It works...bitches!

NSFW Forums: Religious Testimony, Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Go to 1:09:55 - 1:12:23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvkbiElAOqU

For many years now, I've been watching videos and reading books from people such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Laurence Krause, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, Isaac Asimov, etc. but this unexpected moment was priceless!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 9 • Views: 1,663 • Replies: 21

@Chumly,

But Chum that's an hour and a half. So wonder if some of us might not appreciate a bit of a summary

2 Replies

@Chumly,

Ha, that was pretty funny Smile

Thanks

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

But Chum that's an hour and a half. So wonder if some of us might not appreciate a bit of a summary

Dale, he pointed out the place you have to scan to in the video: Go to 1:09:55 - 1:12:23. It's under 3 minutes long so not too bad.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

But Chum that's an hour and a half. So wonder if some of us might not appreciate a bit of a summary

Oh, just go to 1:09:55 - 1:12:23 but in any case listening to Richard Dawkins for hours is not the worst fate in the universe. I often practice guitar while listening to him and his buddies and/or dump it on a USB drive for the truck.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Ha, that was pretty funny
Thanks

If Neil deGrasse Tyson does something similar it's also funny but kind'a expected, but Richard Dawkins is very British and restrained.

0 Replies

@Chumly,

Quote:

Go to 1:09:55 - 1:12:23

Thank you Ros, Chum, but how do I get there

You gotta forgive the old fella
But in my own defense I did a Search and a quick Google with no luck

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

You hit play on the video, then move your cursor over the video. A bar will appear across the bottom. Click on the play indicator and slide it right until it reads one hour, ten minutes (1:10).

1 Reply

@engineer,

Here is the link pointing to the right place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvkbiElAOqU&t=70m0s

1 Reply

The dude who asked the question was asking about a philosophical outlook called internalism, which is almost universally embraced in the natural sciences. I'm sure the questioner knew that there isn't and can't be an empirical basis for internalism.

I don't think Dawkins understood the question, but he offered Quine's argument for naturalism. Quine admitted that the argument is circular.

3 Replies

@engineer,

Thanks, fellas

0 Replies

@Tuna,

they repeated the question twice after the guy finally found the microphone

I think Dawkins got it ok. Course, his shitfaced way of saying "QED" is part of his "charm"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

He got that the question was about the foundations of science. It would be cool if he would have said something like "Yes, scientists start with some assumptions and proceed with common sense. Until a better way of doing things comes along, we'll stick with that."

Nobody with common sense is going to argue with that. The response he gave is primed for eye-rolling. Dammit Richard... phone a friend.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

One of the problems I have with Dawkins. He often gets this little look of triumph when he pulls **** like that. But, what the hell some of those Brit "debates" can get so friggin pedantic.
Then when they discuss things that theyve actually done, they get all reserved and self -effacing.
So if Dawkins didnt exist, I guess w would have to invent him, just so it wouldnt be boring

1 Reply

@farmerman,

It occurred to me a while back that if I didn't agree with what Dawkins said, I would look at him as being snotty and condescending. Then I started seeing him as snotty and condescending even though I did agree with the content of his messages. And it's not just Dawkins, either. Lawrence Krauss (sp?) has that streak in him sometimes, too.

1 Reply

@FBM,

and Jerry Coyne, SCott Atran, and Lee Smolin. They are all douche bags on whose side I happen to be. It gets very tiresome though, having to begin any public lecture Q/A or a debate "one down" by being accused "why do you hate Christianity?"
Most people believe what they hear when its said with passion.

Maybe Dawkins and Smolin and the rest have been totally spent and wrung dry so they dont want to take any prisoners any more> I really dont know , but its hard to explain the obvious views of science to people who are pissed off at you when you come in the door.

Ive never said that Dawkins is wrong about his views on bio and evolution. His methods and his message, however, must be separated.

However, the Dawkins of today IS just really in it as a means to an income an hes been very successful at amassing a hundred million or more by being an irascible intellectual.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

The dude who asked the question was asking about a philosophical outlook called internalism, which is almost universally embraced in the natural sciences. I'm sure the questioner knew that there isn't and can't be an empirical basis for internalism.

I don't think Dawkins understood the question, but he offered Quine's argument for naturalism. Quine admitted that the argument is circular.

How is advocating relying on techniques of reasoning that work a circular argument? Is it smarter to use techniques of reasoning that don't work? If I use techniques that don't work, I will usually fail in my goals.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

The dude who asked the question was asking about a philosophical outlook called internalism, which is almost universally embraced in the natural sciences. I'm sure the questioner knew that there isn't and can't be an empirical basis for internalism.

I don't think Dawkins understood the question, but he offered Quine's argument for naturalism. Quine admitted that the argument is circular.

I agree. The original question had more philosophical implications than the question Dawkins actually answered. Unfortunately, when Dawkins first asked for clarification someone in the audience yelled out and reinterpreted it as a single sentence which wasn't accurate to the original (and to make matters worse, the person asking the question agreed, which makes me think that the person asking the original question might have been asking it on someone else's behalf and therefor didn't really understand his own question).

In any case, Dawkins avoided the philosophical quagmire and answered the easier question, which gave him a chance to say "Bitches", and left him right where he wanted to be.

0 Replies

mark

0 Replies

On a somewhat related note, I also consider Neil deGrasse Tyson to be fantastic, however he made an ooops as he meant to say "inanimate organic" but instead said "inorganic" @ 1:13:06 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCdSQpUtXIk

I also watch a lot of science-based videos from Stanford University, Yale University and MIT and every once in a while the lecturer will flub a line but not correct it. Of course I never make any mistakes in my class lectures!

1 Reply

It works...bitches!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know