I don't think Newton would have attributed his success entirely to his DNA: If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.
Richard Dawkins' faithful optimism has always bothered me. Even if our species is so special, how does that make us, the individuals, lucky? What good does it do us?
What good does it do you? Well, the atoms that are you are now eating, sleeping, farting and posting comments on HN.
That's pretty interesting, given that it's much more likely that they'd be undergoing nuclear fusion as part of a star, or clumped together as a planet or an asteroid.
Dawkins is pointing out how neat this is as a way to get people interested in science. As Feynman pointed out, it's neat to take the world from another point of view.
At some point Dawkins has to rationalize (or shall I say 'irrationalize', for a man so concerned with logic) away the consequences of his diehard belief in an evolutionary process explaining our existence...
So to Dawkins, being the pawn of a purposeless, intelligence-devoid, purely natural process -- slowing marching his way to death, only to be forgotten within a few centuries -- probably doesn't sit well with him.
For most people, they choose to ignore the reality that Evolution simply lays down the fact that one's existence is both purposeless and meaningless. Well, one does have a purpose - replicating their species.
Of course, the optimistic delusion starts when people start bullshitting about "doing good for humanity" and "living for the moment" and all sorts of other drivel that really just serves to help them ignore the bigger uncomfortable reality of how incredibly useless and meaningless they are on the timeline of the infinite.
Smart? He mostly offers superficial pseudo science, which doesn't hold more profound investigation.
The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details. He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though).
He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud and successfully, without really saying anything really scientific.
You have to be scientific, not only sound so. And, science is not absolute -- nothing is absolute -- but he puts science in an absolute position, which is simply not scientific, but already his religion...
What do you mean by this? Are you claiming his work in evolutionary biology is pseudo-science? What part of it? Or are you just angry that he doesn't believe in god and isn't afraid to say so?
> The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one
Are you claiming he is a pseudo-scientists or a mediocre scientist?
> To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud
What is he shouting about? In my experiences with his writing and speech he makes clear, persuasive arguments which make specific, disprovable claims.
You have made extremely strong claims about a respected scientist and provided nothing but your much derided shouting to back it up.
:-) Wow. This is hysterical and wildly inaccurate. Dawkins has numerous academic papers. 'The Selfish Gene' (which was praised by W D Hamilton--one the great biologists of our times) is a great introduction to genetics, a wonderful and proper science.
He is making science (and many times his personal opinion, that is: his personal theories) an absolute fact.
It doesn't matter how many real science he's providing: if you take 90% of truth, and mix in 10% of lies, then the result can't be true...
He claims that evolution (a statistically impossible theory) has to be taken as a fact, "forgetting" that one of his colleagues, and many others, already have proven it wrong.
It's not important what I think now, or what you think now, future will show! The current science might be blind -- remember, it's not absolute -- as it already happened many times in history...
Now I am not the biggest Dawkins fan (I think he is abit of a science zealot - which has it's place but is still uncomfortable) but you're being unfair.
He is at least soundly scientific; especially in evolutionary biology.
Lets do the math: how many women ever existed? How many years did they were fertile? Then we know the number of ovum/eggs and so: the max number of humans that could have ever been. Right?
He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg, in addition to all the opportunities to be pregnant that weren't taken. The numbers get so absurdly large so fast that it's inconceivable.
>He's more likely referring to every possible human, which for instance would include every possible other sperm that could have fertilized your egg
The one that fertilised it is the only one that could have fertilised it. Perhaps if you're into realist versions Copenhagen interpretation then you can argue that in a largely parallel universe that another sperm may have suited the conditions ...
