…and this is a 
Can I call it a ceremony? It wasn't very ceremonious at all.
We sat down first to watch a live video stream of Bill Maher's show, with special guest Richard Dawkins. It was good, it was funny, it was abrasive, and Maher didn't say anything crazy at all. Dawkins did not get much of an opportunity to say much, again; that's a problem with some of these shows, like Colbert, where the personality of the host leaves little room for the guests. Dawkins acquitted himself well, though.
After the Maher show, we got to listen to Mr Deity. This was pretty darned cool; not only did he show video clips, but the whole cast was there, and they recreated a couple of the episodes live. We learned that Lucy is, in real life, married to Mr Deity, which would seem to mean that Satan is actually Mrs Deity. The theological implications of this revelation were not discussed, but should have been. Mr Deity is also an ex-Mormon, yet another bit of theological dynamite that will no doubt shake all of organized religion to its core.
Maher and Dawkins arrived near the end of Mr Deity's talk, and I know that's what everyone wants to hear about. I was seated at the same table with Maher, but sadly, there was no opportunity to have a conversation with him. Dawkins introduced him, he gave a short speech, he got surrounded by a photograph-taking mob, he left.
The good news for all the critics of this choice is that Dawkins pulled no punches. In his introduction, he praised Religulous and thanked Maher for his contributions to freethought, but he also very clearly and unambiguously stated that some of his beliefs about medicine were simply crazy. He did a good job of walking a difficult tightrope; he made it clear that the award was granted for some specific worthy matters, his humorous approach to religion, while carefully dissociating the AAI from any endorsement of crackpot medicine. It won't be enough, I know, but the effort was made, and talking to Dawkins afterwards there was no question but that Maher's quackery was highly objectionable. I also got the impression that he felt the critics of the award were making good and reasonable points, and that he felt the awkwardness of the decision.
Maher's talk was hilarious, too. He's definitely one of us in his opposition to religion's influence on the culture, if nothing else.
OK, and just to make you all jealous, I went out to dinner afterwards with Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett. If it makes you feel better, Dan had some criticisms of my talk — I was arguing that it's a mistake to talk about design in evolution, Dan wants to salvage the word from the hands of creationists and thinks we can talk about design without implying intent at all. I am not convinced, but he does make an interesting case.
Comments
Posted by: Eliot Fischer
|
October 3, 2009 4:19 AM
Ok, I have to admit... I am jealous! That must have been an extremely cool dinner!
Posted by: Richard Healy
|
October 3, 2009 4:29 AM
Damn. I am jealous.
Interesting revelation about The Diety.
That must be a kick in the teeth for the Muslims and the Jews and the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Catholics and the Protstants.. and the....
Reminds me of that old Rowan Atkinson sketch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 3, 2009 4:42 AM
Be good to see that introductory speech by Dawkins, did someone tape it?
Posted by: Smith123
|
October 3, 2009 4:49 AM
Well that's good Dawkins said he disagreed with him but PZ your right it isn't quite enough. If Dawkins was a staunch defender of all science (as I had thought he was) he should stated the award did not deserve to go to Maher and not walked a tightrope at all. What is more important defending science and reason or keeping the atheists International happy as well as promoting someone who is anti-religious?
Posted by: SparrowFalls
|
October 3, 2009 5:10 AM
I was interested in the argument about using the word 'design' when talking of evolution.
I've often thought that our day to day language (and sadly our scientific language) hinders our grasp of the concepts of evolution. Our individual point of view and our instinct to turn everything into a narrative clouds the open ended, contingent, unguided nature of the evolutionary process.
I've tried reformulating evo-speak into E Prime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprime ) which removed some of the implicit hidden designer ideas. Unfortunately it does nothing to get over our desire to find *the* single root cause behind some evolutionary event. Nor does it provide any useful concepts of dealing with the pitiless indifference of reality.
I suspect that we need a brand new language to speak about the concepts behind evolution. Even then the new language is going to sit uncomfortably on top of a brain which favours fitting quick and dirty abductive analysis into a self serving narrative.
Sigh.
Posted by: TheOutsider
|
October 3, 2009 5:21 AM
". . . Dan . . . thinks we can talk about design without implying intent at all."
In the sense of a kind of emergent crowd-sourcing by unintentional agents, that sounds fine -- so long as you're talking to people who understand emergence, crowd-sourcing, and unintentional agency, and who don't have to be sold on the geologic time scale. In dialog with the opposition, "design" is probably going to remain a linguistic landmine, not least because one of their tactics is to play obtuse until we trigger one of their talking points by so much as mentioning an I.D. buzzword.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
October 3, 2009 6:06 AM
It's difficult to see how Dennett could be wrong here. There doesn't seem to be any coherent way of distinguishing "real" design from (as Dennett would put it) hemi-semi-demi quasi-design. Who knows (at least without scholarly investigation) what amount of laborious trial and error that went into constructing Beethoven's 9th symphony? Who knows how many supposed products of human ingenuity actually owe their origin to an incremental process of trivially small steps of competence, all of which could just as well be taken over by simple machines?
Moreover, and as any fan of historical strategy simulations knows, computers are increasingly developing creative competence. Is a clever move by a computer opponent "really" a clever move, or just apparently clever? Well, who knows, who cares? Ultimately, even our own "clever" moves emerge spontaneously, "as if from nothing", from backstage cognitive progresses, about which we consciously have no clue.
Posted by: zarbi
|
October 3, 2009 6:22 AM
Maher's talk was hilarious, too. He's definitely one of us in his opposition to religion's influence on the culture, if nothing else.
From what you say, I think Dawkins has done the best he could have given the circumstances, and deserves credit for that.
However, the circumstances should not have arisen. This award can't be labelled as for those who help promote science and be given out to cranks.
I disagree that Maher is "one of us" in his opposition to religion's influence. Sure, he is opposed to established religions and their belief systems, but his own views on medicine are as much a denial of science as the belief that a cracker is holy. They are just as religious, and founded on the same "I know best" and "trust your feelings" principles, where emotion prevails over reason.
Posted by: John M
|
October 3, 2009 7:18 AM
"I was arguing that it's a mistake to talk about design in evolution,..."
Your dinner guest was right - you need to forget this word with regard to evolution as it has been hijacked. Words for perfectly reasonable practices have been hijacked before and one must let them go. English is a good enough language to provide a substitute.
I'm no longer able to be gay, as I am a heterosexual, I cannot be liberal even though it actually describes a superior politic to socialism/communism, and I'm in favour of 'democracie parcipitative' because if I say anarchy is the ideal political system no-one will understand me.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 3, 2009 7:33 AM
John M
It's interesting that in your post about the usefulness of English that you use a French term to describe your political leanings. Incidentally it's démocratie participative.
Posted by: Riaan Moll
|
October 3, 2009 8:11 AM
The word "design" is waaaay too dangerous, for it explicitly implies intent.
From dictionary.com:
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.
Dennet should avoid the creotard pitfall of word redefinition, and simply avoid it, because it can easily be turned into a cause célèbre by the IDiots.
I mean, if I took a pile of leaves, scattered it around and it formed a rendition of the Mona Lisa, was there any design behind it? I think not. If I scattered it around a trillion times in the HOPE of getting a Mona Lisa, then it would be intentional, but evolution doesn't work that way.
Posted by: Tuff
|
October 3, 2009 8:24 AM
If you watch the Overtime segment of Real Time online, Dawkins gives a good answer about eugenics while also graciously disagreeing with Maher about medicine. It's very short but I think he was able to set some boundaries.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 3, 2009 9:17 AM
Dinner with some of the greatest contemporary atheist minds? Exceedingly jealous here ;)
Posted by: Susan
|
October 3, 2009 9:36 AM
I don't know the details of Dennett's criticisms, of course, but I thought your point was an interesting insight, and the slide that illustrated it (comparing the driftwood "wall" to the designed wall) was perfect.
Posted by: Kausik Datta
|
October 3, 2009 9:48 AM
I hope, oh, I so hope that the entire proceeding was captured on video, so that we all can vicariously participate in it. Right now, I am going so green with envy that I would soon start to photosynthesize...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
October 3, 2009 10:32 AM
Of course the word can be used without implying teleology or intent--I do it all the time when talking about adaptation--but the problem is that one can't be sure the audience isn't inferring intent. Lots of double-finger-wiggling and scare-quotes are suggested.
Posted by: Mr T
|
October 3, 2009 11:32 AM
I'd like to hear more about your talk and Dennett's criticisms. However, this tidbit is juicy enough for me, as a non-biologist, to say it seems very misleading to talk about "design" in evolution. I'd understand if you're just speaking casually with lots of hand waving, or carefully qualify the word with lots of biology jargon; but I can't think of an example of something that's been designed without a "designer" being involved.
I also can't figure out why it would be useful to talk about "design", unless only in a very limited sense of the form of an adaptation (or perhaps similar patterns of them), along with the advantage it provides an individual. This form + advantage just doesn't mean the same thing as created thing + creator's purpose which "design" implies.
I respect Dennett and his work a great deal, so like I said I'd love to hear more details before making a lot of assumptions about what he meant. Philosophers do love their word games, but whatever nonstandard meaning for "design" he's intending could perhaps be conveyed with another word or a neologism.
Posted by: skeptical scientist
|
October 3, 2009 11:44 AM
Is the transcript or a video of Dawkins' intro available anywhere online?
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
October 3, 2009 12:12 PM
Speaking as a non-scientist, I’m kind of a fence-sitter on the use of the word “designed,” but I lean toward Mr. Dennett’s approach. I still use the word, though it’s a hassle to always have to qualify it with “by several million years of natural selection.”
For instance, I’ve recently taken up barefoot running (and I’m completely sold on it). Our bodies are designed to run barefoot. They are. (It makes your feet and legs stronger; it improves your stride; it’s better for your whole skeletal structure; it feels betters; etc.) Whatever word you use as substitute for “designed,” it still means the same thing.
Also, by taking the time to use the word purposefully to mean, unambiguously — “shaped through natural selection” — it’s another tool to realign preconceived notions and raise consciousness about scientific processes.
I’m not convinced the word can’t be salvaged and put to good use.
Posted by: Mike Wagner
|
October 3, 2009 12:16 PM
I think that even if you created a new vocabulary for evolutionary concepts, the first thing the grand poobahs of creationism would do is publish websites and books subverting that vocabulary to their own corrupted meanings.
If the corrupted version is the first thing a faith-head sees, it makes the legitimate version useless in any dialog with them, and creeps like Hovind, Ham, and Comfort know this.
Imagine a business where the only thing you have to do is make stuff up that reinforces a mythology so people can feel better about not thinking, and having those people send you money. They're going to protect that gig as long as it pay.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 3, 2009 12:33 PM
Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins, from the most recent interview:
http://atheistplanet.blogspot.com/2009/10/richard-dawkins-on-real-time-with-bill.html
Posted by: Sili
|
October 3, 2009 1:27 PM
You mean that Mr Deity is in reality Mr Satan, not the other way around.
Good on Dawkins for doing the right thing. It was a tightrope, yes, but it does sound like he's taken the critique to hard and done what he could in the circumstances. Of course, he could have a written a hard denunciation or stayed away, but I think actually showing up and delivering a perhaps less 'strident' reply directly to Maher is the better solution in terms of publicity.
Posted by: Alpinist
|
October 3, 2009 3:03 PM
"I went out to dinner afterwards with Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett."
If ever there was a dinner table I would have liked to have sat at...
off topic: signing in for comments has been a nightmare for me on this website. both movable type and typepad, both work computer and home computer, all it ever does is cause headaches. it really makes me want to pull my f***'n hair out sometimes.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 3, 2009 3:22 PM
Testing: signed in with alternate account from other browser to see if it is still possible to get in and comment.
So why the uncharacteristic deadness (lack of blog chatter)?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 3:35 PM
This seems to happen whenever we are required to sign in. The drop in trolls vanish.Posted by: John M
|
October 3, 2009 5:15 PM
#10 'Tis Himself
Well... I live in France now so have no idea what British Anarchists have chosen to call themselves - if any still exist in that country of defunct political aspirations. As for those truly dreadful typos of mine... hey, it's France and vin de table at $1.40 a litre...
go figure:-))
Posted by: zarbi
|
October 3, 2009 5:20 PM
#22
From PZ's report, I assumed that Dawkins did deliver a hard and strident denunciation of Maher's views.
If this is not the case, I would be both disappointed and concerned.
Let's not forget that Maher's views are medically dangerous, and not simply some theological or philosophical disagreement.
Posted by: Earrnz
|
October 3, 2009 6:04 PM
I'm deeply disappointed about all this. There should be no award for atheism. Atheism is not good per se. You can be an atheist and still be a dangerous wacko. I know many people with very stupid reasons for being atheists. Give me one hundred christian evolution-deniers rather than a single medicine-denier atheist.
Critical thinking is the virtue, atheism is a mere consequence.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 6:08 PM
Sorry, believing in imaginary deities is not good per se either. It gains people nothing, and sets back any rationality they might have, since they have to lie about the deity existing in order to belief in it.Posted by: Earrnz
|
October 3, 2009 7:13 PM
#29:
Of course deism is not good. I'm not trying to defend it. Please read carefuly. I'm a Bertrand Russell-sense atheist myself.
My point is that atheism does not imply rationality. There're many "failed Job" atheists, political atheists (e.g. communists), and even religious atheists (some variants of Buddhism). None of those are rationally based.
That's why I like the "Bright" concept much better.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 7:16 PM
Ah, that explains your arrogance.We tend to avoid the "Bright" concept here, and stick with the basics.
Posted by: Earrnz
|
October 3, 2009 7:51 PM
Thank you!Posted by: recovering catholic
|
October 4, 2009 12:13 AM
Don't forget that Dawkins himself is a "Bright".
Speaking of arrogance (or at least disdain), once again, in The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins expresses what seems to be his contempt for the study of epigenetics. He discusses the importance of not confusing it with "epigenesis", and refers to epigenetics as now having its "15 minutes of fame". Epigenetics is not even listed in the index.
I brought this up here after the talk Dawkins gave in Minnesota at Northrup a few months back, in which he similarly and curtly dismissed an after-lecture question about epigenetics.
What gives with this? Does anyone know why Dawkins is so anti-epigenetics? He states in TGSET that even its proponents can't agree on what it is, but after all, it's in its infancy. I find the study of epigenetics fascinating. I wonder if Dawkins' surliness about the topic has to do with some tentative claims that epigenetic effects can be inherited...
Posted by: recovering catholic
|
October 4, 2009 12:17 AM
...of course that would be TGSOE...
Posted by: Diane G.
|
October 4, 2009 12:32 AM
Esp. when those of us who are registered are greeted by name, told to log in to comment, do so, then get the "this server not recognized" screen...I give up then.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 4, 2009 1:54 AM
Thanks Lynna @ 21, I was looking for that !
"28% of the British get their science from the Flintstones."
WIN !
Posted by: Paul Crowley
|
October 4, 2009 4:34 AM
If we reserve the word "design" for a designer, what word would cover the many things that designed things and evolved things have in common? I'd rather say that Darwin demonstrated that design doesn't require a designer.
Posted by: aeroslin.wordpress.com
|
October 4, 2009 5:59 PM
Mr Deity deserves an award.
Posted by: maxamillion
|
October 4, 2009 7:31 PM
It is the people that write the programs are intelligent not the computers, Computers are by themselves dumber that house bricks. Now you've got it. You do, Try reading "Demon Haunted World", caring is quite important. Unintended consequences, just like Evolution.Posted by: 2brauneyz
|
October 5, 2009 12:59 AM
Gee PZ, thanks for deleting my earlier comment. And this after I defended you to Orac & Isis. :eyeroll:
What's up with all you immature science bloggers this weekend?
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 5, 2009 1:30 AM
2brauneyz:
You're sure of this?
!
Oh boy, please don't ever defend me...¹
<spoing!>
--
¹ One defends 'from', not 'to'.
2brauneyz:
You're sure of this?
!
<spoing!>
--
PS One defends 'from', not 'to'.
Posted by: escherichia
|
October 5, 2009 1:49 PM
@#19
I agree a new word would be much better.
The problem with existing words is that someone will always point at an old dictionary/thesaurus and try to pretend you mean something you don't - so why not just invent a new word? I quite like the acronym verb shabynseTM (shaped by natural selection).
So we could rewrite the comment as:
"the human body is shabynsed to run barefoot"
No ambiguity there.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
October 6, 2009 12:18 AM
It is the people that write the programs are intelligent not the computers, Computers are by themselves dumber that house bricks.
So is it the aliens/gods who programmed the human brain that were intelligent, whereas human brains are by themselves dumber than house bricks?
The fact is that there are computers that win games of skill that their programmers not only can't win, but don't know how to win. And similarly there are computers that invent proofs of mathematical theorems, and design circuit boards, in ways unknown to their programmers. That's because the programmers have programmed the computers have intelligence (within a very limited problem space) ... at which point both the people that write the programs and the computers themselves are intelligent. To deny that is possible is to be a vitalist.
Unless human brains have metaphysically magical powers not possessed by other objects, Dennett is right. Just as the dumb neurons and dumber molecules of the brain can produce designs, so can the dumb physical elements that comprise the process of biological evolution.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
October 6, 2009 12:38 AM
"the human body is shabynsed to run barefoot"
No ambiguity there.
Sigh. It's the word "to" that implies intent, not the word "design"! The human body is shaped by evolution, but it isn't shaped to do anything. Arguing that the human body was designed/"shabynsed" to run barefoot is the same sort of special pleading that IDiots and creationists indulge in. Was the human body also designed/"shabynsed" to freeze in cold climates and to die from a ruptured appendix, bacterial infections, etc.?
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
October 6, 2009 12:48 AM
Nerd: Ah, that explains your arrogance.
Irony meter in the red zone.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
October 6, 2009 12:59 AM
None of those are rationally based.
That's why I like the "Bright" concept much better.
Um, a "Bright" is defined as ""an individual whose worldview is naturalistic (free from supernatural and mystical elements)". Like atheists, Brights are not necessarily rational or good or deserving of awards. e.g., there are quite a few Brights, like Penn Jillette, who are AGW deniers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONd-Yk48R8E
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
October 6, 2009 1:40 AM
@ Mr T
I can't think of an example of something that's been designed without a "designer" being involved
William Paley couldn't have said it better himself. Hint: you're employing a circular argument. The examples you can't think of: every biological organism.
I respect Dennett and his work a great deal
And yet you seem completely unfamiliar with that work. He has been writing about designs without a designer for decades; it's a key component of one of his major life's works, his "intentional stance" theory that presents three levels of interpretation of an object or process yielding increasingly more powerful predictions: the physical stance, the design stance, and the intentional stance.
whatever nonstandard meaning for "design" he's intending could perhaps be conveyed with another word or a neologism
It's not a nonstandard meaning of "design", any more than "you don't have to believe in God to be moral" uses a nonstandard meaning of "moral". In both cases, there are common but erroneous assumptions that have led to incorrectly tying certain concepts together that are actually independent. Dennett's theory of stances makes clear what we are really getting at when we say that something is designed, and it's not that the thing displays a purpose, but rather that it can be interpreted as performing a function and we can make predictions about its behavior based on the the function we attribute to it.
Posted by: SC OM
|
October 6, 2009 3:01 AM
I think a couple of questions are being mixed here. I'm interested in Dennett's argument, but it seems separate from the issue of the possibilities for reclamation of the word.*
Hmm. I think if people are talking about "standard" in the sense of "commonly used," it doesn't much matter whether the assumptions are erroneous or not. We're now talking about tactical questions. I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure "moral" is entirely analogous. Open to arguments, though.
*I'm quite stubborn about giving them away. I'm an atheist and an anarchist, and I'm not about to talk around either.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
October 6, 2009 5:56 PM
I think if people are talking about "standard" in the sense of "commonly used,"
People use words; their meanings are inferred, and assumptions of the sort I'm referring to play a major role there. One thing that philosophers do is to try to tease out of the uses of words the underlying concepts common to those uses, using a sort of Ockham's Razor to pare away nonessentials. In the case of "design", especially as a noun rather than a verb, teleology is nonessential -- otherwise it would be nonsensical for an atheist to talk about the similarities of design of bat echolocation and SONAR, as Dawkins does in "The Blind Watchmaker". And it would be nonsense to talk about an "argument from design". That "argument" is essentially an assertion that design necessitates a intentional designer, but it isn't mere linguistic necessity that is being asserted.
I'm not sure "moral" is entirely analogous.
It's in the nature of analogies that they aren't "entire". But the claim that "you can't be moral without God" is close enough in kind to "there can't be design without a designer" to communicate my point.
Posted by: SC OM
|
October 7, 2009 1:25 PM
And those assumptions are of great importance in discussions of reclaiming words. It doesn't matter if the way people understand the word is not supportable philosophically. The possibilities for reclamation are a social and not a philosophical matter.
And that's great, among philosophers.
Your simply making more arguments about what design should be understood to mean. You aren't addressing the question of whether the English speakers who hear certain implications in the word - the vast majority - can be convinced to think about it differently, or whether that's a good use of people's time (as opposed to using or developing different, less loaded, terms to describe the same processes). I'm not convinced that it is.
So you've simply displaced the question. Great.
Oh, OK. So you do seem to be trying to address it, though I think this is the case only if your point is that you suck at analogies. "Moral" has commonly-accepted meanings beyond the strictly religious that can be called upon and used against this claim. It only needs to be reclaimed from appropriation. (Moreover, few alternatives present themselves.) "Design" has implications that pre-existed the use of it by the religious in this context but serve their purposes perfectly.