Is Richard Dawkin's view that the human eye was designed by an idiot really science ?

[whirlingmerc]

Would a view that 'the human eye was designed by an idiot' be more of a heart view than an impartial and dispassionate conclusion of the scientific method ?

Of course octopus have photo receptors facing out but they won't get burnt out by UV as they are protected by water.

 

[Revoltingest]

If by "idiot" you mean the stochastic process comprising randomly generated mutations
in organisms selected by a fitness function (natural selection) resulting in evolution over eons,
then yes, this is science.

Gosh, that was easy!

 

[Ouroboros]

Since the "the human eye was designed by an idiot" is within quotes, I assume it's a quote by Richard Dawkins.

I'm having a small difficulty finding that quote. Google gives me creationist and intelligent design pages rather than Dawkins. So could anyone please provide the full quote where Dawkins says this, and see what the context is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here is the interview with Dawkins explaining that, and he does use science to explain it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm having a small difficulty finding that quote. Google gives me creationist and intelligent design pages rather than Dawkins. So could anyone please provide the full quote where Dawkins says this, and see what the context is.

It was in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth.

 

[Ouroboros]

It was in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth.

He really said that? That the human eye was designed by an idiot?

Oh, well, it does sound like something he might say.

So to answer the question to my opinion, no, it's not a scientific statement or view to claim that the eye was designed by an idiot, unless we could scientifically first established that it was designed at all, and secondly test the designers mental capacities to conclude that he/she is in a fact an idiot or not. The eye has nothing to do with it to conclude that statement to be true or false, scientifically, except for being the reference to which/who designer being talked about.

So if evolution is the designer, I'm not sure how we would conclude that evolution as a process has a mental capacity of an idiot or not.

My view, hence, is that it's not a scientific statement.

 

[Revoltingest]

He really said that? That the human eye was designed by an idiot?

Oh, well, it does sound like something he might say.

I assume by "idiot" he means a physical process lacking intelligence (to guide it).
It's a metaphor.

 

[Ouroboros]

I assume by "idiot" he means a physical process lacking intelligence (to guide it).
It's a metaphor.

Idiots don't lack intelligence completely, they just have less of it, not complete absence of it. I wouldn't call evolution being an "idiot designer". That's not a scientific term or approach. The question is if it's science to call it "idiot", and no, it's not scientific. It can of course be done in popular writings, books, and such, but if someone put it in a scientific research paper, the paper would be laughed at and discarded.

Since it was in a book where Dawkins is trying to explain things in a popular fashion, it's not a science book. So the quote has nothing to do with science, and is not even trying to be, so the question in this thread is moot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Idiots don't lack intelligence completely, they just have less of it, not complete absence of it.

Tis not a good idea to take a poetic description or my reading of it too literally.
But an idiot would lack the intelligence to design a complex biosphere, so I
find that the metaphor works.

 

[Ouroboros]

Tis not a good idea to take a poetic description or my reading of it too literally.
But an idiot would lack the intelligence to design a complex biosphere, so I
find that the metaphor works.

I know what you're saying, but the question in this thread wasn't if the term can be used poetically or metaphorically in general public literature, but rather, "Is Richard Dawkin's view that the human eye was designed by an idiot really science ?"

The quote is from a popular book, not a scientific research paper, so it's not even related to science, and it wouldn't be a scientific phrase to be used in a science paper. Dawkins didn't do anything wrong by using that metaphor. I get it. It's not a bad metaphor. But it's not a scientific term. And since the question to this thread wasn't "is it a good metaphor" but rather "is it science", then my answer is, "no, it's not science, even if it's a good metaphor in non-scientific material." Or, is his book considered a scientific book? Is it a peer review report? I thought it was more of popular book, written for the public. There's a difference. I wouldn't call the "Greatest Show on Earth" a scientific book. It's a book written for regular people to get a quick and easy access to science, but not a scientific report or peer-review journal article or such.

If the question, however, is "is the eye a bad design", then it's more scientific than using metaphors, because the eye is indeed not very efficient. It's decent and reasonable proficient at what we need, but it has several flaws that wouldn't need to be there.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know what you're saying, but the question in this thread wasn't if the term can be used poetically or metaphorically in general public literature, but rather, "Is Richard Dawkin's view that the human eye was designed by an idiot really science ?"

It's science.
Just cuz he spoke metaphorically doesn't make it otherwise.

Analogy time....
Quantum mechanics is science despite Einstein's poetic metaphor that God doesn't play dice with the universe.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's science.
Just cuz he spoke metaphorically doesn't make it otherwise.

Ok. Then we disagree on this. I would be very surprised if any scientist would use phrases like "idiot designer" in a scientific report.

Analogy time....
Quantum mechanics is science despite Einstein's poetic metaphor that God doesn't play dice with the universe.

It was his views that he expressed in an interview.

To say that everything a scientist says makes it science is not right. Science is the part where we deal with facts, experiment, research, peer-review, and so fort. Metaphors are used to explain science to the public, but science itself doesn't build upon metaphors, does it? Do we really read "idiot designer" in text books about evolution and anthropology? I have no memory of ever reading that in any of my anthropology classes. Seriously. Even the term "designer" was never used.

So, I can just say, I 100% disagree with you that popularized metaphors by individual scientists make it somehow science because it was spoken by a scientist. Simply because it would mean that any religious or theist scientist who speaks out about their belief in a creator somehow would make their statement science as well. That's not how science works. Sorry.

"Science[nb 1][2]:58[3] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2]"

Scientists can use metaphors and analogies to explain things in science, but metaphors and analogies are not science in themselves. They're just tools to explain the science itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok. Then we disagree on this. I would be very surprised if any scientist would use phrases like "idiot designer" in a scientific report.

That's a pretty arbitrary standard you might be imposing there.....
Make a poetic comment in the wrong venue, & there goes one's standing as a scientist, regardless of the quality of one's work.

To say that everything a scientist says makes it science is not right.

Of course, no one is claiming that.
That's not what the title to the thread asks.

Science is the part where we deal with facts, experiment, research, peer-review, and so fort. Metaphors are used to explain science to the public, but science itself doesn't build upon metaphors, does it? Do we really read "idiot designer" in text books about evolution and anthropology? I have no memory of ever reading that in any of my anthropology classes. Seriously. Even the term "designer" was never used.

I agree that it's not appropriate for a textbook.
But Dawkins is a provocateur, & this doesn't make his work non-science.

 

[Sunstone]

Would a view that 'the human eye was designed by an idiot' be more of a heart view than an impartial and dispassionate conclusion of the scientific method ?

Aren't you confusing an expression or metaphor that Dawkins came up with to communicate an idea with the science that is behind the idea, and then trying to judge the science on the basis of the expression? It seems a silly mistake to me.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's a pretty arbitrary standard you might be imposing there.....
Make a poetic comment in the wrong venue, & there goes one's standing as a scientist, regardless of the quality of one's work.

I'm not judging his material or even saying that his metaphor is wrong.

The question, again, was if this is science. Not if it's a good metaphor. Not if it's palatable to every person. Not if it's right or wrong. The question was "is ... science."

And no, metaphors aren't science. Just like analogies aren't science either. Words aren't science either. Science is the study of nature.

Of course, no one is claiming that.
That's not what the title to the thread asks.

The title asks if the claim that the eye was designed by an idiot is science, and it's not. It's hyperbole and metaphorical, but not science.

I agree that it's not appropriate for a textbook.

If it's science it would have to be. Science textbooks contain scientific statements, claims, facts, and information, and if "idiot designer" is a scientific statement, it should be in science textbooks.

Is it science or not? No. We can't start accepting metaphors to be scientific truths.

But Dawkins is a provocateur, & this doesn't make his work non-science.

I didn't say his work is non-science. His work is. His metaphors aren't science though. Just like every other metaphor or analogy used in the past to explain scientific theories aren't science in themselves, they're just metaphors and analogies of science. They're not science itself.

The whole question is wrong to begin with. This whole thread is based on a flawed question. A popularized book to give a cursory insight in science written by a scientist isn't the same as science. It's just a book. It's not a science textbook. And it will be based on the author's bias and personal views. There's no peer review on such books.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not judging his material or even saying that his metaphor is wrong.

The question, again, was if this is science. Not if it's a good metaphor. Not if it's palatable to every person. Not if it's right or wrong. The question was "is ... science."

And no, metaphors aren't science. Just like analogies aren't science either. Words aren't science either. Science is the study of nature.


The title asks if the claim that the eye was designed by an idiot is science, and it's not. It's hyperbole and metaphorical, but not science.


If it's science it would have to be. Science textbooks contain scientific statements, claims, facts, and information, and if "idiot designer" is a scientific statement, it should be in science textbooks.

Is it science or not? No. We can't start accepting metaphors to be scientific truths.


I didn't say his work is non-science. His work is. His metaphors aren't science though. Just like every other metaphor or analogy used in the past to explain scientific theories aren't science in themselves, they're just metaphors and analogies of science. They're not science itself.

The whole question is wrong to begin with. This whole thread is based on a flawed question. A popularized book to give a cursory insight in science written by a scientist isn't the same as science. It's just a book. It's not a science textbook. And it will be based on the author's bias and personal views. There's no peer review on such books.

I think we're splitting hairs at this point.
I'd never say that metaphors are science.
But one may use metaphors in discussing science.
This doesn't render it unscientific.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is the exact quote from the book by the way:

That doesn’t make sense – and it gets even worse. One consequence of the photocells pointing backwards is that the wires that carry their data somehow have to pass through the retina and back to the brain. What they do, in the vertebrate eye, is all converge on a particular hole in the retina, where they dive through it. The hole filled with nerves is called the blind spot, because it is blind, but ‘spot’ is too flattering, for it is quite large, more like a blind patch, which again doesn’t actually inconvenience us much because of the ‘automatic Photoshop’ software in the brain. Once again, send it back, it’s not just bad design, it’s the design of a complete idiot.

Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (p. 354). Free Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think we're splitting hairs at this point.
I'd never say that metaphors are science.

Good, then we agree.

But one may use metaphors in discussing science.

Agree.

This doesn't render it unscientific.

Neither does it make it scientific.

Metaphors can make assumptions and they tend to have an angle based on the givers bias. Now, I agree there are flaws in the eye, but does this mean that if there was a designer he must be an idiot? Nah. Maybe incompetent. Or maybe there are other reasons. Or perhaps ran out of material or ideas. The conclusion of the metaphor is that we should assume that there's a designer and he/she is an idiot. Even if the underlying fact is true, "the eye is flawed," the metaphor draws a conclusion that's based on the writer's opinions.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is the exact quote from the book by the way:

Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (p. 354). Free Press. Kindle Edition.

Sounds like science to me.....albeit bi***y science.
I suspect he likes to offend creationists.
Just a hunch.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sounds like science to me.....albeit bi***y science.
I suspect he likes to offend creationists.
Just a hunch.

Of course.

And I still disagree that this is science. And I'm leaving it at that.