Thread: Least known, but best appreciated opinion about Darwin.

Sir Attenborough on God:

Sir David Attenborough on God - YouTube

For me poster.... You are my enemy if you disagree with him.

In this video Sir David Attenborough gives his opinion on various subjects. Such as his view on religion and god, and why he thinks evolution is more wonderfull then the religious perspective on the world,... why the idea of a god is foolish. He also explains shortly why humans should behave and can be moral, from a evolutionary standpoint,... so be moral without the need for a god.

The opinions expressed in this video, I completely agree with myself. It is basically what makes me too tick.

So if you want to know his and thus also my opinion on things... watch the video.

If I lie and claim to disagree with him, even if I don't- can we still be enemies?

I have a personal dislike for links posted without informative comments as to content. I would appreciate a one sentence, or one paragraph summary of the video, so I can decide whether or not to view it.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I have a personal dislike for links posted without informative comments as to content. I would appreciate a one sentence, or one paragraph summary of the video, so I can decide whether or not to view it.

likewise - a forum is for talking, not just linking to someone else's talk

I rarely click links without more info. I almost never click YouTube links since I am often browsing this forum covertly.

Hmmm...
The O.P. did not say, "Here is mystery random video- watch it and tell me what you think."
O.P. clearly said that it's an interview showing David Attenborough's thoughts on Darwin and on God. I mean... not a lot of summery is needed, there. If it was Carl Sagan- you'd already have a good idea of what was going to be said. If it was Dawkins, you'd have a good idea of what was probably going to be said. I clicked it. I watched it. And amazingly, it was just as the O.P. said it was.
My computer did not explode.

I watched it mostly because it was Attenborough, who in his own way inspired me towards science and indirectly away from religion.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Hmmm...
The O.P. did not say, "Here is mystery random video- watch it and tell me what you think."
O.P. clearly said that it's an interview showing David Attenborough's thoughts on Darwin and on God. I mean... not a lot of summery is needed, there. If it was Carl Sagan- you'd already have a good idea of what was going to be said. If it was Dawkins, you'd have a good idea of what was probably going to be said. I clicked it. I watched it. And amazingly, it was just as the O.P. said it was.
My computer did not explode.

that's not the point - a written post i can read or skim as i wish, but a video i have to sit through at whatever speed the video dictates
and no, i don't know what Attenborough has to say on Darwin and god, so it would have been nice to have that explained without having to click the video

Originally Posted by marnixR

that's not the point - a written post i can read or skim as i wish, but a video i have to sit through at whatever speed the video dictates
and no, i don't know what Attenborough has to say on Darwin and god, so it would have been nice to have that explained without having to click the video

Then you'd have to sit and read it instead of sitting and watching a video. If you skim and read as you wish, what's to stop you from missing an important detail? You're still not getting anything more than a general idea. Stating that the video is an interview of David Attenborough on Darwin/God is pretty much all the summary needed. If you don't know who David Attenborough, Charles Darwin or God is, the video would not help you much.
If you want to know what Attenborough has to say- Listen to Attenborough say it. Don't tell others they have to interpret it in a synopsis for you. If you don't have time to listen; Don't Listen.

Frankly, this smacks of demanding others to do your work for you. If you don't care or want to know what is in the video- don't watch it. If you do- click and see. But demanding others take their time to hold your hand through it and type it all out for your convenience would require you to offer compensation, I think.
If students cannot have homework done for them, if claimants cannot have others do their work for them, their research for them, if people asking questions are expected to do their own follow up studies---- Then I think it's more than fair that you and the rest of us do our own work to find out what's on the video which did say what it was and what it is about. I think you two over-reacted. There was a sentence explaining what it was about.

what ? like "Sir Attenborough on God" ?
maybe it's because i'm more a reader than a video-watcher, but i still maintain that the main purpose of a forum is for people to express a point they're trying to make

just saying "here it is, have a look" doesn't cut it with me
if the OP is too lazy to explain what in their opinion the message of the video is, why should i put in the effort to watch it ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

if the OP is too lazy to explain what in their opinion the message of the video is, why should i put in the effort to watch it ?

And if you're too lazy to watch a video- why should they put effort into doing it for you? Your reading habits are not other peoples problem.

The O.P. did give his opinion: He liked what Attenborough had to say on the subject. He found it interesting as it seems a lot of people appear to be unaware that Attenborough is as staunch an atheist as Dawkins is. But if you want to know what Attenborough said- it's only logical that you listen to Attenborough say it, rather than accuse someone else of laziness for not holding your hand through it. In fact, accusing someone else of laziness for not doing your work is an absurdity.

It doesn't have to "cut it" with you. I agree that the O.P. doesn't inspire grand statements on the topic, but it is still sufficient and nothing is wrong with the O.P. The only thing it inspired was a mild argument. I think we've both made our points. The O.P. is not wordy, but it's good enough. Nothing is wrong with it.

Originally Posted by marnixR

what ? like "Sir Attenborough on God" ?
maybe it's because i'm more a reader than a video-watcher, but i still maintain that the main purpose of a forum is for people to express a point they're trying to make

just saying "here it is, have a look" doesn't cut it with me
if the OP is too lazy to explain what in their opinion the message of the video is, why should i put in the effort to watch it ?

I completely agree. It's much preferred posters summarize, and if they have one, express their thoughts before they ask people to look at another web site or vid. You'll note that so far, other than one sarcastic remark this thread has generated no conversation about the intended topic. A short paragraph might have avoided that.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I completely agree. It's much preferred posters summarize, and if they have one, express their thoughts before they ask people to look at another web site or vid. You'll note that so far, other than one sarcastic remark this thread has generated no conversation about the intended topic. A short paragraph might have avoided that.

Not telling others to do work for others might have avoided it in a better fashion.

While it's agreeable that posters summarize a link or video- this particular one was fine. You're pushing too hard.

I'm not pushing at all....just showing how this one didn't draw much interest about the topic and explaining why that's the case for our Eve player/ new forum member so they can learn how to best contribute around here.

Based on my ten years of forum moderating this and other forums, generally people will bypass vids or links to other web sites without commentary because it's either an unknown commitment in time and effort or looks like risky spam they'd rather avoid.

Heck your sarcastic first comment in the thread shows the problem--there wasn't enough in the OP to hang a discussion on. And guess what? You didn't.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I'm not pushing at all....just showing how this one didn't draw much interest about the topic and explaining why that's the case for our Eve player/ new forum member so they can learn how to best contribute around here.

Based on my ten years of forum moderating this and other forums, generally people will bypass vids or links to other web sites without commentary because it's either an unknown commitment in time and effort or looks like risky spam they'd rather avoid.

Heck your sarcastic first comment in the thread shows the problem--there wasn't enough in the OP to hang a discussion on. And guess what? You didn't.

Every last bit you say is true... But my contention is not that any link or vid without explanation requires viewing- my contention is that this particular O.P. was "good enough." Commenting that more is needed for what it was seems to be rather rude and demanding, to be blunt.

But you're right- I did not have much to say on the topic. I found the interview interesting to listen to... I can't think of any part of it I feel strongly compelled to talk about; But I am under the impression that the O.P. wasn't looking to have a big amazing discussion as much as to share the video with others.
I could be under the wrong impression, in which case maybe the Original Poster will return and say something goofy and out of line like, "Neverfly's wrong. I should have clarified (such and such) that I wanted to discuss." I kind of don't think so, though, since it says, "Agree with this or don't."

Originally Posted by marnixR

what ? like "Sir Attenborough on God" ?
maybe it's because i'm more a reader than a video-watcher, but i still maintain that the main purpose of a forum is for people to express a point they're trying to make

just saying "here it is, have a look" doesn't cut it with me
if the OP is too lazy to explain what in their opinion the message of the video is, why should i put in the effort to watch it ?

Strongly agree. One can take in a couple of paras in about 10-15secs, which convey as much as you can glean in about 5 minutes of most turgid documentaries.

Video is an extraordinarily inefficient way to communicate ideas. It can be great for things you need to see with your eyes (obviously) but for ideas, which is what forum discussions concern, it's generally lousy.

Personally I think any linked video footage should be accompanied by a short synopsis from the poster and, at a absolute minimum, the time needed to watch the damned thing should be indicated.

I would still really appreciate it if Etheria would do two things:
Provide a brief synopsis of on the contents of the video.
State their own views in relation to those expressed by Sir David.

That might then engender the kind of discussion that was likely intended instead of another fruitless debunking of Neverfly's contentious approach to anything.

Er... doesn't appreciation require being known? :P

What a fuzz.

What is the purpose of linking video's... if I first would have to tell and write down for people what he is going to say in the video? ... Then I would not need to link the video anymore.
Seeing as we have both eyes and ears... and have our eyes in the front,... we are suppose to use them. And you are basically already doing that.

I do not see the direct difference or trouble,... reading a buncha text on a screen,... or see some moving pixels on the screen, with a bitta sound added.

And I did gave my opinion about it. I said:

For me poster.... You are my enemy if you disagree with him.

... Though the word 'enemy' seems harsh,... with that strong word I do clearly give my opinion!

I am not comming over and kill you for it... it is my opinion... And if you want to know what that opinion is... you simply have to look at the video!

But... I'll add some more text to the original post,.... not that it will make any difference... as you would still need to watch the video in order to know his opinion.

Original Post is now changed... a bit.

No kidding. So... what- five people have "Strongly Agreed" that anyone linking to a video etc is required to do their work for them?
Argumentum ad Populum. Five people are agreeing to lazy and demanding behavior then.

While asking that people give a basic idea of what they're presenting is valid, claiming they must write a synopsis and hold your hand through it is just lazy. I have noticed a strong encouragement of this kind of laziness on science forums over the years as if since a few moderators or well known posters say it, others jump on the bandwagon and approve of it.
So yes- I spoke out against it. It's become a hypocritical bad habit. You demand claimants do their own presentations and own research. You demand students asking questions do their own homework. Yet, when something is presented, you demand that they do all the interpreting of it for you. Nonsense. They can present what it is and what they think, but writing a synopsis? Come On!

Rant to John Galt contained in spoiler tags:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And John Galt; You did not debunk anything.
You can appreciate it if the O.P. holds your hand, I'm sure. Who wouldn't appreciate it if someone does their work for them?
If you want to know what Attenborough said- hear it from Attenborough. That is not only applicable and proper, taking it from the horses mouth should be encouraged- not such idle laziness.
And the same goes for my posts. I'm fed up with your constant and unremitting contempt. I truly regret offering you numerous olive branches. If you dislike my posts- Don't read them.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Original Post is now changed... a bit.

Thanks you. Much better. In addition, to further encourage people to watch vids, people sometimes state how long it is and or at what point highlights the main point of the vid. Folks, oftentimes don't like watching long vids or simply don't have the time.

--
NV your very rant makes John Galt's point.

Thanks for you support Neverfly. I took the political approach here. I changed the original post, by saying what is said in the video without saying what Attenborough said about it.

In my opinion it does not change anything really said in the original post, as I agree with you that ´Sir Attenborough on God´ says exactly the same already, only with fewer words. Only besides now just the ´Book Title` they now also have the ´Book Chapters´... but would still need to ´read the book.´

It is an original post intended to let people show what Sir David Attenborough´s opinion is.

If I had used the link as a responds to someone saying/posting something,... then I would agree more with others saying:
'You should say what it is about,'...
... because then besides the opinions or viewpoint provided in that link,... you would then still need to explain your own opinion about the subject.

However as an original post and a discussion starter,... this is not always a need. You would only need to do that, if the video is very long and you want to point at a particular section of the video only,... or the video is just used as a reference afterwhich you provide your detailed opinion or tell what you want to say about it... particular if your opinion differs from the content of the provided video.
In this case,... this was not so. I clearly said I agreed with what Sir David Attenborough said. So to know both his and my opinion,... watch the video.

Example,... if in a debate about religion, a poster just provides a link to an online bible... and says ´The information is in there´... then that link it utterly pointless to follow as the posters does not provide his or her insight in the matter itself.
However for an original post, if the point of potential discussion, is the video itself... I´ll sure not do double work by then also providing the factual information in that video.

To Lynx_Fox:
I'm far from inexperienced. Ive been on forums for decades. I am 41 and have been using computers of all kinds, since I was about 12. Im not an inexperienced forum user and I generally take great care of my posts. I often re-edit posts afterwards, when I see an annoying grammatical error, or a construction of sentences that does not work or needs better explanation.
So I might be new here,... I am not inexperienced.

I understand the fear for bad links. I myself never click on unknown potentially untrustworthy links. However every experienced forum user will tell you that when you mouse over a link,... you can see where that link will take you. In this case to youtube.

Anyway,... I hope the small provided synopsis in the original post, satifies this fora populus.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Thanks for you support Neverfly.

You're welcome, though it's not personal. It's a hypocrisy that has annoyed me for a while. I do, at times, think that we who call ourselves proponents of the scientific method must adhere to the same standard we push off on those we call 'cranks.'

I've always found David Attenborough to be just a tad arrogant for my tastes.

Watching/listening to the video, I came away with the thought:
"Here is one more loudmouthed jerk defining god, then rejecting a figment of his own imagination(derived from other people's figments of their warped imaginations)"

I still don't get it!
Why bother?
I don't believe that a troupe of dancing pink galeintropothiscees will come down the road. And (aside from now) I also don't bother to talk about things in which I do not believe.

Is there a significant difference?

I ain't moral or ethical because of "GOD".
I'm moral and ethical because of you, and the social structure which the "you" in you represents.

"GOD" could be masturbating on the far side(s?) of the universe(s?) for all I care.
Only dedicated nutjobs actually "live for god".
I am the child of "man" as are we all.

The reason for the rather militant viewpoint is the rather militant viewpoint on the other side.

When you've got religious people making political decisions on their religious beliefs, dictating that evolution cannot be taught in school, etc.; Well, you're going to get fed up with the ignorance and speak out against it.

it is not arrogance to know better than ignorance.

circa 1962 Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev wrote to JFK as re the "cuban missile crisis" wherein he stated:

If you did this as the first step towards the unleashing of war, well then, it is evident that nothing else is left to us but to accept this challenge of yours. If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose.

Consequently, if there is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot. We are ready for this.

For the full transcript please see: Cuban Missile Crisis - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

...............
I guess that what I am advising is to let go of the goddamned rope.
...............................
There is a poem about the demise of the old "gods" which I have been missquoting for decades:

"Then feasted they all day
till the setting of the sun
then along came a ragged jew
dragging a huge wooden cross
as he approached the table,
the gods grew silent
he then threw down the cross
on their feast table
and the Gods
just faded away

"
(not an exact rendition of the original)(if anyone remembers the original...)

The only way to kill a "GOD" is to ignore the "GOD".

Tango post.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Sir Attenborough on God:

For me poster.... You are my enemy if you disagree with him.

Noted.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

In this video Sir David Attenborough gives his opinion on various subjects... He also explains shortly why humans should behave and can be moral, from a evolutionary standpoint,... so be moral without the need for a god.

Since you saw it fit to share his video, perhaps you can explain to me why I should care about what the man has to say.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

So if you want to know his and thus also my opinion on things... watch the video.

No thank you.

@sculptor

One person not caring wont make a difference anyway.

But alot of people do care, on both sides of the spectrum,... with the added result that it makes a big impact on the daily lives of alot of people all around the world.

I recall clearly, news footage from Afghanistan, just after it was 'liberated' from the Taliban,... seeing women removing the veil, so happy they may yet again have the oppertunities they were denied by the Taliban. Such simple things people in the west take for granted, like going to school or listening to music,... or perhaps simply stating your opinion about religion.

I do not care you do not care. You are entitled to your own opinion, most respectfully.

Fact is that these kinds of things are VERY important. And I am happy to be able to live in a country where I can do that, go on the internet and talk about it,... not having the fear to show my disgust for (all) religions, and religious acts,... not having the fear to be picked up by some kind of religious police, be tortured, stoned, shot, or have my head cut off.

Originally Posted by sculptor

circa 1962 Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev wrote to JFK as re the "cuban missile crisis" wherein he stated:

If you did this as the first step towards the unleashing of war, well then, it is evident that nothing else is left to us but to accept this challenge of yours. If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose.

Consequently, if there is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot. We are ready for this.

For the full transcript please see: Cuban Missile Crisis - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

...............
I guess that what I am advising is to let go of the goddamned rope.
...............................
There is a poem about the demise of the old "gods" which I have been missquoting for decades:

"Then feasted they all day
till the setting of the sun
then along came a ragged jew
dragging a huge wooden cross
as he approached the table,
the gods grew silent
he then threw down the cross
on their feast table
and the Gods
just faded away

"
(not an exact rendition of the original)(if anyone remembers the original...)

The only way to kill a "GOD" is to ignore the "GOD".

We ain't nuking eachother, Daddy-o. That's a tad rad dad.
.................................................. ........
The tensions are not so explosive, rather they are one in which we can look back and see the racism, tyranny and abuse forced upon people justified through mistrust, judgment and Ignorance.
As the populace became more educated and less ignorant, so too dropped ignorant racism, sexism, tyranny and oppression over people. This is our history. So, yes, no nukes- true. But there are still those of us that speak out strongly against the harm brought by superstitious ignorance.

And look at how some of those believers use mistrust to their strongest advantage. Note RamenNoodles thread in which he points out how a fundamentalist friend of his claims that Y.E.C.'s "debunked" the "Myth that man came millions of years after dinosaurs" and claiming man and dino walked together... he relies not on evidence but on sowing confusion and making the recipient uncertain as to what to believe.

I never stated that "I didn't care".
What i meant was that i surmise that the taken approach is incapable of success.(and a bloody fucking waste of time and intellect)

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Fact is that these kinds of things are VERY important. And I am happy to be able to live in a country where I can do that, go on the internet and talk about it,... not having the fear to show my disgust for (all) religions, and religious acts,... not having the fear to be picked up by some kind of religious police, be tortured, stoned, shot, or have my head cut off.

Like Pakistan.

Originally Posted by sculptor

I never stated that "I didn't care".
What i meant was that i surmise that the taken approach is incapable of success.(and a bloody fucking waste of time and intellect)

Well not litteral... Which is not a problem as I was not quoting you. You actually said this:

"GOD" could be masturbating on the far side(s?) of the universe(s?) for all I care.
Only dedicated nutjobs actually "live for god".
I am the child of "man" as are we all.

... which to me 'for all I care' is another way of saying you do not care, especially in set context.
But lets agree to diagree that the interpretion of that may differ then.

Why do you surmise the taken approach is incapable of succes?

I would suggest myself that educating people, learn people to read and write, removing poverty and engaging in peaceful conversation would be one of the best approaches,...
... against the hard approach by burning down all churches, mosques, temples all over the world, destroying all religious text, punishing oposition hard, nuking countries that dare not to listen, etcetera.

But knowing history,... it'll probably end up as a mix of these two extremes, ending in some compromise... when we look back, in a few centuries time, too history of the past (our now still future).

ok, watched the video now, but still a bit puzzled though : what's this got to do with Darwin (apart from a very old clip of Attenboroush's nature series, which just elaborated about the species richness in Brazil) ?

in essence this was just David Attenborough explaining his reasons for not believing in a god, part of it being anthropological (why would you select any of the creation myths over any other ?) and partly biological (what sort of benevolence does it show for a god to create nature full of suffering ?)

i have trouble linking this with the title of this thread "Least known, but best appreciated opinion about Darwin."
am i missing something ?

Well he did compare what he found to be the logical inconstancy in everything being created at once and its share variety with the logical dilemma Darwin also had when he visited that forest. Darwin, likewise claimed that creation served no explanatory understanding in the context of observations:

"Naturalists try to arrange the species, genera, and families in each class, on what is called the Natural System. But what is meant by this system? Some authors look at it merely as a scheme for arranging together those living objects which are most alike, and for separating those which are most unlike; or as an artificial means for enunciating, as briefly as possible, general propositions,--that is, by one sentence to give the characters common, for instance, to all mammals, by another those common to all carnivora, by another those common to the dog-genus, and then by adding a single sentence, a full description is given of each kind of dog. The ingenuity and utility of this system are indisputable. But many naturalists think that something more is meant by the Natural System; they believe that it reveals the plan of the Creator; but unless it be specified whether order in time or space, or what else is meant by the plan of the Creator, it seems to me that nothing is thus added to our knowledge.
From "Origin of Species"

Science writers and broadcasters should just stick to science and keep their opinions about moral responsibility or human suffering to themselves. Attenborough's opinion on these matters means no more to me than that of Joe Schmoe from Shebipp, Kansas.

Originally Posted by marnixR

ok, watched the video now, but still a bit puzzled though : what's this got to do with Darwin (apart from a very old clip of Attenboroush's nature series, which just elaborated about the species richness in Brazil) ?

in essence this was just David Attenborough explaining his reasons for not believing in a god, part of it being anthropological (why would you select any of the creation myths over any other ?) and partly biological (what sort of benevolence does it show for a god to create nature full of suffering ?)

i have trouble linking this with the title of this thread "Least known, but best appreciated opinion about Darwin."
am i missing something ?

My apologies @marnixR let me explain the title then.

For many decades people have watched Sir David Attenborough's amazing documentaries about the natural world. But his personal opinion on nature and god was never asked or provided in his own documentaries. He himself said he prefered to avoid the subject while doing/making these... excluding his own opinion.

Nobody actually ever knew Sir David Attenborough's opinion about god and religion. He prefered a placid approach to his documentaries.

This paritcular video DOES show his personal opinion. An opinion "least known"

I may agree though the "but best appreciated opinion about Darwin," would be a personal touch. As that is how I feel this. It is my personal opinion,... Perhaps not best used as a new post title.

Your question:

what's this got to do with Darwin (apart from a very old clip of Attenboroush's nature series, which just elaborated about the species richness in Brazil) ?

The nick is at 1:09... 'The convential view of the time, was that each and every species of animal and plant, had been individually created by god. And Darwin,... was no Atheist."

Im starting to believe Neverfly's opinion about lazyness. Seriously,... if I am provided a video which states an opnion, I atleast look at it 5 times. And during my responds on a forum I look at it again, and I make sure my responds is well synched with the video.
How many times did you look at the video?

Did you grasp the essential facts that Sir David Attenborough provided? You seem to be more concerned about the fact that part of the footage was decades old. But that was not my idea. That was part original video from the BBC interviewer with Sir David Attenborough. It was an essential part of the interview,.. which is why they used that specific bit in the first place. The actual interview is not that long ago.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

I may agree though the "but best appreciated opinion about Darwin," would be a personal touch. As that is how I feel this. It is my personal opinion,... Perhaps not best used as a new post title.

Personal opinion.. perhaps not best to post in the biology forum, either.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Science writers and broadcasters should just stick to science and keep their opinions about moral responsibility or human suffering to themselves. Attenborough's opinion on these matters means no more to me than that of Joe Schmoe from Shebipp, Kansas.

Which opinions do matter to you then ... and why?
What limits do you put on respectful accepted opinions?

Who do you consider guiding people worthy enough that their personal opinion may shape the world?... and why?

His point is Attenborough isn't a scientist, which tends to carry more credibility, especially in a biology sub forum.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Science writers and broadcasters should just stick to science and keep their opinions about moral responsibility or human suffering to themselves. Attenborough's opinion on these matters means no more to me than that of Joe Schmoe from Shebipp, Kansas.

Which opinions do matter to you then ... and why?
What limits do you put on respectful accepted opinions?

Who do you consider guiding people worthy enough that their personal opinion may shape the world?... and why?

Joe Schmoe. I respect his opinion because he does not bother me with it on a science forum. Do you think Attenborough has some special knowledge about moral questions?

Opinions can be based on working knowledge.
Morality may well be subjective, but when a number of us agree on them, they become law.

What laws there are should be a matter of everyones concern.

And all of this pertains to Science. The Scientific Method is not about perfection any more than it is morality. The method was devised to help us work around our bias in order to build more and more accurate models of reality. These models could be said to be "Informed or Educated Opinions" as no theory is every proven.
What we get out of these models is still as much a part of Science as the methodology is.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Opinions can be based on working knowledge.
Morality may well be subjective, but when a number of us agree on them, they become law.

What laws there are should be a matter of everyones concern.

And all of this pertains to Science. The Scientific Method is not about perfection any more than it is morality. The method was devised to help us work around our bias in order to build more and more accurate models of reality. These models could be said to be "Informed or Educated Opinions" as no theory is every proven.
What we get out of these models is still as much a part of Science as the methodology is.

How does science inform an opinion like "I can't believe that God created parasites."? Didn't people know about parasites before Attenborough did a program on them? What about "i feel that man has an obligation not only to his own kind but to the world at large."? How is this science related? Why should I care that this guy thinks that? I don't care.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How does science inform an opinion like "I can't believe that God created parasites."? Didn't people know about parasites before Attenborough did a program on them? What about "i feel that man has an obligation not only to his own kind but to the world at large."? How is this science related? Why should I care that this guy thinks that? I don't care.

And you can not care. You have that prerogative.
But whether you do not care if he said a statement, you do care about the impact of the ideas. Else, why administrate a Science Forum expect to educate, inform and debate these same issues?

Agreed that an argument from incredulity is only that- the reasoning and knowledge behind it is probably better worded or better expressed than it was in that one line. Cherry picking the statement simply to say, "I don't care" is nonsense.

Carl Sagan did the same. In fact, all notable publicly known scientists that have appealed to the curiosity of the population have done this and we're better off for it. "Better off" being a subjective opinion, of course. And that's my prerogative.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Carl Sagan did the same.

Yes, and I found it hugely annoying.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Carl Sagan did the same.

Yes, and I found it hugely annoying.

Makes you the minority, doesn't it?
I don't know why it is that whenever the implications of knowledge, discovery or understanding come up, you feel this urge to try to hammer it down- but I find that just as annoying.
Like it or not, Harold, the world is not scientifically minded. We did not evolve that way. We evolved with pareidolia and other instincts that automatically reject certain forms of thought since reactive thought is better suited to staying alive when surrounded by things that can kill you.
Scientists need to be able to understand that and present things in a way to overcome that.
That includes Sagan and Attenborough and Hawking and others... I find Kaku annoying and far-fetched. Even so, we've got something to show the efforts of the past 100 years. Less ignorance, less reliance on superstition, more widespread education... And these have resulted in less oppression, less racism, less animosity.

Is it "truly" better? I don't know. We also show a higher population growth, greater hypocrisy and salvation of village idiots.
But these are still the effects of the gathering of knowledge and scientific study and you cannot separate them simply because the opinions or conclusions people will reach and express are not always soundly based on the Scientific Method- they cannot be. If they did, science as a practice would falter with far fewer people interested in it. It's a lot less effort to attribute things to superstition and just react to things.

There's a huge difference between Carl Sagan and David Attenbourogh. Sagan was very well published in peer review scientific literature. I liked Attenbourough for bring science into our living rooms, but he wasn't reaching out as a scientist--he was a journalist who specialized in reporting and putting science on display.

Sagan reached out to the public as a scientist and got a lot of flack for it from his peers and the ivory tower types that still ran places like the National Science Foundation at that time. Fortunately many younger scientist are recognizing that unless scientist are willing to engage the public, they will continue to have trouble finding support for basic research, science education, and getting their views taken seriously when it comes to important public policies. This has become even more important as fundamentalist religious anti-intellectuals, oftentimes backed by big businesses, have refined their disinformation campaigns on a range of topics to movements to stop teaching evolution, discourage showing evolution science films in the bible belt, sow doubt and misrepresent climate science, force doctors to tell lie to women about abortion risk, worked to monopolize reviews of most secondary school text books through Texas where they can devalue roles of non-Christians in science and government, and many other examples (these are the types of things Estheria was concerned about). Sagan is a hero and paved the way for a new generation that's willing to take the time to connect with the general public.

Hmmm.. Agreeable enough... But I don't see what difference it makes in this discussion...

i see you have been suspended, for what transgression i don't know, but i'll reply to 2 comments you made anyway

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

This paritcular video DOES show his personal opinion. An opinion "least known"

i was aware of Attenborough's opinions about god and religion, hence it can't have been that much of a secret

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

The nick is at 1:09... 'The convential view of the time, was that each and every species of animal and plant, had been individually created by god. And Darwin,... was no Atheist."

at the time when he was sailing the world in the Beagle, Darwin was indeed as conventional in his attitude towards religion as most of his contemporaries (although a few items may already have set him thinking) - however, it is clear that later in life he was as close to being an atheist as was possible without being too vocal about it (presumably in deference to his devout wife), something that may have been triggered more by the death of his eldest daughter than his evolutionary ruminations