or unicorns, or the Matrix. I suggested that all you can do is _offer_ premises whose logical combination conclude so, and that reasonable people might well not _accept_ those premises.[/li][li]You said that ‘ascribing probabilities’ wasn’t _good enough_ when it came to what might be called beliefs about fundamental Reality. I suggested that, actually, it’s as good as we get. Indeed, it’s how our brains _work_ when we’re performing tasks as simple as looking for a CD or assessing the plausibility of sci-fi films, and the distinction you make in this regard is an _extra_ step on top of this.[/li][li]You objected to the term “forever dead”. Given that the _only_ life you appear to propose is _this_ 80-odd year span, I’ll have to explore this objection in another thread sometime since I cannot say I really _understand_ it.[/li][li]You said cognitive science hasn’t explained anything important. I’ll try and convince you otherwise in other threads.[/li][\*]You said you sometimes _deliberately_ misrepresent other people’s positions in a debate. I would _strongly_ suggest you avoid doing so in future.[/ul]Cheerio. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/102 "2005-05-06T20:04:03Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > You said you sometimes _deliberately_ misrepresent other people’s positions in a debate. I would _strongly_ suggest you avoid doing so in future.[/list]Cheerio. That’s crap. You unjustly accused me of strawmanism, so I responded with a joke instead of rancor (“If you build them, they will come”–Field of Strawmen). You then took this response seriously, treating it as a confession. Clever stuff.:rolleyes: We’re at an impasse on all other points, but it’s been fun. As you say, let’s debate the separate points in other threads. Sincere thanks for the debate!🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/103 "2005-05-06T20:59:04Z")
Thanks in return, and apologies: I genuinely could not tell you were joking (perhaps due to experiences with those who think misrepresentation _is_ amusing), hence my repeated requests for confirmation. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/104 "2005-05-06T22:31:01Z")
**Re posts 76, 77 and 84 and metaphysical quagmires** Having read the entry on physicalism **SM** cited, and particularly section 14 thereof, I would propose that it is possible to fruitfully discuss consciousness without first arguing issues such as pantheism and essentialism which are sure to arise. How about “Can there be conscious experience in a world that is totally physical?” If we decide there cannot, then we can go on to settle “what is real”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833.md?page=5)