Dawkins bitch-slaps..

[jaydot]

i don't think you believe a word of what you say, tyrannical.

[JimC]

i don't think you believe a word of what you say, tyrannical.

No, but he's quite keen on the sentences...

[Jason]

This is really about Dawkins being South African isn't it?

[JimC]

This is really about Dawkins being South African isn't it?

I thought it was Kenya?

[Jason]

Some place in Africa.

[JimC]

But now he's Out of Africa...

[FBM]

Read the thread, Tyr. Science made those inventions possible.

The scientific method is a specific method. You can't classify all science as following the scientific method, you can still make discoveries or inventions without it. My point was that Dawkins gave some rather poor examples when justifying the scientific method.

Sorry you were wrong about that, though. Those were fine examples of technologies that have their roots in work done using the scientific method.

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

[cronus]

Dawkins lacks stage presence to the point that we are questioning what he says even here. The best form of defense is attack? It is like being mauled by a dead sheep when he says anything, especially when he's on the defensive. Unlike Hitchens who could focus a counter-argument into a sharp verbal riposte Dawkins manages to string people along with long meandering and often irrelevant explanations, whilst you get the feeling he's looking for a exit door.

[JimC]

Dawkins lacks stage presence to the point that we are questioning what he says even here. The best form of defense is attack? It is like being mauled by a dead sheep when he says anything, especially when he's on the defensive. Unlike Hitchens who could focus a counter-argument into a sharp verbal riposte Dawkins manages to string people along with long meandering and often irrelevant explanations, whilst you get the feeling he's looking for a exit door.

I agree that he's better in print than in unscripted verbal debates. Mind you, being really good at that is a rare enough skill...

[FBM]

Dawkins lacks stage presence to the point that we are questioning what he says even here. The best form of defense is attack? It is like being mauled by a dead sheep when he says anything, especially when he's on the defensive. Unlike Hitchens who could focus a counter-argument into a sharp verbal riposte Dawkins manages to string people along with long meandering and often irrelevant explanations, whilst you get the feeling he's looking for a exit door.

You score more crowd points with witty, cutting rhetoric rather than reason, sadly.

[Tyrannical]

Read the thread, Tyr. Science made those inventions possible.

The scientific method is a specific method. You can't classify all science as following the scientific method, you can still make discoveries or inventions without it. My point was that Dawkins gave some rather poor examples when justifying the scientific method.

Sorry you were wrong about that, though. Those were fine examples of technologies that have their roots in work done using the scientific method.

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

You (and Dawkins) are still wrong. Did the Romans use the scientific method when they were designing the aqueducts? Nope, because it wasn't invented yet.

[Mr.Samsa]

Dawkins lacks stage presence to the point that we are questioning what he says even here. The best form of defense is attack? It is like being mauled by a dead sheep when he says anything, especially when he's on the defensive. Unlike Hitchens who could focus a counter-argument into a sharp verbal riposte Dawkins manages to string people along with long meandering and often irrelevant explanations, whilst you get the feeling he's looking for a exit door.

I think part of the reason it looks like Dawkins is looking for the exit, particularly in that video, is that he doesn't actually answer the question - and I'd question whether he actually understood it. The point was that scientists adopt the philosophical position of scientific skepticism, the idea that we shouldn't reach a conclusion on an idea unless it is supported by evidence, but the obvious problem is that if we adopt such a belief, then it demands that we must also have evidence for adopting that particular belief.

The answer to the question of what evidence is there to suggest that scientific skepticism is true or that we should adopt it, is that there isn't any evidence. It's an unfounded assumption we have to make for purely pragmatic reasons - the pragmatic reason being "it works". But this is a different argument to the claim that scientific skepticism is supported by the evidence that science works, which is fairly nonsensical.

[FBM]

Read the thread, Tyr. Science made those inventions possible.

The scientific method is a specific method. You can't classify all science as following the scientific method, you can still make discoveries or inventions without it. My point was that Dawkins gave some rather poor examples when justifying the scientific method.

Sorry you were wrong about that, though. Those were fine examples of technologies that have their roots in work done using the scientific method.

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

You (and Dawkins) are still wrong. Did the Romans use the scientific method when they were designing the aqueducts? Nope, because it wasn't invented yet.

Mmmm...red herring is a nice evening snack. We're talking about automobiles, airplanes and computers. None of which would be possible without the efforts of scientists applying the scientific method. Boyle's Law... *cough*

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Science saves engineers time. "Let's build this bridge out of low-tinsel steel and out of high-tinsel steel and see which one will hold up a train."

[pErvinalia]

tinsel is not good for building anything.