It's so hard to sit through Dawkins interview with Wendy Wright.

[diddo97]

Yeah, that was really hard to watch. Dawkins made such a fool of himself.

[Chas]

(30-08-2014 06:54 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Yeah, that was really hard to watch. Dawkins made such a fool of himself.

You're hilarious.

[diddo97]

(30-08-2014 07:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(30-08-2014 06:54 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Yeah, that was really hard to watch. Dawkins made such a fool of himself.

You're hilarious.

You're experiencing denial after facing the truth. Get some help.

[DLJ]

(30-08-2014 07:26 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  

(30-08-2014 07:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  You're hilarious.

You're experiencing denial after facing the truth. Get some help.

I adore irony but reverse-irony cracks me up completely.

Keep going and I'll piss myself.

[Chas]

(30-08-2014 07:26 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  

(30-08-2014 07:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  You're hilarious.

You're experiencing denial after facing the truth. Get some help.

I'll just go read some Dawkins.

[phil.a]

Notice that Wendy Wright is skeptical of science.

She's also showing signs of having a concrete operational (e.g. pre-rational) psychological perspective. If that's so, she literally, I mean - literally, lacks the psychological capacity to understand something as abstract and theoretical as darwin's theory of evolution.

Pre-rational thinkers can only deal with the concrete. And "process" (of evolution) is abstract. It's a formal operational entity, not visible from a concrete operational perspective.

I'm starting to think that scepticism is a really great value and quality when it appears in someone capable of rational thinking, but is actually a liability when it appears in someone who still hasn't reached that stage of development.

Richard Dawkins is foolish because he is attempting a conversation about a complicated and abstract understanding of reality with a psychological 8 year old.

He'd be better off not wasting his time, but rather doing a meta-analysis of this unproductive situation!

If we want to wake the fundamentalists up to rational thinking, what would be a rational and facts-based strategy for doing that?

Does indulging them in circular arguments work?

Can we raise our rational thinking to it's own expectations and take the time and effort to understand why they can't understand.

Phil

[Chas]

(31-08-2014 05:02 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Notice that Wendy Wright is skeptical of science.

She's also showing signs of having a concrete operational (e.g. pre-rational) psychological perspective. If that's so, she literally, I mean - literally, lacks the psychological capacity to understand something as abstract and theoretical as darwin's theory of evolution.

Pre-rational thinkers can only deal with the concrete. And "process" (of evolution) is abstract. It's a formal operational entity, not visible from a concrete operational perspective.

I'm starting to think that scepticism is a really great value and quality when it appears in someone capable of rational thinking, but is actually a liability when it appears in someone who still hasn't reached that stage of development.

Richard Dawkins is foolish because he is attempting a conversation about a complicated and abstract understanding of reality with a psychological 8 year old.

He'd be better off not wasting his time, but rather doing a meta-analysis of this unproductive situation!

If we want to wake the fundamentalists up to rational thinking, what would be a rational and facts-based strategy for doing that?

Does indulging them in circular arguments work?

Can we raise our rational thinking to it's own expectations and take the time and effort to understand why they can't understand.

Phil

No, he wasn't wasting his time.

First, he didn't know going in that he was dealing with someone with the intellectual acuity of a bag of hammers.

Second, he provides the rest of us with an example of rationality in the face of irrationality.

[phil.a]

(31-08-2014 06:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, he wasn't wasting his time.

First, he didn't know going in that he was dealing with someone with the intellectual acuity of a bag of hammers.

Then he was ignoring evidence. It's a known fact that she manifests concrete fundamentalist beliefs.

Quote:Second, he provides the rest of us with an example of rationality in the face of irrationality.

Well, I concede that perhaps some people found the video beneficial and useful. I myself found it rather frustrating to watch both of them in action.

If I go to the zoo and chat to the chimps about calculus and they don't get it, who is the idiot?

If I attempt to reason with a women who can't reason, where is the lack of reason?

So my experience of watching Dawkins was that it was an example of irrationality in the face of irrationality.

Phil

[Chas]

(31-08-2014 07:00 AM)phil.a Wrote:  

(31-08-2014 06:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, he wasn't wasting his time.

First, he didn't know going in that he was dealing with someone with the intellectual acuity of a bag of hammers.

Then he was ignoring evidence. It's a known fact that she manifests concrete fundamentalist beliefs.

Quote:Second, he provides the rest of us with an example of rationality in the face of irrationality.

Well, I concede that perhaps some people found the video beneficial and useful. I myself found it rather frustrating to watch both of them in action.

If I go to the zoo and chat to the chimps about calculus and they don't get it, who is the idiot?

If I attempt to reason with a women who can't reason, where is the lack of reason?

So my experience of watching Dawkins was that it was an example of irrationality in the face of irrationality.

Phil

He interviewed her to show the profound stupidity of creationists for a documentary he was creating. He didn't do this irrationally.

So your experience is off the mark.

[phil.a]

(31-08-2014 07:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  He interviewed her to show the profound stupidity of creationists for a documentary he was creating. He didn't do this irrationally.

So your experience is off the mark.

Ah, ok - so you are saying he wasn't going in there in order to have an open minded debate, he was just going in there to humiliate her on camera?

Fair enough!

Can you explain - who is the target audience for this video, e.g. can you profile them?

Phil