The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 12:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Within natural languages like English, there is no need for primitive notions. Terms can be defined as clearly as you like.

... In terms of other words. i.e. not clearly at all Tongue

I think we're more or less on the same page... where page is defined as... the thing which we are on.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
18-08-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 12:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 10:03 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Sigh.

We can argue semantics about what counts as an outright belief or a leaning.

Atheism, broadly defined, is an absence (or lack, though I prefer "absence") of a belief that God exists.

Someone at a 4 is absent a belief that God exists.

Similarly, someone at a 5, 6, or 7 is absent a belief that God exists, whatever other beliefs they might have on the subject.

Furthermore, 7 is not KNOWLEDGE, so much as CONFIDENCE. I can be 100% sure the moon is made of silicate rock, and you can be 100% confident that it is made of green cheese, without either of us having checked. Neither of us could properly be said to KNOW based solely on the strength of our confidence. Perhaps there IS evidence to justify that strength, and perhaps there isn't, but that strength of confidence does not for one second logically imply that there is.

Well, we're referring to a predefined scale here, invented by Dawkins, in which belief implies something we feel certain of above 50% but less than 100%.

So it matters less what you think constitutes a belief, but rather how the scale defines belief, if we're using this scale to label ourselves.

I wouldn't say he invited it, more just copied the Kinsey Scale and applied it to Theism.

I actually think applying it more firmly to the old Kinsey Scale would work better in the way that he has a label outside the scale as X for Asexual people. Just as I think Huxley-Agnostic people would be an X that don't apply. Those agnostics who think it isn't knowable either way.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 12:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 10:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not in the sense you are trying to imply.
Admitting the possibility of existence is not a belief in the existence.

Admitting something is more possible than not (above 50%) is a belief, particularly as Dawkins define it.

Where does Dawkins use either percentages or the word belief in the definitions of 4 - 6?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
18-08-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
I'm going to say I'm a 7, cause I've got a strong feeling that no evidence will be presented in my lifetime for the existence of the supernatural.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cosmic Discourse's post
18-08-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 12:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 10:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not in the sense you are trying to imply.
Admitting the possibility of existence is not a belief in the existence.

Admitting something is more possible than not (above 50%) is a belief, particularly as Dawkins define it.
No
Probabilities are not beliefs. They are quantifications of the likelihood of occurrence or existence.

Still trying to shift the burden of proof by assigning positive beliefs to atheism?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
18-08-2015, 01:11 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 12:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  I think we're more or less on the same page... where page is defined as... the thing which we are on.

More or less, yes.

Really, the only disagreement that I even have with kingschosen is that knowledge is attainable. What, exactly, the definition of knowledge is is up for discussion, but I would contend that any definition of it which states that you can't have it is useless and needs to be altered.

But, honestly, it's a pretty small quibble. I just tend to ramble on about things like that because I find them interesting.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
18-08-2015, 01:39 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 01:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 12:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  I think we're more or less on the same page... where page is defined as... the thing which we are on.

More or less, yes.

Really, the only disagreement that I even have with kingschosen is that knowledge is attainable. What, exactly, the definition of knowledge is is up for discussion, but I would contend that any definition of it which states that you can't have it is useless and needs to be altered.

But, honestly, it's a pretty small quibble. I just tend to ramble on about things like that because I find them interesting.

I think the problem is that realistically one has to have read *and understood* *and gotten all the inside jokes* of Godel, Escher, Bach, before one can really hope to make a meaningful contribution... and I've only ever gotten as far as chapter 4.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
18-08-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 01:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  I think the problem is that realistically one has to have read *and understood* *and gotten all the inside jokes* of Godel, Escher, Bach, before one can really hope to make a meaningful contribution... and I've only ever gotten as far as chapter 4.

Actually, I've never read it. I keep meaning to, but I never seem to find the time.

I think that the vast majority of posters here are more than intelligent enough to carry on a discussion on the subject, though. It's easy enough to learn, so long as you're willing to discard any preconceived notions on the subject you had and start from scratch. Honestly, the hardest thing I had to do when learning formal logic was accept that it's much simpler than you might think.

Oh, it can get complicated as all hell, but logic as a whole is actually extremely straightforward. That's sort of the point, in fact, as it's meant to strip away unwarranted conclusions and fallacious thinking. The difficulty is emergent. It only turns up when you start to apply multiple operative principles of it at once and have to keep reminding yourself not to get sidetracked by a million different tangential topics.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 01:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 01:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  I think the problem is that realistically one has to have read *and understood* *and gotten all the inside jokes* of Godel, Escher, Bach, before one can really hope to make a meaningful contribution... and I've only ever gotten as far as chapter 4.

Actually, I've never read it. I keep meaning to, but I never seem to find the time.

I think that the vast majority of posters here are more than intelligent enough to carry on a discussion on the subject, though. It's easy enough to learn, so long as you're willing to discard any preconceived notions on the subject you had and start from scratch. Honestly, the hardest thing I had to do when learning formal logic was accept that it's much simpler than you might think.

Oh, it can get complicated as all hell, but logic as a whole is actually extremely straightforward. That's sort of the point, in fact, as it's meant to strip away unwarranted conclusions and fallacious thinking. The difficulty is emergent. It only turns up when you start to apply multiple operative principles of it at once and have to keep reminding yourself not to get sidetracked by a million different tangential topics.

Hmm. I think logic superficially appears simple but... even the simplest stuff seems pretty intense to me.

My comment was with regard to yours about the usefulness of one particular definition of knowledge over another. He goes into heavy heavy detail about logic, meaning and a lot of other related stuff in the book... such that I really feel that unless I were to master that I'd never be able to make a proper comment on that stuff...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 02:01 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 01:54 PM)morondog Wrote:  My comment was with regard to yours about the usefulness of one particular definition of knowledge over another. He goes into heavy heavy detail about logic, meaning and a lot of other related stuff in the book... such that I really feel that unless I were to master that I'd never be able to make a proper comment on that stuff...

Yes, that's where you're getting down to the meat of it. Axioms, primitive notions, trying to analyze the validity of logic itself using logic itself - that's the point where it gets really complicated.

I'm just a bit of a masochist when it comes to things like this. I have Asperger's syndrome, and one of the things that triggers my obsessive tendencies is analysis of formal logic (well, analysis of any formally-defined system, really, but logic is the one that's relevant here). Given the opportunity, I'll ramble on about it for hours until my brain fizzles out.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: