how some of you misunderstand Dawkins

[_Sethbag]

By the way, Wade, I'm not trying to be a weasle or anything, just that my OP and the addition of #5 were attempts to sum up the general message of Dawkins in my own words, and was a paraphrasing of things gathered over his God Delusion book, in combination with all of the other things from Dawkins that I've seen or heard, including his interview with Bishop Harries, the "Root of All Evil?" TV special, various other interviews, TV appearances, his Galapogos tour boat Q&A sessions, and so forth. That point wasn't a direct quote of some one paragraph claim or anything like that, but rather was a point I feel he's made over the course of an awful lot of question answering and example citing and whatnot. You really would have to read his book, and watch his interviews and TV appearances and such, to identify the various examples he's used and the way in which he's made this point.

[_wenglund]

What you should be asking, is if, in fact, dawkins ever made such a claim. And if he did, where he made it.

Then we could go from there.

I am taking Sethbag at his word. He has read Dawkin's book, and I haven't. He made the claim, and so I am simply asking for references. How this simple and reasonable request somehow violates some cardinal rule of "empirical research" is beyond me. So, I am waiting for Mr. Sajer to explain himself--hopefully using authoritative sources. In other words, I am slowly feeding Sajer the rope of irony, tied with the knot of his own wildly inflated hubris and collasal ignorance, with which to hang himself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sethbag]

Like I said, this was my own words summing up what I believe to be a point Dawkins supports in his lectures, appearances, books, etc. You really would have to read the book, watch the interviews, etc. to see and hear him referring to examples and discussing them and whatnot, in order to know what he's talking about. I'm not directly quoting some statement referring to scholarly studies or anything, that I could pass along to you.

I'm curious, Wade, how much of Dawkins have you actually read, or heard?

[_Who Knows]

What you should be asking, is if, in fact, dawkins ever made such a claim. And if he did, where he made it.

Then we could go from there.

I am taking Sethbag at his word. He has read Dawkin's book, and I haven't. He made the claim, and so I am simply asking for references. How this simple and reasonable request somehow violates some cardinal rule of "empirical research" is beyond me. So, I am waiting for Mr. Sajer to explain himself--hopefully using authoritative sources. In other words, I am slowly feeding Sajer the rope of irony, tied with the knot of his own wildly inflated hubris and collasal ignorance, with which to hang himself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think guy's reasoning goes somewhat like this:

Let's say I say "The book of abraham is not scripture".

Now, would the burden of proof rest with me? Or does the burden of proof rest with those claiming that the book of abraham is scripture? And until they can satisfy that claim, the burden of proof is not on me (claiming the Book of Abraham isn't scripture).

[Gadianton]

No, Wade, the correct way to take what I'm saying is that I am not allowing you to inappropriately shift the burden of proof to where it does not belong.

You obviously aren't paying attention to anything I, or anyone else, is saying. You insist on blundering forth in your own un-scientific manner while attempting to call onto the carpet those of us who insist on even a smidgeon of rigor in our reasoning and analysis.

Take a beginner course on empirical research methods and then let's talk again.

So, even though, according to Sethbag, Dawkins set forth the proposition/argument/claim that: "believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society"; and even though, according to Sethbag, Dawkins claimed there was "plenty of evidence" to support this propostion/argument/claim; to your way of thinking, I am inappropriately shifting the burden of proof by asking for the claimed "plenty of evidence" in support of Dawkins propostion/argument/claim #5. Could you please provide me with an authoritative source on "empirical research methods" where it says that asking for the claimed evidence in support of a proposition/argument/claim constitutes shifting the burden of proof?

I ask, because I am somewhat familiar with burden of proof in common law as well as in logic and critical thinking, and in these disciplines "the burden of proof for any claim [or propostition/argument] rests on the claimant [or those asserting the proposition or argument]." In other words, Dawkins bears the burden of proof for his claim #5. He supposedly has met that burden with "plenty of evidence". Accordingly, one cannot reasonably conclude that I am shifting the burden of proof by simply asking to see the "plenty of evidence" in support of the Dawkins claim #5.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, but who's the claimant, Dawkins or you, who is asserting the converse?

I find it odd that you would ask since: 1) I have repeatedly qouted Dawkin's claim (or at least what Sethbag has said is Dawkins claim); and 2) I have repeatedly and specifically indicated that I am NOT speaking to any counter argument (or converse claim).

Who's the claimant in this case:

Person 1" "There's such a thing as alien abuductions."

In principle, this fits the pro claim: "believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society"

OR

Person 2, "There's no such thing as alien abuductions?"

In principle, this fits the con claim: believing in things for which there is no evidence does not undermine one's critical and rational thinking faculties and thus doesn't not prove, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society.

They are both making claims; who bears the burden of proof?

Trick question; it's obvious.

I agree. It is obvious. Both claimants bear the burden of proof for their respective claims, though typically in debate, if person 1 fails to meet the burden of proof, person 2 wins the debate.

But, this is all beside the point--which you might just have figured out were you not so busy scrambling to save face. My simple request wasn't an attempt to shift the burden of proof (regardless wherever one may think the burden may or may not rest), but rather to learn the specifics of the "proof" that had already been claimed to exist in support of Dawkin's claim.

Here are a couple of cases that may help you grasp this simple and obvious point:

Person 1: The earth is spherical, and I have ample evidence to prove it.

Person 2: Please tell me what that evidence is.

Person 3: Well, Person 2 is trying to shift the burden of proof and obviously doesn't understand the basics of "empirical research".

Which person is the idiot?

Trick question. It is obvious.


How about this?:

Person 1: There is "plenty of evidence" that frequently thinking negative thoughts tends to have a delitarious affect on a persons success in life, as well as the success of those around them.

Person 2: I would be interested in see that evidence. Could you provide some citaitons?

Person 3: Well, Person 2 is trying to shift the burden of proof and obviously doesn't understand the basics of "empirical research".

Which person is the idiot?

Trick question. It is obvious.


I am still waiting for the authoritative source on "empirical research" (preferably from a "beginner course) that allegedly claims that asking for references for claimed evidence somehow amounts to shifting the burden of proof. Good luck.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Like I said, this was my own words summing up what I believe to be a point Dawkins supports in his lectures, appearances, books, etc. You really would have to read the book, watch the interviews, etc. to see and hear him referring to examples and discussing them and whatnot, in order to know what he's talking about. I'm not directly quoting some statement referring to scholarly studies or anything, that I could pass along to you.

I'm curious, Wade, how much of Dawkins have you actually read, or heard?

I haven't read anything from Dawkins, and I have only heard what has been said here about him. That is why I simply asked for references rather than questioning what Dawkins has said or what has been said about Dawkins.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

What you should be asking, is if, in fact, dawkins ever made such a claim. And if he did, where he made it.

Then we could go from there.

I am taking Sethbag at his word. He has read Dawkin's book, and I haven't. He made the claim, and so I am simply asking for references. How this simple and reasonable request somehow violates some cardinal rule of "empirical research" is beyond me. So, I am waiting for Mr. Sajer to explain himself--hopefully using authoritative sources. In other words, I am slowly feeding Sajer the rope of irony, tied with the knot of his own wildly inflated hubris and collasal ignorance, with which to hang himself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think guy's reasoning goes somewhat like this:

Let's say I say "The book of abraham is not scripture".

Now, would the burden of proof rest with me? Or does the burden of proof rest with those claiming that the book of abraham is scripture? And until they can satisfy that claim, the burden of proof is not on me (claiming the Book of Abraham isn't scripture).

I don't think that analogy fits this case since Dawkins is making an affirmative claim (his claim takes the form: X causes Y which in turn results in Z), whereas your example takes the form (X is NOT Y).

But even if that were his reasoning, it is beside the point. My simple request was essentially for documentation regarding the claimed "plenty of evidence". This in no reasonable way can be interpreted as me shifting the burden of proof, let alone indication that I don't have the slightest clue about "empirical research". I am merely asking for documentation.

If you get this simple and obvious point, please see if you can explain it to Guy. In his haste to fault me with not knowing what I am talking about, he ironically can't see that he is clueless, and doesn't seem willing to get a clue from me. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sethbag]

Like I said, this was my own words summing up what I believe to be a point Dawkins supports in his lectures, appearances, books, etc. You really would have to read the book, watch the interviews, etc. to see and hear him referring to examples and discussing them and whatnot, in order to know what he's talking about. I'm not directly quoting some statement referring to scholarly studies or anything, that I could pass along to you.

I'm curious, Wade, how much of Dawkins have you actually read, or heard?

I haven't read anything from Dawkins, and I have only heard what has been said here about him. That is why I simply asked for references rather than questioning what Dawkins has said or what has been said about Dawkins.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ok, well I feel my summing-up was fairly reasonable in terms of Dawkins and some of his main points. For any more specifics, you'd really have to go to the source. I highly recommend it. I really like watching or listening to anything Dawkins says.

You could start with something fairly easy, like the Bishop Harries interview. Bishop Harries is actually the most reasonable of the Christians I've ever seen Dawkins discuss with. Perhaps it's because he's not so dogmatic, and has a very common sense approach, unlike most other Christians I've ever seen Dawkins discuss with.

Anyhow, here's the Google Video link to the Bishop Harries interview.

Here's a link to "The Root of All Evil?", a UK channel 4 TV special by Dawkins. Please note that Dawkins doesn't actually think that religion is the root of all evil, and that the title was chosen by the TV network, and he disagreed with it. He thinks it's only a root of some evil. :-)

There are many more good Richard Dawkins interviews and things you can access on YouTube and Google Video. Plus, of course, you can read the books. So far I've only read "The God Delusion", but I intend to read his other works as well.

[_wenglund]

Like I said, this was my own words summing up what I believe to be a point Dawkins supports in his lectures, appearances, books, etc. You really would have to read the book, watch the interviews, etc. to see and hear him referring to examples and discussing them and whatnot, in order to know what he's talking about. I'm not directly quoting some statement referring to scholarly studies or anything, that I could pass along to you.

I'm curious, Wade, how much of Dawkins have you actually read, or heard?

I haven't read anything from Dawkins, and I have only heard what has been said here about him. That is why I simply asked for references rather than questioning what Dawkins has said or what has been said about Dawkins.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ok, well I feel my summing-up was fairly reasonable in terms of Dawkins and some of his main points. For any more specifics, you'd really have to go to the source. I highly recommend it. I really like watching or listening to anything Dawkins says.

You could start with something fairly easy, like the Bishop Harries interview. Bishop Harries is actually the most reasonable of the Christians I've ever seen Dawkins discuss with. Perhaps it's because he's not so dogmatic, and has a very common sense approach, unlike most other Christians I've ever seen Dawkins discuss with.

Anyhow, here's the Google Video link to the Bishop Harries interview.

Here's a link to "The Root of All Evil?", a UK channel 4 TV special by Dawkins. Please note that Dawkins doesn't actually think that religion is the root of all evil, and that the title was chosen by the TV network, and he disagreed with it. He thinks it's only a root of some evil. :-)

There are many more good Richard Dawkins interviews and things you can access on YouTube and Google Video. Plus, of course, you can read the books. So far I've only read "The God Delusion", but I intend to read his other works as well.

I don't know that my interest in Dawkins is sufficient to motivate me to plow through all his material in search of the requested information. But, I do appreciate the suggestion. Perhaps I will watch the video when I get more inclined.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sethbag]

At least listen to the Bishop Harries interview. I think you'll like Bishop Harries (now Lord Harries), and one can't help but like listening to Dawkins as well. This link was to the full source material from his interview with Bishop Harries, a small portion of which made it into Dawkins' "Root of All Evil?" TV special.