1 of 2
1
Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason
Posted: 16 August 2007 12:31 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2007-02-21

Part 1

Part 2

Enjoy,

smile

[ Edited: 28 August 2007 11:07 AM by Thomas Donnelly ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2007 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

super fantastic!!

thanks

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2007 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29

Thanks, Thomas!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2007 05:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19

Great!!. I miss the first part I didn’t find the repetition.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2007 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05

I have just started the video and he is doing the attack on astrology bit.

These attacks on astrology based on newspaper horoscopes make about as much sense as attacking coffee drinking because it stains the teeth.  Even a casual study of the subject would force one to conclude doing a horoscope based on nothing but the sun sign is frivolous at best.

I think Dawkins is showing lack of reason by being so superficial.  It just comes down to look at these people that aren’t as smart as us, aren’t they stupid.  Can’t he do better than that?

Of course I had always despised all astrology columns; his was actually more entertaining than most. Though I was an advanced student of astrology, not a teacher, I had high standards about how the ancient art should be used. And I considered newspaper horoscopes to be an abomination. Without exception, they were poorly written and unforgivably dull. They encouraged people to be superstitious and made the dead-wrong implication that astrology preaches predetermination and annuls free will.

It was bad enough that their blather fed gullible readers inane advice that pandered to the least interesting forms of egotism and narcissism. Worst of all, they were based in only the most tenuous way on any real astrological understanding. Any reputable practitioner would have told you, for instance, that in order to assess the cosmic energies with any authenticity, you’d have to meditate on the movements and relationships of all the heavenly bodies, not just the sun. But newspaper horoscopes based their ersatz “predictions” solely on the sun’s position. They made the absurd proposition that the lives of millions of people who share any particular “sun sign” are all headed in the same direction.

http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/08/02/rbastrology/index.html

As long as there are people that want to believe bullsh!t there are going to be people willing to tell them the bullsh!t they want to hear, but don’t try to take the bullsh!t as evidence of anything.

12 Sun signs
12 rising signs
3 Mercury (Since it is close to the sun it can only be in the same sign or on either side)
5 Venus (Since it is close to the sun it can only be in the same sign or 2 on either side)
12 Moon
12 Mars
12 Jupiter
12 Saturn

This gives 44 million variations and still doesn’t take the houses into account

psik

[ Edited: 16 August 2007 09:51 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2007 10:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
psikeyhackr - 16 August 2007 09:44 PM

12 Sun signs
12 rising signs
3 Mercury (Since it is close to the sun it can only be in the same sign or on either side)
5 Venus (Since it is close to the sun it can only be in the same sign or 2 on either side)
12 Moon
12 Mars
12 Jupiter
12 Saturn

This gives 44 million variations and still doesn’t take the houses into account

Er, I think we should probably start a separate thread on this topic if you are serious. But why does it matter that there are lots of different variations? There is no data to support astrological hypotheses and no possible method of action for the supposed forces. Sagan and others have pointed this out as trenchantly as Dawkins.

Also, most people who believe in astrology (let’s say, over 90%) do so because they believe that the particular month that they are born in makes a difference to their life. That’s why they read astrology columns, and these only contain twelve options.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 August 2007 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05

I am not talking about believing in astrology I am talking about his presenting a shallow and stupid argument against astrology.  To argue against something and simply demonstrate that you don’t know anything about it is absurd even if the subject is totally wrong.  All he demonstrated was that most people who believe in astrology are as ignorant of the subject as he is.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2007 04:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  48
Joined  2007-01-13

Just finished watching the good Prof. taking the piss out of homeopathists.

The image of Richard Dawkins carrying a pipette as he paddled in the sea will stay with me for a little while! A good visual demonstration of how ridiculous this form of ‘medicine’ is.

He does seem to have picked easy subjects for this short (too short) series. But perhaps that’s because he’s still too busy opening hate mail from theists follwing TGD to concentrate on finding new enemies…?

Although I wouldn’t want to make an enemy of a homeopathist. They might throw water in my eyes!

 Signature 

There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary numbers and those who do not.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2007 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29

Part two.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17
psikeyhackr - 17 August 2007 11:37 AM

I am not talking about believing in astrology I am talking about his presenting a shallow and stupid argument against astrology.  To argue against something and simply demonstrate that you don’t know anything about it is absurd even if the subject is totally wrong.  All he demonstrated was that most people who believe in astrology are as ignorant of the subject as he is.

psik

Psikeyhacker,

The guy who wrote the piece you quoted in your post doesn’t know anything about predicting people’s future by using astrology either - he doesn’t even know it isn’t real!

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
narwhol - 26 August 2007 05:17 PM

Psikeyhacker,

The guy who wrote the piece you quoted in your post doesn’t know anything about predicting people’s future by using astrology either - he doesn’t even know it isn’t real!

I don’t understand your criticism.  This is from the quote:

Any reputable practitioner would have told you, for instance, that in order to assess the cosmic energies with any authenticity, you’d have to meditate on the movements and relationships of all the heavenly bodies, not just the sun.

That is the point I was making.  Regardless of any lack of validity of astrology, doing horoscopes by just the Sun sign is nonsense and any casual perusal of a semi-competent astrology book will tell you that.  So Dawkins’ use of newspaper columns to invalidate astrology is at best hysterically funny.  It would appeal to those of his choir who are also ignorant of astrology.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

So is any other way of doing astrology.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 06:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Just what exactly is a “semi-competent astrology book”? How does one tell? Or is it something like claiming to have a “semi-competent perpetual motion machine”?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 08:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05

So is any other way of doing astrology.

???

dougsmith - 26 August 2007 06:07 PM

Just what exactly is a “semi-competent astrology book”? How does one tell? Or is it something like claiming to have a “semi-competent perpetual motion machine”?

See post #5

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 09:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
psikeyhackr - 26 August 2007 08:40 PM

See post #5

You mean #6?

I still don’t get it. I mean, there are a million different sorts of astrology. All of them are equally fallacious. So why decide that one sort is any better, more competent, less ignorant than another? Based on what criterion?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 09:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

I just did and didn’t see any reasoning behind it - that’s not a semi competent astrology book.  And the trouble here is, that if Dawkins disproves that as well as the astrologers at the sun (whom a lot of people believe - which was his point), then some other guy can come along and add more invalid stuff to it and then the astrology stuff involves even more weird stuff that has as little basis as this guy you quote who, in turn has as little basis as the astrologer from the sun (just a larger set of made up stuff that he does before lying to someone about their future), and he’d have to debunk that as well and then the next guy who adds that after you taken venus out of uranus several times you have to do the hokey cokey and turn around, and so on ad infinitem.  If he debunks the guy at the sun, at least he’s debunking the guy that the largest number of fools believe rather than the guy whose predictions most of them haven’t even heard.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1