Ming the Mechanic
The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
Wednesday, October 18, 2006day link 
 Checking in
Yesterday I had a root canal without anesthesia. French dentists work a little differently than American ones. Oh, didn't hurt too badly.

Anyway, strangely I feel like putting out a couple of blog posts, despite that I'm super busy. Most of my days in the next couple of months I'm going to this continuing education consultant thing at an engineering school here. Which means I suddenly need to squeeze my otherwise full day into a few hours in the evening, and go to bed early. But that of course gives the opportunity for organizing my time a bit better, and choosing which things actually are important.
[ | 2006-10-18 19:56 | 3 comments | PermaLink ]  More >

 Dawkins
I have many friends who're great fans of Richard Dawkins. I'm not. I think he's .. well, I'll quote David Weinberger
I'm an agnostic, but I find Richard Dawkins an embarrassment for my side, so to speak.

In his interview at Salon (either subscribe or watch an ad), conducted by Steve Paulson, the British biologist goes through his highly marketable outrage about religion. But, while he thinks he's arguing against all "Abrahamic" religions, he's in fact arguing against one branch of one religion. He seems to have not the slightest idea that not all religions think of faith as he characterizes it, and some "Abrahamic" religions don't really much care about faith in the first place.

He has not done his homework. He does not recognize differences in the phenomena he's studying. He is being a crappy scientist. And he's stirring up hatred and misunderstanding...exactly what he accuses Religion of doing.

He ought to shut up for a while and go hang out with a variety of religious folks. Field work, Richard, field work! ...
Dawkins seems just as religious to me as those which he imagines to oppose. A fundamentalist. Firm, unshakable belief, without bothering to ever verify anything. A bad representative for science.

And, yes, what he argues against is just a particular subset of the subjects of religion and spirituality and concepts of supreme beings and higher intelligences. He argues against this guy with the white beard who supposedly has created the universe. Which is certainly the easiest target, like arguing against Santa Claus or the Tooth Faery. The mistake he makes is that he lumps all the other stuff in with it, and acts like he somehow has proven that there's no higher intelligence in the universe, merely by pointing out that the guy-with-the-white-beard thing is a little silly and improbable. It is a little childish, and as far as scientific methodology is concerned a completely inane approach, and I'm surprised that so many otherwise intelligent people regard him as such a hero.

In the interview there, Dawkins admits that science has no clue what consciousness is. Doesn't seem very scientific to then jump to the conclusion that the universe of course doesn't have any.
[ | 2006-10-18 20:16 | 10 comments | PermaLink ]  More >

Main Page: ming.tv