Dawkins Scale Discussion

[Kestrel]

edit - fixed

I personally don't have a problem with the Dawkin's Scale.
I understand his position.

FWIW, I'd go for a #1 myself.

[Rian]

All that writing and palaverin' and bitchin' and moanin' and criticism... and you still haven't answered it.

Which is why I assess you are refusing to answer it.

I'm not refusing to answer it. It was just down low on my priority list, and after your crappy behavior, it's even lower. There's still a question from Dr Mundo that I haven't answered, and it's been about a month, and I respect him far more than I do you. Discussion boards are slow sometimes, and most people understand this. I think you understand it, too, but choose to misinterpret and attack.

So - I'll answer it after I answer some posts from other people who post with integrity and thoughtfulness, if I have any time left over. I certainly will NOT bump your question to the top of the queue and reward your crappy behavior.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I wonder if part of the confusion comes because people sometimes make the mistake of thinking that if something has a 90% chance of being the case this means I am 90% certain it will happen; this may be so but the two are not the same. If I toss a coin I may say I am 50% certain it will come down heads but surely I really mean I am certain the odds of it coming down heads are 50/50. If I throw a dice I surely do not feel 16.66666% certain that it will come down with a 6. I Feel a fully certain or perhaps fairly certain if I think it may be slightly biased by weight that the odds of a six are one in six or 16.66666%. How would I tell the diffetrence between feeling 16.666666% certain and feeling 17% certain. The probabilities can be certain or can be guessed but they are not the same as the psychological feeling of certainty. In the case of a coin I am fully justified in thinking the odds are 50/50 and not at all justified in thinking that it will come down heads; I cannot be 50% justified there are not 50% warranted convictions.

Moonwood, the only "confusion" I am seeing is your seemingly insatiable desire to turn the simplest of things into a massive "scientific" brouhaha when it's simply not deserved or warranted. You've gotten this bug in your hat about Dawkins saying he "does religions the respect of considering them scientific hypotheses" and now everything the poor bastard says you're forcing into a scientific model. If he says, "I had Captain Crunch for breakfast" you leap into this mode of arguing whether or not "knowing is knowing".

It's a simple self assessment of one's beliefs for chrissake! Look at you pedantically going on and on about probability paradigms, percentiles, and certainy principles. When are you going to pull out Higgs Boson and Shroedinger's Cat for crying out loud?

Check out the picture below. It's from Woody Allen's "Love and Death" -- it's supposed to be his old mummy making a simple blintz. That's what you remind me of here. It's a simple question, a mere self assessment, and you lard it up with post graduate algebra mathematics. Lighten Up, Frances!

What's telling is Rian's utter refusal to answer it, and your endless attempts to conflate it into something complex, and in the process discard it. That's what's really interesting.

Suppose you set up a simple assessment to find out what colours people assign to particular days of the week. And you find, as you will aparently, that a lot of people have no problem answering this. You also find that some people can't answer the question because it does not make sense to them that a day should be a colour. They try to explain why and that may entail looking in quite a detailed way at concepts of time and colour. Then you say, 'Look it's a simple question: do you think Monday is red or blue? If you won't tell me that's interesting'.

[Keep The Reason]

Suppose you set up a simple assessment to find out what colours people assign to particular days of the week. And you find, as you will aparently, that a lot of people have no problem answering this. You also find that some people can't answer the question because it does not make sense to them that a day should be a colour. They try to explain why and that may entail looking in quite a detailed way at concepts of time and colour. Then you say, 'Look it's a simple question: do you think Monday is red or blue? If you won't tell me that's interesting'.

Sure... If you were one of those in the mid-range, you might apply the above. But you lay claim to theism, so you are really either 1 or 2. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 only apply to people who are unsure where they stand per theism, and 6 and 7 don't apply to you at all.

You're being asked if you know god exists for sure, or do you cobble in some doubt, but go about your life as if there is a god. You're so intent on making sense out of the ones you don't agree with in the first place, that you're not able to see the simple part that applies to you.

[Keep The Reason]

I'm not refusing to answer it. It was just down low on my priority list, and after your crappy behavior, it's even lower. There's still a question from Dr Mundo that I haven't answered, and it's been about a month, and I respect him far more than I do you. Discussion boards are slow sometimes, and most people understand this. I think you understand it, too, but choose to misinterpret and attack.

So - I'll answer it after I answer some posts from other people who post with integrity and thoughtfulness, if I have any time left over. I certainly will NOT bump your question to the top of the queue and reward your crappy behavior.

Ok. And when you do, I'll no longer assess you are refusing to answer it. Fair enough?

[Moonwood the Hare]

Suppose you set up a simple assessment to find out what colours people assign to particular days of the week. And you find, as you will aparently, that a lot of people have no problem answering this. You also find that some people can't answer the question because it does not make sense to them that a day should be a colour. They try to explain why and that may entail looking in quite a detailed way at concepts of time and colour. Then you say, 'Look it's a simple question: do you think Monday is red or blue? If you won't tell me that's interesting'.

Sure... If you were one of those in the mid-range, you might apply the above. But you lay claim to theism, so you are really either 1 or 2. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 only apply to people who are unsure where they stand per theism, and 6 and 7 don't apply to you at all.

You're being asked if you know god exists for sure, or do you cobble in some doubt, but go about your life as if there is a god. You're so intent on making sense out of the ones you don't agree with in the first place, that you're not able to see the simple part that applies to you.

My point was that just as I don't equate days with colours I don't equate knowing with percentages. Dawkins does because he believes, or seems to believe, either that all knowledge is hypothetical or that any none hypothetical knowledge has qualities that don't apply to religious beliefs (that non-hypothetical knowledge must be either necessary or incorrigible or something of that kind). I am still not sure if you want me to assess my subjective feelings of certainty or the matter of whether I think my knowledge is well grounded. If the latter I'm a 1 if being a 1 is the only way of saying I know if the former I'm a one some days and a two others and maybe something else entirely in some moods. This is not uncommon

Lewis: "Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the
whole thing looks improbable: but when I was an atheist I
had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable."
Mere Christianity

Plantinga: For me, as, I suppose, for most others, spiritual life is
an up and down proposition, with what one hopes are the
consolidation of small but genuine gains. Sometimes I wake
in the wee hours of the morning and find myself wondering:
can all this really be true? Can this whole wonderful
Christian story really be more than a wonderful fairy
tale? At other times I find myself as convinced of its
main lineaments as that I live in South Bend.--
Spiritual Autobiography

Now there you have, in my opinion the greatest Christian apologist and the greatest Christian epistemologist of the twentieth century both talking in a way that would make it seem they are 2s at best. But if you were to ask either of them if they knew that there was a God I am sure they would both give a resounding yes.

[Rian]

Very good answer, Moonwood. One thing that these discussions have started to show is that some people think that everyone should be forced into their way of thinking, while others can accept that knowledge - what it is and how you get it - means different things to different people. And that's important to be aware of. I know that I used to think that way, but I'm glad I finally saw how arrogant and close-minded my thinking was, and I changed.

I'm not refusing to answer it. It was just down low on my priority list, and after your crappy behavior, it's even lower. There's still a question from Dr Mundo that I haven't answered, and it's been about a month, and I respect him far more than I do you. Discussion boards are slow sometimes, and most people understand this. I think you understand it, too, but choose to misinterpret and attack.

So - I'll answer it after I answer some posts from other people who post with integrity and thoughtfulness, if I have any time left over. I certainly will NOT bump your question to the top of the queue and reward your crappy behavior.

Ok. And when you do, I'll no longer assess you are refusing to answer it. Fair enough?

Are you serious? Of course it's not fair. It's not even reasonable. It makes no sense, since I've told you that I'm not refusing to answer - I have many other posts that are a higher priority to answer than yours. But a lot of what you do isn't fair or reasonable. You use one of the smarmiest tactics on the internet, then say a person is refusing to answer when they've just said they are NOT refusing to answer - they are just not moving you up on their answer priority list because of your use of cheap tactics.

It's not fair. It makes no sense. But that is VERY characteristic of you. That's why I've been on the edge of putting you on ignore many times. How can one have a meaningful discussion with someone that does things like this?

Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this already, but I think it's important to take some time and point out things like this. Now back to my prioritized answer list ... and answering you is on that list; it's just pretty low on the list.

[Keep The Reason]

Anyway, I've wasted enough time on this already, but I think it's important to take some time and point out things like this. Now back to my prioritized answer list ... and answering you is on that list; it's just pretty low on the list.

Imagine how much time you might have saved by typing a "1" or a "2"

[Rian]

Sure - but that would be encouraging you to continue in your smarmy tactics. I'd rather take some time and point them out in the hopes that you won't use them anymore. Saving time isn't my highest goal.

Also, you can't seem to see that different people think differently. Moonwood has taken a GREAT deal of time to try to get across his answer to you in a polite and respectful manner, and you come back with insults. Why would I think you would treat me any differently? My answer isn't a simple 1 or 2, and it would take time to explain.

You have some serious problems, KTR.

[Keep The Reason]

Sure - but that would be encouraging you to continue in your smarmy tactics. I'd rather take some time and point them out in the hopes that you won't use them anymore. Saving time isn't my highest goal.

Also, you can't seem to see that different people think differently. Moonwood has taken a GREAT deal of time to try to get across his answer to you in a polite and respectful manner, and you come back with insults. Why would I think you would treat me any differently? My answer isn't a simple 1 or 2, and it would take time to explain.

You have some serious problems, KTR.

We both accuse be another of "smarmy tactics", but I don't have any illusions that you even recognize yours, let alone would be inclined to fix them. I will note in the last couple of posts here, I found a bit of fun in poking you since the efforts you went to in order to explain how you will be answering was comically greater than simpy answering, and I found it to be a bit funny.

I have not insulted Moonwood in any way I can see. Sure people think differently, but I don't buy his analogy, and I consider his loop-de-looping to be an attempt to derail the issue into something far more complicated than it needs to be. Which, I'm sure you wont be surprised to find out, I also consider a tactic used by theists to avoid answering certain questions.

And they have every right to avoid any question they want, although it would be to my personal liking if they just said, "I don't want to answer that" or "I don't know". And let me say that this is just a preference and no, no one needs to adhere to it. I'm just sharing the info for anyone who might be curious.

Meanwhile, your replies to me are filled to the brim with lots of personal comments about how little you respect me or like me or I have "some serious problems" or whatever, with all these claims of how you have some plan to "help me not use these tactics anymore"-- and this is done as utterly natural to you as if you're putting away the groceries.

Somehow you don't see that as anything but perfectly natural for you to do to someone. But it's not, for the record, normal or accepted, or natural, or noble. Now if I tell you what it really is, you'll think I'm insulting you, and I'm going to opt to not tell you anything more.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I have not insulted Moonwood in any way I can see. Sure people think differently, but I don't buy his analogy, and I consider his loop-de-looping to be an attempt to derail the issue into something far more complicated than it needs to be. Which, I'm sure you wont be surprised to find out, I also consider a tactic used by theists to avoid answering certain questions.

Why would I want to avoid giving an answer if I had one to give. Like Feynman I think things should be made a simple as they can be but not any more simple than that.

[Rian]

Exactly! I see you keep trying to answer, and putting a lot of effort into it. You are anything BUT avoiding answering.

... with all these claims of how you have some plan to "help me not use these tactics anymore"-- and this is done as utterly natural to you as if you're putting away the groceries.

Somehow you don't see that as anything but perfectly natural for you to do to someone. But it's not, for the record, normal or accepted, or natural, or noble.

It's too bad that you think that wanting to help someone isn't normal or accepted or natural or noble.

Now if I tell you what it really is, you'll think I'm insulting you, and I'm going to opt to not tell you anything more.

Good.

[Keep The Reason]

It's too bad that you think that wanting to help someone isn't normal or accepted or natural or noble.

Matthew 7: 3-5

[Keep The Reason]

Why would I want to avoid giving an answer if I had one to give. Like Feynman I think things should be made a simple as they can be but not any more simple than that.

Because for all of us, only certain very limited number of the scale applies and you went down the road of analyzing the ones that don't apply to you but rather for different people other than you. For instance, if I claim to be a #7, then 1-6 don't even apply to me. Kestrel, as a #1, cannot also be a #7, and so on. Apparently, only #1 & #2 apply to you, but you decided to analyze what #3, 4, & 5 would mean to others and how it would be hard for them to answer it. Well, wonderful-- when someone comes along who has that problem, let them voice it.

It's not much different than Rian taking 4 posts to explain how she's going to one day answer what she could simply answer in one post, but won't because she's on a mission to teach me some lesson. That's tactic. That's agenda. And when people do that, they best make sure they are careful about the accusations they make towards others.

If I'm wrong about you both not wanting to answer, it's pretty easy to call me out, and prove me wrong. For the record, with a bit of qualification, you did answer it, and there were no hostile repercussions as to the answer. Same with Kestral.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I was making a point about the relationship between probability, certainty and conviction. I was using smaller numbers because they make that point, which you have missed entirely, more clear not because they relate to different numbers on Dawkins' Scale. The point is I am not one sixth certain that a dice will come up with a six and at the same time one sixth certain it will come up with a five etc. I am certain there is a one in six chance of it coming up with a six and the same chance for all the other numbers. It is the difference between an event being certainly proabable and probably probable. We may say for example that we are 100% certain of something but I treat that as a coloquial way of saying we are absolutely certain. We can be absolutely certain of something without believing it indubitable, which you have accepted but to say there is a fifty per cent chance of somethign being true does not mean I am fifty per cent certain it is true. But I have a feeling you are not going to grasp this point. Would there be any point in discussing Dawkins farcical misunderstanding of Carl Jung? That does throw some interesting light on the way Dawkins thinks or in this case fails to think.