Am I doing something wrong here?

[Carl G]

it is a teacher's prerogative to use any method to reach his students (or potential students).

Meaning any method that will (potentially) work.

Fuck "best method". There are always several effective approaches to choose from. In any case, one always takes a chance.

[ChochemV2]

You make an educated guess you don't just pull out flash cards with teaching methods and choose one at random.

[Carl G]

Who said anything about random? I said it is a teacher's prerogative to use any "flash card" he or she thinks will work.

[ChochemV2]

I really don't feel like arguing about this until my fingers fall off. I simply feel that Dan's method was so blatantly false and I doubt he chose it as much as fell into it because it certainly doesn't read as rational and intentional.

That's it, I just don't agree and I don't understand where this comes from:

Fuck "best method". There are always several effective approaches to choose from. In any case, one always takes a chance.

You do choose the best method. You make an educated guess at what will be the most effective and go with it. I wasn't proposing an absolute just a simple change in wording.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I really don't feel like arguing about this until my fingers fall off. I simply feel that Dan's method was so blatantly false and I doubt he chose it as much as fell into it because it certainly doesn't read as rational and intentional.

I think there's more at work than is immediately apparent. It looks like a power struggle to me.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Anyway...
Page 4 of "Is Dawkins a Philosopher?"
From the top of this page, and on into the next page, the discussion has become a lot more rational. I think that whatever reason that the forum members had for attacking Dan (and then me) has been reconsidered by most members of this forum. Only one person tried to be rude -- likely to test my sincerity -- but it wasn't that difficult a situation to defuse.

By the top of page 5, I managed to steer the conversation back to Dan's first quotation. I'm quite sure that I've said enough background information on both philosophy in general and what I know of Dan's philosophy in particular that I think that more than one forum member is willing to consider the possibility that there are other approaches to knowledge than the scientific one. (The scientism of the forum was bothering me much more than the arrogance, but scientism is not a very appealing position so long as it is recognized and addressed, so it's not that hard to convince a rational person to reject it.)

[Jamesh]

How Not to Respond to Criticism

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/how-not-to-argue.html

Trouble making Australian skeptics running amok!

[Dan Rowden]

I have looked at my dynamic there 3 times now, and my after-the-fact opinion is I should have gotten out of there faster than I did. I was not arrogant at any point; I was more polite than they actually deserved. The place is a religious shithole.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...my after-the-fact opinion is I should have gotten out of there faster than I did. I was not arrogant at any point; I was more polite than they actually deserved. The place is a religious shithole.

Would make a great epitaph.

[Dan Rowden]

Yet, spoken mostly from disappointment and misplaced generalisation, probably.

[Leyla Shen]

[laaaughs!]

Funny you should mention that, Diebert. Just today I decided on my epitaph:

"You can't be fucking serious!"

But I like that one much better! Brilliant. If you don't want it, Dan, I'll take it.

Classic.

:)

[ChochemV2]

I'm a fan of "Bury me upside down and plant a flag in my ass"...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

So long as the gravedigger shovels on dirt, and not horseshit, the rest of the funeral doesn't matter.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Near the bottom of page 7:

Homo economicus wrote:
Zoology is still a minority subject in universities, and even those who choose to study it often make their decision without appreciating its profound philosophical significance. Philosophy and the subjects known as 'humanities' are still taught almost as if Darwin had never lived. -- Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene).

Anyone want to take that quotation on?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Okay, I responded to it. And now the moderator is flaming me. Holy cripes, Dan, I finally agree with you.

I should have left a lot sooner.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

And, since I should give my own expert opinion, and not merely agree with Dan:

It's a forum of flamers and trolls, where not even the moderator forms an exception to this rule, and where the utter banality of every word uttered is completely belied by the fact that they are constantly congratulating one another for terribly executed feats of reasonings. An orgy of otherwise respectable businessmen might be filled with men of similar reasoning capacity: their derision is reminiscent of the hoots and hollers that might fly from such an orgy when another man enters and immediately leaves in disgust -- they call him a coward, but his cowardice is merely the prudence that prevents him from contracting the same venereal disease that has been transmitted and retransmitted countless times through many open and willing assholes.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Zoology is still a minority subject in universities, and even those who choose to study it often make their decision without appreciating its profound philosophical significance. Philosophy and the subjects known as 'humanities' are still taught almost as if Darwin had never lived. -- Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene).

From the context I'd gather he means that much of philosophy, social sciences and psychology have not caught on to what Dawkins and indirectly Darwin introduced: an ongoing battle of genes, no - a battle between genes, concerned with their own survival on the level of single genes. Like an individual virus but then in the context of a longer term cooperation (cell - DNA).

The concern is then not really anymore at the level that the 'humanities' still teach: culture, group dynamics and systems, the survival of species or the group but can be traced back to the 'concern' of a single gene to survive against all costs, even by sticking with other genes if needed, for now. Dawkins writes that his book The Extended Phenotype is really the book making this case.

The question I have is how Dawkins defines philosophy. He carefully avoids applying morality to his findings and admits the morality of a society is different than the ruthlessness and selfishness on gene level. I'd then submit the same thing for philosophy: it's all good and well that genes might be pulling the strings more than is realized by most but if morality doesn't apply on that level, why would philosophy or at least ethics? If Dawkins wants academic philosophy to get involved in Darwinism and the selfish gene meme, he himself should be less tip-toeing around the moral issues and instead of attacking religion perhaps attack some other sacred cows. I still miss that in his work and therefore I hesitate to call him a philosopher, although he does explore philosophical issues. My guess would be that he doesn't have the stomach, the guts to go where is needed. Dennett is more ruthless in that way but that's another topic.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Okay, I responded to it. And now the moderator is flaming me. Holy cripes, Dan, I finally agree with you.

I should have left a lot sooner.

While I still do find your participation there incredibly weak, I do agree with the point you made over there about Dawkins' duplicity in trying to avoid moral implications in The Selfish Gene. From a true (existential) philosophical perspective one cannot just suspend morality, values and ones whole psychological worldview. This becomes a mock objectivity which has already been described a tat dramatically yet succinctly by Herr Nietzsche:

For this is the truth: I have moved from the house of the scholars and I even banged the door behind me. My soul sat hungry at their table too long; I am not, like them, trained to pursue knowledge as if it were nut-cracking. I love freedom and the air over the fresh earth; rather would I sleep on ox hides than on their decorums and respectabilities.

I am too hot and burned by my own thoughts; often it nearly takes my breath away. Then I must go out into the open and away from all dusty rooms. But they sit cool in the cool shade: in everything they want to be mere spectators, and they beware of sitting where the sun burns on the steps. Like those who stand in the street and gape at the people who pass by, they too wait and gape at thoughts that others have thought.

From: Thus Spoke Zarathustra part two: On Scholars (Kauffmann translation). A more complete collection of Nietzsche quotes on scholars which I'm sure Trevor will enjoy you can find here.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Diebert: the hostility of the forum prevented me from caring about the quality of my arguments. If someone doesn't look like they are willing to listen to me, I'm not going to waste my breath talking to them.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Anyway, maybe it's time I reread Thus Spoke Zarathustra... :)

[Jamesh]

I've only scanned most of the posts and not thought much about the content, but the impression I was getting was that both Dan and you were more or less making mountains out of molehills.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

James: that was the same impression I had of Dan before I joined. But as soon as I was participating, the dynamic shifted. Things that Dan was complaining about that seemed very trivial from a distance were glaring from up close. I can almost guarantee that were you to participate, you would find their behaviour sickening. The atmosphere in that place is stifling.

[Dan Rowden]

One has to be automatically wary of any board that likes to accuse people of "trolling". Whilst authentic trolling certainly exists, it is also a nice little catch-cry that boards use to intimidate and control outsiders. The Dawkins board is populated by college types who have not yet learned how to wipe their noses. It is essentially a fan club with a smattering of more serious posters. Sam Harris' forum is better - though fairly inactive.

http://www.samharris.org/forum/

[Jamesh]

Trevor,

I'd say a lot of them are educators used to bossing kids around, or science uni grads who want their ego's sated by showing others how much they know, as if it meant they were wise.

There is also the general problem of the type of person who posts a lot on internet forums (including ourselves) - they post a lot because their ego's have a strong desire to spread their opinions and they find that being bossy on internet forums gives them a (partly illusionary or fantasy and partly real) ego satisfaction, that is not attainable in the face-to-face world.

The main problem though, from both sides, still seems to be one of too high a biasness to one's own subjective interests. (Rider - this is still based on my shallow examination of the discussion).

Don't be too supportive of Dan. I made a small effort to get the conversation to look at one of the quotes in more detail and he didn't bother picking up on it and using it to make his point, so either my posts was crap or Dan is really just playing ego games without realising it (or some combination of these). For example, he could have used this opening but didn't bother - so fuck him :)

How do folks know that their values and goals are the best possible values and goals?

[Dan Rowden]

Don't be too supportive of Dan. I made a small effort to get the conversation to look at one of the quotes in more detail and he didn't bother picking up on it and using it to make his point, so either my posts was crap or Dan is really just playing ego games without realising it (or some combination of these). For example, he could have used this opening but didn't bother - so fuck him :)

I was actually glad to see you there as your presence did give scope for the discussion to take a better direction. However, after I came back overnight to it Trevor had arrived and basically screwed things up further! :) At that point I abandoned any hope of rescuing things and therefore didn't bother to pursue your line of thought.