Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysics genius, speaks on discrimination.

http://www.upworthy.com/neil-degrass...-wisdom-follow

Thanks for the link, some interesting points were made although in general I thought it was one of those meetings that went on too long and had too many speakers. These days Dawkins is threatening to turn into a tedious bore, his latest book receiving dull reviews.

I must confess I had never heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson before, one of the perils of not living in the USA. His point about religion and education in the US was particularly sharp and to the point.

I agree with all of the above ,except the 'astrophysics genius 'part.
Sure ,he's obviously a good administrator and has carved out a place for himself as a communicator in the popular media , i.e. those who don't know Shinola about astrophysics. I always find his presentations just too basic and uninteresting although I have not had the opportunity to hear him address a scholarly audience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
Hey Stavros , sadly I must agree that Dawson is appearing a bit tedious nowadays. Although , I guess there are just so many ways to say god and religion are delusional thinking. I see that he appeared alongside Lawrence Krauss , from our earlier "something out of nothing" thread .
I am currently reading E.O. Wilson's ,"The Meaning of Human Existence" and would like to see Dawkins readdress the issues that he and Wilson disagree on. You may be familiar that famous spat in the biological evolutionary community. Which boils down to Dawkin's theory of "The selfish gene" vs Wilson's "The social conquest of earth" evolutionary theories.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...the-professors

[QUOTE=sukumvit boy;1640117]I agree with all of the above ,except the 'astrophysics genius 'part.
Sure ,he's obviously a good administrator and has carved out a place for himself as a communicator in the popular media , i.e. those who don't know Shinola about astrophysics. I always find his presentations just too basic and uninteresting although I have not had the opportunity to hear him address a scholarly audience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
Hey Stavros , sadly I must agree that Dawson is appearing a bit tedious nowadays. Although , I guess there are just so many ways to say god and religion are delusional thinking. I see that he appeared alongside Lawrence Krauss , from our earlier "something out of nothing" thread .
I am currently reading E.O. Wilson's ,"The Meaning of Human Existence" and would like to see Dawkins readdress the issues that he and Wilson disagree on. You may be familiar that famous spat in the biological evolutionary community. Which boils down to Dawkin's theory of "The selfish gene" vs Wilson's "The social conquest of earth" evolutionary theories.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...the-professors[/QUO

This will have to be a superficial response as I do not have a background in the sciences although I do try to stay informed, as long as there are no maths involved. Dawkins is wrong, and Wilson is also wrong. Selfishness may be an integral part of human nature, but is it always and everywhere the motive by which we behave? The sociobiology of Wilson that implies I was not just born with a genetic passport but that I don't have visas to enter certain (or uncertain) human experiences because of that is nonsense, free will does exist, I can be a rebel or join with other rebels. The later concept of tribal society is not borne out by extensive anthropological evidence so I don't know what led Wilson into this cul-de-sac. That neither Dawkins nor Wilson can relieve themselves of inherited prejudices against God and religion and 'think outside the box' or, as Kuhn might put it, change the paradigm may explain why Dawkins has become a tedious bore. Surely the point is that as humans we are capable of being both selfish and altruistic? One does not cancel out the other. We are capable of living peacefully with each other in societies not marked by an excess of hierarchy or divisions of wealth and power, and clearly that is also how some societies have been.

If we are primed for war, why am I so bad at it? If we are primed to be utterly selfish, why do I on so many occasions fail to get what I want? Why are some men and women boxers, while others write poetry? It comes back to that question I asked about man and the soul -if we humans are all made of the same stuff, why are we not all the same in all things? Can either Dawkins or Wilson truly explain the difference between Mozart and Manson?

I read the Blind Watchmaker years ago and thought it was an extremely well argued, very clear exposition on the science of evolution. I am an atheist myself but do not find Dawkins' arguments against religion to be as honed as his scientific arguments. He is just outside of his ken when discussing anything sociological and philosophical. I think Dawkins would concede there are circumstances in which people will behave altruistically, although he would probably give reasons you would find unsatisfactory. For instance, the concept of reciprocal altruism developed by Trivers is that members of a species will behave altruistically if there is a prospect that they will be the beneficiary of such treatment in the future. This is altruism in name only. But it's philosophically reasonable to argue that all altruism is altruism in name only. There's also the possibility of course that people engage in all sorts of behaviors that are aberrations or maladaptive...we have not afterall reached the end state of natural selection where we are all perfectly adapted to our environments (what would happen then? Immortality? Infinite numbers of offspring?).

I do not want to get too far afield of the main subject, but I doubt Dawkins would argue that people are all similar. We have certain basic features that define us as a species but enormous genetic variation. Finally, I find the concept of free will to be almost incoherent. Any thought you are capable of having is constrained by the organ from which thought originates. You don't have complete control over the development of your own nervous system. You may be capable of coming up with three possible solutions to any problem, but what makes you choose one over the other? And what about the solutions you were not aware of?

Anyhow, I've heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson talk and I don't know enough about physics to evaluate his work so I'll defer to the opinions of others. He has been a great supporter of the sciences and seems very involved in making scientific ideas accessible to the public so I get good vibes from him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

...I doubt Dawkins would argue that people are all similar. We have certain basic features that define us as a species but enormous genetic variation...

---

Are you suggesting that the difference between Mozart and Manson is genetic? Does that mean if someone adores Mozart but detests Manson (or vice versa) it is due to their genetic make-up?

To argue that it is selfish to be occasionally altruistic implies either that there is no real difference between the two, or, as I suspect in Dawkins' case, that one is morally superior to the other -but that only introduces the assumption that morals are also genetic. It sounds to me like he is arguing in favour of free markets rather than collective endeavour, Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx.

I’ve only read two of Dawkin’s books: The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. The former is short (the library I borrowed it from had the first edition - I don’t know if later editions are thicker) and I think it fairly clearly describes his position that natural selection takes place at the level of the gene. There are a number of significant opposing views including those of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. I’m not a biologist, but I incline to the view that selection takes place on the number of intricately interconnected levels and any view that maintains one level of selection dominates all the others probably an oversimplification.

One should keep in mind that Dawkin’s point is not that evolution favors selfish individuals; his view is that genes are selfish (metaphorically speaking); i.e. they vie with each other and those which are propagated through the generations with greater flux are those with phenotypic expressions better suited to reproduction and survival. For Dawkins it is as if the essential competition takes place at the genetic level between individual genes - as if genes were themselves selfish.

It seems to me consistent with Dawkin’s thesis that people are sometimes altruistic because their genes are selfish. This doesn’t mean that altruism and selfishness amount to the same thing, because the altruism is on the level of the individual (and sometimes on the level of the group) whereas the selfishness is on the level of the gene (and not even realized as subconscious intent in the individual’s mind).

God Delusion is too long by a factor of ten. I appreciate that, thanks to authors like Dawkins, Harris, HItchens and Dennett, atheists are no longer in closet; but I find their books and articles tedious, repetitive and worst of all, proselytizing.

On the issue of free will. When I reflect on it, I find that I don’t usually will my thoughts. I don’t will the thought, “Now I’m going to have the thought ‘my thoughts simply occur to me.” Instead the thought “my thoughts simply occur to me” occurs to me. If it were otherwise I don’t see how I have any thoughts at all. I don’t see how I’d climb out of the infinite regression of willed thoughts.

I know Neil deGrasse Tyson only through his media appearances. I like him. Occasionally I think he’s off the mark but on the whole I think he’s an excellent spokesman and educator. He’s a real astrophysicist with a modest research record. His day job is Director of the Hayden Planetarium. He has taken the mandate of this job (educate the public and excite the intellectual curiosity of children) and extended its reach way beyond the planetarium, or NYC. For that I admire him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Are you suggesting that the difference between Mozart and Manson is genetic? Does that mean if someone adores Mozart but detests Manson (or vice versa) it is due to their genetic make-up?

To argue that it is selfish to be occasionally altruistic implies either that there is no real difference between the two, or, as I suspect in Dawkins' case, that one is morally superior to the other -but that only introduces the assumption that morals are also genetic. It sounds to me like he is arguing in favour of free markets rather than collective endeavour, Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx.

---

At least one difference between Manson and Mozart is genetic. I don't imagine a person could choose to be a musical genius or I'd have made that choice myself. I don't think genes completely determine the outcome of one's life as I am sure there are probably interventions that could have prevented Manson from being a lunatic. I think where we differ is that you probably think Manson himself could have intervened. At least in theory he could have chosen not to do reprehensible things...but with what faculty would he have made that choice? Trish makes an interesting point about the infinite regress of willed thoughts. If we can will a moral thought to arise in our minds, then who or what is willing the desire to will a moral thought? At the point Manson made his choices, his mind was probably very good at generating malevolent thoughts.

I don't know that Dawkins would argue in favor of free markets rather than collective endeavor. He is always very careful to the point of pedantry to accuse people of not making the is v. ought distinction. Perhaps he would think that genes are selfish and in some circumstances people behave selfishly to ensure their genes are passed on, but society does not have to encourage every behavior that is a human tendency. In fact, the role of government may be a constraining one. If for instance people have a tendency to act violently when their interests are threatened, that does not mean we should not punish assault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

One should keep in mind that Dawkin’s point is not that evolution favors selfish individuals; his view is that genes are selfish (metaphorically speaking); i.e. they vie with each other and those which are propagated through the generations with greater flux are those with phenotypic expressions better suited to reproduction and survival. For Dawkins it is as if the essential competition takes place at the genetic level between individual genes - as if genes were themselves selfish.

It seems to me consistent with Dawkin’s thesis that people are sometimes altruistic because their genes are selfish. This doesn’t mean that altruism and selfishness amount to the same thing, because the altruism is on the level of the individual (and sometimes on the level of the group) whereas the selfishness is on the level of the gene (and not even realized as subconscious intent in the individual’s mind).

---

Point taken. What I know is probably an inch deep but I would imagine that behaviors that ensure the propagation of one's genes will often be self-interested. A gene that encoded for a behavior that did not advance one's own interest would have to advance the interest of some other vessel carrying that gene for it to be a selfish gene. Is that right?

I understand your example in the case of kin selection for instance, where one may behave altruistically in order to benefit several siblings at their own expense. This would be altruistic at the level of individual behavior and selfish at the level of the gene. But in reciprocal altruism, a person is helping another at some personal expense. Wouldn't this be altruistic in the short-term but selfish in the long-term, both at the level of the individual?

Anyhow, I guess the point is that genes can confer behaviors that are cooperative among people and still increase the probability they are represented in greater frequency in the next generation.

I don't know about him being an "astrophysics genius", but he seems likable enough. He just pissed me off when he went on the stump as chief excuse maker for the degradation of Pluto.