JeffQuote:...what someone called the "rationalist's fallacy" somewhere else in these forums.It might have been me that mentioned that term on these forums. Massimo Pigliucci wrote a Rationally Speaking article called The rationalistic fallacy worth checking out.Quote:They only use reason when it will further their beliefs. This is an example of a quite different fallacy, which has been termed the confirmation bias. Here is how The Skeptic's Dictionary defines this normal human tendency:Quote:Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. We all are guilty of committing this error in reasoning from time to time, so the rational person must strive to become aware of when it is happening and do everything possible to not allow it to control their critical thinking faculties.Quote:To thine ownself be true...You said...Quote:Currently, I have read about three quarters of "Unweaving the Rainbow". The main premise, that science should instill a sense of wonder and awe capable of inspiring poetry is one of the things that I took away from Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" almost twenty years ago. Though I had flirted with the idea as a teenager I really count the learning experience of "Cosmos" as my beginning in humanistic, rationalistic thought.Me too! Carl Sagan's Cosmos was by far the most influential book/show I've ever read or watched. I place Dawkins in the very same category as Sagan, in that they both have an incredible knack for making very complex sciences understandable to laymen. Both inspire a sense of awe and wonder for their fields of study, but neither was limited to their field. They share a passion for science, reason and humanism...and neither were/are willing to sit back passively when science was/is being abused by pseudo-scientists such as creationsists.Quote:I am glad I decided to join this group because it is also a book I would have never picked to read on my own.This means a lot to me. I too have found myself reading books and thinking about subjects I probably never would have had it not been for BookTalk and our members. I'm really happy to see you and other members getting as much out of this community as I do. Quote:...if I were to pick one person to fit my "symbol of human achievement" pedestal, it would be Benjamin Franklin.Excellent choice! Ben Franklin would top my list too, with Leonardo da Vinci, Darwin, Plato, Einstein, Jefferson, Brunelleschi and Copernicus near the top.As for modern symbols? Dawkins and Sagan sit high atop my personal list. Gould was brilliant, but his stance on religion pissed me off. Besides, I never got the feeling that Gould was in love with science as much as himself. It is abundantly clear that Sagan and Dawkins were and are good people with a desire to share their personal passion with the world.Chris Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 4:54 pm

On the contrary. A good scientist with a strong theory welcomes questions about his theory. It is hardly a question of "stumping" him.'I think it would be inappropriate to introduce 'debating points' in an educational seminar.' Yes, quite. Debating points are totally inappropriate for educational seminars and much more relevant to cross country skiing. lol. Edited by: sqwark at: 6/14/03 4:15 am

OMG you are cracking me up! Look, all we're saying is please be polite and don't monopolize the 1-hr. chat session. Nothing you have said so far has been out of line or a problem, so don't get me wrong. I need to always make sure that we have a mature group of people in our author chats and I'm really not worried at this point.I still suggest you create a thread in this forum for asking questions to Professor Dawkins. He may respond or he may not. Who knows. But one hour is over in a flash and the purpose is not to debate him and/or bombard him with questions that require extensive answers. This is supposed to be fun.Chris

As I have made clear in my posts and emails, I have no intention of being rude or monopolizing anything. I am a newbie, after all. I wouldn't be so presumptuous. Moreover, I don't believe Dawkins will answer any such questions. He is a skilled rhetorician with major flaws in his theory. I don't believe he has the integrity (or geniune scientific interest) to answer a simple but highly pertinent question arising from current genetic research. He will ignore it. He is after all, here to promote the book under his self-created auspicous of "Professor for the Public Understanding of Science". But it should be asked, nevertheless. Just for the record.

Although watching this back and forth is probably a lot more fun than participating in it, I feel I just can't resist anymore. You managed to pique my interest by narrowing your barrage of attacks against "neo-" or "ultra-" Darwinian evolutionary theory by saying you could single out a single question pertaining to recent genetic research. In such, I'd really like to hear it. Since I am myself a biochemistry student with an emphasis on evolutionary biology, focusing on a specific genetic aspect of your arguments might help me to better understand them. Although I'm maybe not as qualified as Prof. Dawkins to answer it, I'd like to give it a try. After all, I do have access (through my university) to just about every major publication and journal in the fields of biology, biochemistry and genetics, stretching back at least 40 years. I believe that though I probably don't possess the answer to your question, a little bit of research would put me in as good a position to at least consider it as anyone. I look forward to hearing it. Also, as the board moderators have pointed out, this kind of discussion definitely belongs in a new thread, in which I would be more than happy to discuss these topics with you, as they are directly related to my field.Louis Edited by: Louis42 at: 6/17/03 5:50 am