Why Dont You Blog?

For those who are interested, the debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan is continuing. You can catch up with Page 4 (the most current) or start from the beginning.

Currently, it seems to be getting a bit long winded and part of the problem with this sort of “online blog-war” style of debate is that each post contains a number of points, but with a few exceptions these are overlooked. The responses on both sides seem to focus on one salient point that the other has made, then build in another 10 - 20 spin off points of their own.

It might have been better if the combatants in this particular war were forced to keep each post to a single point and there was some moderation to focus them. Both are excellent writers and both are more than capable of “spinning” their viewpoint to the extent that onlookers (myself included) can see the logic and “reasonableness” of what they are saying. I really do think this is a debate which will never, ever end.

Before anyone gets started, this is not science. This is a debate about faith on a website called Beliefnet. You still can not do science by debate :-).

[tags]philosophy, society, Religion, Sam Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Blog War, Debate, Faith, Religious Tolerance, Atheism, Religious Moderates[/tags]

Popularity: 19% [?]

Popularity: 19% [?]

Karl Popper’s classic characterisation of scientific thought as providing hypotheses which can be falsified provides a pretty unarguable definition of science as far as I can see. There used to be much debate about this in A level sociology courses (which is where my limited knowledge of epistemology comes from) and there are other valid descriptions of how science works.

However, what distinguishes science from other types of thought is that scientific theories can be tested.

Intelligent design cannot be tested. I can’t really bring myself to say that the Theory of Intelligent Design can’t be tested. I don’t think it constitutes much of a theory, in that it doesn’t explain anything. I can’t even understand why believers feel threatened by evolutionary theory, which basically comes down to -

An organism that is best fitted to its environment is more likely to survive and reproduce than one that isn’t. It is likely to pass on the characteristics that helped it to survive to its offspring. This means that, over time, groups of that organism will tend to show more of the traits that favour survival and the characteristics of the population will change.

I know this is a simplistic interpretation (due to my limited understanding) but it is a theory that can be tested. Quite simply, if populations of organisms didn’t adapt to changes in their environments, it would be easy to spot this.

But, Intelligent Design? It is an “explanation” that cannot be tested. Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they like about the unknowable. I believe hundreds of eccentric things myself. Even I would have a problem if someone suggested that my ideas should be taught in schools as alternatives to science.

This was sparked by TW’s posts intelligent-design-in-the-uk and blogwar.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Popularity: 13% [?]

After the last monster post (which Technorati seems to want to ignore), I think a short one is called for. On beliefnet.com there is an ongoing blog-debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan on; Faith, Religious Tolerance, Moderates, Islam and Atheism.

While it started very polite and civil, it certainly turned into the sort of debate you would hope for. While page three (Sam Harris’ latest post) is the most entertaining, you can always start from the beginning.

Popularity: 22% [?]

Popularity: 22% [?]