This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

kungfuhobbit's Profile

kungfuhobbit's Avatar Joined over 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by kungfuhobbit

More Discussions by kungfuhobbit

Latest Comments by kungfuhobbit

Go to: Update 9-March - Kony details via Boing Boing -Stuff to hear and watch

kungfuhobbit's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by kungfuhobbit

This has been a case study in why we need to teach 'critical thinking' much better in our education system. We need bullet point rules of thumb - at the moment people have the attitude 'yer I have studied subject xyz, so Ive developed my critical thinking skills...' when they clearly aint!

Seeing even politics grads that I know become swept up in this was particularly disheartening.

our education system desperately needs to teach people how to think well/smartly! as sam harris says, humanity has a bigger become sane

For those witnessing the viral inception of the 'kony 2012' cult and its immediate debunking on the interweb recently, I offer this (low-brow) gem:

Joseph Kony vs Rick Santorum. One is a Christian fundamentalist aspiring to cripple his nation under a backwards theocracy centred around Ten Commandments law... the other is Joseph Kony! 'dum'dum!

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:46:16 UTC | #925482

Go to: No blood on the carpet. How disappointing. [Also in Polish]

kungfuhobbit's Avatar Jump to comment 123 by kungfuhobbit

Comment 116 by Steve Zara

I didn't say I was restricting myself to scientific knowledge. I am also dealing with logical and philosophical knowledge. The majority of philosophers consider dualism (i.e. the soul) impossible.
I now consider the supernatural not just beyond evidence but impossible.


You mix up synthetic with analytic knowledge. Investigations into the real world are different from analytic knowledge eg maths, logic, formal systems.

You appeal to a consensus - one which doesnt exist. Though if it did, I dispute that they would go as far as being certain. Id also dispute that such a claim could involve anyone other than scientists (arguably a subset of philosophers though) in discovering empirical knowledge

The method of 'science' never proves; it only disproves.

that maths describes/models nature very well is a wondrously benevolent phenomenon in its own right, but dont mistake this for science actually being analytic knowledge.

Science isnt predisposed against any dualism - it would require modification of principle of conservation of energy amongst other things, it would be a seismic shift obviously. No evidence known so far is pointing that way…however, while there are uknowns, particularly in the field of consciousness, we may discover new phenomena so we can technically never say never etc. at which point we shall change our minds.

Do you reject the description of science as I have given it, following Popperian conjecture and refutation, Pauli-an 'not wrong-ness' etc alluded to in my earlier posts?

I find it strange to hear an atheist on the RDF site say he cannot change his mind in light of new evidence.

re:What you have said damages the reputation of the rest of us; please reevaluate.> This is a bit over the top - I REALLY don't have that influence!

It's because of bold, ill-founded claims of certainty from atheists that for people like Richard, his views get mischaracterised - and then he gets fielded stupid questions wasting his time wherever he goes.

           Comment 119 by  phoffman

those who say it isn't 7 are simply wrong, whether one is dealing with the ordinary real numbers or any exotic extension of it (hyperreals, ...)

reading though the link you sent now

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:17:16 UTC | #922474

Go to: No blood on the carpet. How disappointing. [Also in Polish]

kungfuhobbit's Avatar Jump to comment 110 by kungfuhobbit

Comment 67 by Steve Zara

If you think that any of those is impossible, then you must logically deny the possibility of the God of Abraham. You must be a 7.Ok then, who is not a 7? :)

Im very disappointed to read this - holding 7.0 is wrong

The word 'certain' has a very specific domain of applicability. Scientific knowledge aint one of them.

Your list of things are NOT logically impossible.

Have you read Richard's book? I dont understand how you've missed the point.

What you have said damages the reputation of the rest of us; please reevaluate.

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:45:56 UTC | #922427

Go to: No blood on the carpet. How disappointing. [Also in Polish]

kungfuhobbit's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by kungfuhobbit

Comment 47 by Steve Zara

I am a 7 on the Dawkins belief scale

how do you substantiate this statement?

7.0 is an intellectually untenable position. Outside of formal systems like maths, all we can hope for is, arguably, conjecture and refutation - ie stuff that we know at least 'aint wrong yet!

xkcd to the rescue!

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:35:02 UTC | #922298

Go to: No blood on the carpet. How disappointing. [Also in Polish]

kungfuhobbit's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by kungfuhobbit

I dont blame journalists for not reading the book on every single person they write an article on. Though the most cursory of glances at the Table of Contents would pique one's interest in the agnosticism issue upon seeing chapter title 'why there almost certainly is no God'

It was infuriating and disappointing to see also the moderator surprised by the fact that atheists are agnostics

Richard probably keeps tight reign on how much he says 'read my bloomin book!' as it would be received negatively as a $$$grabbing lure (I assume that's the reason...otherwise, start shouting it?!)

Yet a large bulk of people who he engages with are unaware of the most simple ideas - and its not that they are stupid.

If RDF produced a very short pamphlet downloadable for free with the key points, it would be very constructive in spreading a message of actual intellectual content to a large bulk of adults who wont otherwise devote the time to seriously read a 400-page non-fiction book.

Any possibility?

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:30:01 UTC | #922259

More Comments by kungfuhobbit