what is science?

[chrishibbert20]

Richard Dawkins is held in very high regard by people that teach doctors, scientist's, etc in schools you probably could not afford to go to.

[arjun8477]

mr richard is 3 times older and many more times educated then u r. he probably have read more books then u imagined. and he sure does know and have experience that of 20-30 times more then yours.( i.e maturity and understanding is not added by age. it is multiplied.personal theory. tell me if u agree.)so atleast dont insult his work. and ya by the way i have seen u r second video( which was no better then this exept for this dialogue) "think foe u r self". i THINK u need to"think for u r self".

[DudeDudely]

Terrible structure of an argument, no points made. Waste of my time.

[Naphra]

Two peer-reviewed articles? You didn't even bother to do a Google search on keywords "Richard Dawkins bibliograpy"? His list of publications in esteemed journals, ranging from Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie to Nature, is SOMEWHAT lengthier. Check your facts properly.

[DavidJGrossman]

"Women are fucking crazy" - haha, well considering what the Bible has to say about women, I don't blame you for thinking that. Why any woman would want to be a Christian after reading the Bible is beyond my comprehension.

[theinquisitor]

You just love the sound of your own voice don't you?

[Muffinmeister1982]

No wonder you can't get it done in less than 10 minutes - I've never heard anyone ramble and waffle on meaninglessly so much.

[enverbatim]

Rafadinho, you are the biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

[rafadinho]

atheists are so stipid. evolution is the biggest bullshit ive ever heard.

[tehuberOS]

rafadinho, thanks for admitting that you're a HUGE moron. Evolution is bullshit? Are you kidding me? An invisible man in the sky doesn't come off as strange to you but evolution, which is founded upon mountains of scientific evidence and facts, "is the biggest bullshit" you've ever heard? Get a fucking brain you mindless sack of shit.

[LengendMaker]

No religion is the biggest bullshit :)

[arjun8477]

well religion( presicely priests) have caused a lot alot alot of blood shed till date and even today planning to continue. although civilization is actually because of religion. it helped us organise as a society. fear of god kept our ancistors from killing and dominating the others.(well atleast to small scale. kings did what they did{they were said to b appointed by god})i dont see religion have helped human kind in any other way. hope to get some replies soon.

[listeningriffin]

well i dont know what to say. you have judged me and you know vast amounts about religion and its effects. i hope your interpretations lead to a fullfilling life.

[arjun8477]

coppernicus, Einstein, Leonardo DA Vinchi, newton and many many more were atheist(or non believers). ya u r right they are stubid. ohhh boy.. lol

[33LB]

why, in the name of god, do you speak so slowly and ramble on for what seems like an eternity? learn2speak

[JacksonPresley]

In case no one has ever told you, you are an idiot. I'm guesing you don't get laid alot.

[Faylen]

Darn these foreshortened comments. Missing is the part where I pointed out that his books are about the conflicts between fact and religion, supported by research, his own and other peer-reviewed scientists. Grrr.

[Faylen]

However, it's typical of people whose opinion is attacked by fact to condemn a book without reading it, eh?

[Faylen]

Your arguments are all based on a false premise. Very scientific, sir. Dawkins does not write psychology books.

[chdgntn]

The God Delusion is not a scientific theory... What the hell was this entire post even about? By the way, good luck with your theory that 'women are fucking crazy' you hillbilly POS.

[bazcom]

The example that you used, women are f'ing crazy, speaks volumes about the kind of guy that you are.

[bazcom]

I looked up all the universities in Wisconsin, and then looked at how they compared to Oxford on The Times higher education rankings. Oxford was third, just below Cambridge and Harvard. The highest ranked university I could find in Wisconsin was the University of Wisconsin. This university was not even close to Oxford and came in at number 79 in the world rankings. I couldn't find any other universities from Wisconsin on the list, but please bare in mind that the list only goes up to 200.

[icjimmy]

What utter nonsense. That was the most facile explanation of the scientific method I have ever heard. And as for Dawkins' scientific credentials just a quick search on SciFinder I managed to locate several hundred peer reviewed papers by him. About average for a normal professor. Thats not to mention all the titles and awards bestowed on him such as a fellowship of the royal society, the oldest scientific institute in the world.

[mshad71]

if you think you could debate him about science or know more than him about science. you are a dumb ass.

[kekoayates]

Just read the book. It's the shit.

[stewart0312]

HEy everybody, its the bumpkin version of David Schwimmer. Why don't you read his book? Are you afraid you will lose faith in the giant spagetti monster?

[giroguy22]

i agree you should apologise for your false claims which are backed up by half hearted research! pure ignorance

[KatarinaChristoforou]

What a numpty! I think the phrase you spent a tedious 8.37 mins trying to nail was a double blind trial. Richard Dawkin's great skill is explaining science to the non-scientific, and explaining the non-scientific to the Kansas School Board. And you sonny-jim haven't graduated in anything yet.

[RyanMckinney24]

lol, you have done no research at all!!! Richard Dawkins has TONS of peer reviews. You really need to make another video apologizing for making such a stupid claim. I mean it. Say your sorry.

[listeningriffin]

show me some peer reviewed stuff he did in any area of psychology(belief, motivation, reason, perception, consciousness,etc). just because he has studied genetics doesnt mean he is an expert in psychology. isnt everything in the god delusion pretty much about psychology?

[theinquisitor]

Why not read it and find out?

[dudev]

Dawkins' books are not about psychology. They're about the natural world. For the most part he sticks to his own field. His basic argument is that only natural processes are sufficient to explain the world, and that religion fails to explain anything. Faith does not require evidence and is therefore delusional. Read his books and you'll see.

[dudev]

I watched video again. Dawkins is at Oxford. He's also 65. And you only found TWO papers by him? I found dozens in journals like "Nature". Bad research by you. But you are only generally correct about science. Scientists don't repeat each others experiments. They usually construct original experiments of their own, otherwise the first scientist gets the credit. Also, there are numerous ways to plan an experiment. Viewing a problem from multiple angles yields the best results overall.

[listeningriffin]

i found 2 psychology or behavioral studies. when i looked again at medical studies, i found many more results i didnt the first time. the new ones generally were about genetics and such, which he seems quite an expert on. doesnt mean he knows psychology tho, they are different.

[methinxaweezil]

-cont.-

that it is truly inspiring, and Richard Dawkins is one of them. He backs up his claims with evidence and lets you know when he's expressing personal opinions, so you shouldnt have a problem confusing the two. I'm sorry you dont like the title of his latest book, but there is no reason for anyone to fear his books or words. If you can get through one, great- let us know what you think. Until then, with all due respect... STFU.

[listeningriffin]

i like how u assume where im coming from. i suppose u are basing ur opinions on lots of evidence, eh. i make no wild claims in these videos. i tell u my sources and tell u my opinions. u give no counter evidence, only talk about, uh, ur beliefs. i made this because of fanatics putting down others views. why are u putting down mine?

[methinxaweezil]

I believe Dawkins is a good writer based on the fact that I've read his books. Correct me if I'm wrong, your point seems to be that he doesn't know what he's talking about on the subject of religion, i.e, he is wrong. If so, how can you know that if you havn't read his book? Are you saying an author needs a degree in psychology before we can take a book about religion seriously? I simply question why you or anyone else would attempt to discredit an author before reviewing his work.

[listeningriffin]

i dont think he is wrong, i just dont think he has conducted science in this area. he has credentials in genetics, not really any in the area of psychology(belief, motivation, reason, perception, etc)

[methinxaweezil]

So what? Human biology, evolution, consciousness and behavior are deeply interconnected. There are many more ways than one to approach a subject. Your argument is beyond weak, you're just making excuses to discourage people from reading something you don't want to read yourself, which is pathetic. Why not use the brain evolution gave you: Read words and judge them on their own merit.

[methinxaweezil]

Its interesting that the biggest insult faithmongers can muster against atheism is to call it a religion, and to refer to a leading practitioner as a messiah. By your own admission you've never read anything by Dawkins, so I dont expect for you to understand. But there are occasionally writers or teachers that deliver knowledge and understanding with such clarity

-cont.-

[Lateralist]

Am I picking up one some subtext to your "women are crazy" premise there pal?

[listeningriffin]

sshhhhh!! these are not the droids ur looking for...

[mikenew2]

Hyperbole and rhetoric. And nothing wrong with making a buck or two... how much do Falwell and Robertson et al. make from their efforts?

[listeningriffin]

hey, we are starting to agree more mike, good times!

but why the title then? why not 'the fundamental delusion' or, 'the bible delusion'. i would guess he wants to sell books, he wants to disrespect believers, and he wants to be the atheist poster child. i saw a post on a dawkins video of someone saying, "dawkins is my god". that is REAL. responsibility!!!

[mikenew2]

No one wants to deprive you of your experience, but they challenge your interpretation of that experience when: it's used to make claims about the way the world is and used as a "reason" to fly planes into buildings, protest funerals of dead soldiers, and deny others equality and justice. Dawkins argues that atheistic interpretations correlate with less bad behavior than theistic ones, and they are more compatible with our knowedge about the world. This is a scientific claim that is testable.

[mikenew2]

You need a grasp on differences between belief and knowledge, you think that because there is no certainty in theories about the mind or the universe they are just beliefs. So science is just one more belief system no better than any other. However, some beliefs work to get us what we want, some do not. The ones that do we honor with the names "Knoweldge" and "True," And science helps us acquire more "true" beliefs than methods heretofore used by humans.

[mikenew2]

Agreed, these are two distiguishable things, the problem is most people don't distinguish them, so when Dawkins attacks the illogical Biblical and religious superstitions, people think he is attacking all belief in God. There certainly is Critically Rational belief in God, and Dawkins has always acknowledged this. Reasoned faith is not his target.

[dexarouskies]

This sounds like something I can agree with.

[listeningriffin]

i agree too! but most people DONT distinguish. i was attempting to communicate just that. science fanatics are the same as religious fanatics. and i agree, science doesnt invalidate anyones experiences, irresponsible book writers and their fanatical followers sure do try tho.

[mikenew2]

Dawkins scientific claims: the findings of evolutionary biology and cosmology do not agree with the reality claims of religious belief in the Biblical account of creation. Fact, the bible says the earth is 6-8 thousand years old, Fact, fossil evidence and astronomical obsevation indicates the earth is at least 100 times that old and the universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old. So, where's the confusion you speak of?

[listeningriffin]

i honestly dont know what claims he makes, as i have not read his books. this is just speculation! it seems to me(correct me if im wrong) that he (and his followers) attempt to invalidate others conscious experiences as unfounded and 'delusional' because there is no evidence they like. believing in god and believing in the illogical claims of the bible are 2 different things.

[mikenew2]

Science doesn't invalidate anyone's experience. It says that if you are going to draw concluseion about the way the world is from experience, in order to minimize error (such as that you might have been on drugs, or dreaming), we should try to validate this experience and the best way we know to do that is scientific inquiry.

[mikenew2]

So, anyone should WANT to know that the things they believe are valid, right? If you refuse such an interest, you are willing to be irrational, willing to not care about the sense of your beliefs.

[listeningriffin]

all im saying, if my video is listened to, is that making judgements of others conscious experiences cannot usually be scientifically backed up. the science of consciousness is too young. cosmology, fossils, genes, and the bible are all things we use to understand what is goin on in our heads. our own beliefs DO NOT translate to others heads, so to call someone else's consciousness delusional is not science, its belief.

[dexarouskies]

Bible does not state the age of the earth. Besides, it's all myth to teach spiritual principles, not a science book. Anyway who takes it literally will indeed have a problem with this sort of literature, yes.

[BBMix]

Max Headroom, or what

[dudev]

Pseudo-intellectual rambling. An anit-intellectual trying to discredit Dawkins. Atheists don't have a "messiah". Charles Darwin was correct because of the evidence he presented, not because people saw him as an authority or a "messiah". The same goes for Richard Dawkins. Dawkins' has no "special knowledge". He is not the first atheist to make such arguments. But his arguments are good because of the evidence. Try attacking the evidence, if you have the guts.

[dexarouskies]

What evidence? There is ZERO evidence to support anything that he says.

[wonderist]

He also edited many scientific journals. He was one of the 'peers' in 'peer-reviewed'.

[mattph41]

I just did a "web of science" search on R Dawkins affiliation oxford university and found around 50 peer reviewed articles under his name, this search will miss any he published during the period we worked in the US or anywhere else so the real number will be many more,suggest you try again

[listeningriffin]

really? could u link or direct me to his peer reviewed works? im interested to see his evidence. i only found 2 when searching every database in ebscohost(medline, psychinfo, etc.) this is obviously not everything in the world, so please help me find his work.

[mattph41]

I explained I used the science publication search engine "web of science"- covers everything and I use it all the time, to find a person with a common name you need combine say affiliation with their name+initial (Dawkins appears not to use his middle initial much. He has published several articles in "Nature" viewed by most researcher as the world's no1 peer reviewed science journal

I am a prof of physics and do this all the time,

maybe you should get back to the lab more....

[listeningriffin]

cool!! could u name a couple studies he has done on any psychological topics? which of his studies does he base his understanding of the union between conscious experience(ie belief in god) and physiological reality? psychology and genetics are VERY different, to know a lot about one does not autotranslate to the other.

[listeningriffin]

psychology much more open to interpretation than genetics. we have many models of conscious events and their influence on physiology(and vice versa), and almost none of them seem to work most of the time. psychology is sort of still an art, not a science because of this. for him to write books about the granddaddy of all psychological mysteries and call it science is irresponsible, imho.

[dexarouskies]

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. Although Dawkins is a scientist, he is hailed as some sort of messiah by atheists who think that he has some sort of special knowledge about religion and God, which I see as nothing more than the pure speculation that everyone else makes.

[mikenew2]

Here's some PURE SPECULATION for you: The Earth is 6000-8000 years old. Evidence? Genesis. Here's a scientific claim The Earth is millions of years old: Evidence? Fossils, astronomical observation. tested, predictable and falsifiable. Hmmm. Nothing more than speculation, really?

[listeningriffin]

mike, i dont think anyone here believes the bible stories... dex is talking about(i think) the god attacks. he clearly says, "about religion and God", not bible stories. isnt it hard to know what people are talking about?

[arjun8477]

if u dont believe in bible, or quaran or any other religious books from where does u get the idea of god or come to know about his powers or the miracles he did or he is capable of doing.priests tells us" coz the book says its truth" for me the inconsistincy in bible's story and real facts is enough to not believe in any of that mythology nor their god(s).

[listeningriffin]

i only believe what i can experience, no authority can give me 'truth'. you seem to operate with many assumptions and take many other peoples word for many things (i could be wrong). its a good thing we are all entitled to our own opinions. i hope yours work out for you.