How will YOU be preparing for your interview??

wanderer

Blind Watchmaker is excellent, and I haven't read Selfish Gene but its pretty seminal as far as I'm aware.

Both books are weak in a number of ways, but written to be page-turners. The problem with Dawkins is that he's a dogmatist who claims to despise dogma. He has good points to make, but skates around any weaknesses in his approach and then launches ad hominem attacks against his critics.

Alister McGrath's book "Dawkins' God" is OK as a rebuttal, but has its own flaws.
--------------

soonalvin

Oh, and the part about computers in Blind Watchmaker is really boring. The part where he writes a program to simulate the evolutionary process. Where the criterion for selection is his fancy.

Yes, he misses the point that what he has is actually a design process just like any other.

Reply 63

Calvin

14

Bryllyg

In way of preparation, I shall mostly be...stubbornly refusing to prepare at all.

Oh and I don't think arguing with them is a good idea - unless they insult you, trample on your belongings with their shiny brogues, or tell you, peering over their half moon glasses, that there are many applicants all over the flat world who could fly here (pig-back) for this interview that are better than you. If they are this rude or wrong then I think a little argument is ok. Stereotypical views are also quite offensive :p:

dum-di-dum...

Oh they want you to have your own opinion. But I think the biggest mistake you could possibly make in an interview is to stubbornly refuse to see the point they are making. They are looking for someone they can teach and have a discussion with. Not somebody who doesn't realise what a privilage it is to learn

Reply 64

grumballcake

Both books are weak in a number of ways, but written to be page-turners. The problem with Dawkins is that he's a dogmatist who claims to despise dogma. He has good points to make, but skates around any weaknesses in his approach and then launches ad hominem attacks against his critics.

He's dogmatic, but I'd say he's not a dogmatist for the same reason he probably would - science is not a dogma. I haven't seen much evidence of such attacks on his scientific critics, but as far as I'm concerned the scorn he pours on Creationists or I.D theorists is justified - and their arguments are about as ad hominem as they come.

grumballcake

Yes, he misses the point that what he has is actually a design process just like any other.

The point of that bit is to show the power of selection, natural or otherwise - he doesn't claim to be showcasing a blind process.

Reply 65

110111

I am reading:
Lawrence B. Solum 's legal theory blog http://lsolum.blogspot.com/.
Posner's blog http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/

Other items on my purely aspirational reading list
Neal Warburton Philosophy, the Classics.
Jonathan Westphal Justice
Robert George In defense of natural law
Elizabeth Anscombe Intention
Duff Intention, agency and criminal liability
Lon Fuller The case of the speluncean explorers
John Finnis Natural Law and Natural Rights
H.L.A.Hart The Concept of Law

Reply 66

soonalvin

wanderer

He's dogmatic, but I'd say he's not a dogmatist for the same reason he probably would - science is not a dogma. I haven't seen much evidence of such attacks on his scientific critics, but as far as I'm concerned the scorn he pours on Creationists or I.D theorists is justified - and their arguments are about as ad hominem as they come.

The point of that bit is to show the power of selection, natural or otherwise - he doesn't claim to be showcasing a blind process.

Lol. 2 wrongs doesn't make one right. If I didn't remember wrongly, he was criticising Gould at one point in his book for a reason I can't quite remember. :p:

*Is that why Biology for New College, Oxf is so popular? Since he's a fellow at New.

Reply 67

soonalvin

Lol. 2 wrongs doesn't make one right. If I didn't remember wrongly, he was criticising Gould at one point in his book for a reason I can't quite remember. :p:

Oh yeah, he disagrees with Gould a lot. But he recognises him as a scientist, and is willing to debate with him (or at least he did when he was alive) - whereas he explains in one of the essays in "A Devil's Chaplain" why he doesn't do the same for Creationists.

Reply 68

soonalvin

wanderer

Oh yeah, he disagrees with Gould a lot. But he recognises him as a scientist, and is willing to debate with him (or at least he did when he was alive) - whereas he explains in one of the essays in "A Devil's Chaplain" why he doesn't do the same for Creationists.

and many of the old guards in evo bio as well. medawar, haldane and huxley.

Reply 69

wanderer

The point of that bit is to show the power of selection, natural or otherwise - he doesn't claim to be showcasing a blind process.

Well, what's the point of it then? Everyone knows that if you consciously select, then it's a design. Everyone it seems, except Dawkins. It's in a book whose express purpose is to show that you do not need intelligence to achive a goal. Then he writes software which does require intelligence and he touts it as if it supports his argument. Maybe you can't see the irony there, but I can.

The problem is that Dawkins is a polemicist, not a scientist any more. He has a grudge against religion and will use any weapon he can find to attack it, not matter how much it undermines his credibility. Gould is atheist, but far more balanced in understanding that neo-Darwinism is not a complete explanation in itself. For example, how would it explain the anthropic principle based upon available evidence?

Reply 70

grumballcake

Well, what's the point of it then? Everyone knows that if you consciously select, then it's a design. Everyone it seems, except Dawkins. It's in a book whose express purpose is to show that you do not need intelligence to achive a goal. Then he writes software which does require intelligence and he touts it as if it supports his argument. Maybe you can't see the irony there, but I can.

It does support his argument, which has two parts - first showing that a selective process is far more powerful and approaches the goal far quicker than a random one, and secondly that natural selection removes the need for intelligence in such a process. The computer bit pertains to the first part.

grumballcake

The problem is that Dawkins is a polemicist, not a scientist any more. He has a grudge against religion and will use any weapon he can find to attack it, not matter how much it undermines his credibility. Gould is atheist, but far more balanced in understanding that neo-Darwinism is not a complete explanation in itself. For example, how would it explain the anthropic principle based upon available evidence?

Dawkins' hatred of religion is a bit unnerving, I'll admit, but I generally see his point. He does seem to think that the only argument religion has is the 'natural' version of the teleological argument, though.

I've yet to see any criticism of neo-darwinism thats even impressed me, let alone come close to changing my mind. The anthropic principle is outside of the theory's domain, being to do with physics, but its false anyway.

Reply 71

tanusha-tomsk

18

Hey!
I think you *really* need to be on top of your AS and studied A2 material, so that's what I am [supposed to be] doing. Not enough time though! Thank god my interview is not in November :smile:

Reply 72

wanderer

It does support his argument, which has two parts - first showing that a selective process is far more powerful and approaches the goal far quicker than a random one, and secondly that natural selection removes the need for intelligence in such a process. The computer bit pertains to the first part....and is completely undermined by the second. The point about such experiements is that they're invariably teleological - you get out what you put in as criteria for selection. If you make a sieve with 1mm holes then, amazingly, only 1mm particles or smaller get through.

Anyway, we've moved a long way from the proper topic of this thread, so we probably ought to move it elsewhere.

Reply 73

grumballcake

...and is completely undermined by the second. The point about such experiements is that they're invariably teleological - you get out what you put in as criteria for selection. If you make a sieve with 1mm holes then, amazingly, only 1mm particles or smaller get through.

You're repeating yourself. I have never claimed that the process isn't telological, and neither does Dawkins. The experiment is not intended to represent an undesigned process.

grumballcake

Anyway, we've moved a long way from the proper topic of this thread, so we probably ought to move it elsewhere.

Oh come on, there was an eight page discussion on analytic v. continental philosophy in the 'what books are you taking up?' thread. Maybe a mod will come along and move this.

Reply 74

wanderer

The experiment is not intended to represent an undesigned process.

Perhaps you could back up that assertion with some evidence from the book.

"Technically, all we are doing when we play the computer biomorph game, is finding animals that, in a mathematical sense are waiting to be found" (p.66)

They are only "waiting to be found" because he has created a space in which they already have the potential to exist. His argument is that it's hard to find any particular one, but you can by a directed search (something he then largely refutes in the course of the discussion). What he misses is that by saying "looks like an insect" that's establishing a teleological goal. If the search is random, then so should the search criteria be. In other words, why isn't every search looking for something different?

I understand that the experiment is partly about the effect of incremental change, but you can show that with the elephant to mouse example. (i.e if each generation is 1% smaller than the previous, how long does it take for an elephant to become a mouse?).

Reply 75

Che!

11

Read, read and read myself into the ground....and understand what I'm reading....

Reply 76

SculpTect

mrcheese

I've done the same, said I've read books that I am reading now. 'A History of Architecture, Settings and Rituals'; it's what-can-only-be-described-as a cinder block of a book.

it's very interesting, but is taking a very long time to get through...

And I have to read another one, but smaller

Ahh, good to see more architecture applicants! I've read my books, but am worried about my portfolio now :frown:

Reply 77

Charming_Apollo

Around September I made a list of 26 classic books I was going to read. I was really good at the beginning but have now basically stopped altogether and have read about 4 of those. Fortunately I've already read some novels to back up my deep abiding passion for Victorian literature (at least that's what I said in my PS :wink:

)

I'm also gonna read the newspaper at somepoint but have no time. Honestly, if they don't want me it's their loss. Or so I keep on telling myself :frown:

Reply 78

Cunning Linguist

3

che_guevara

Reading around and preparing arguements and theories...

way hay!! finally found sum1 who is applying to oxford for french!!! im also applying to edinburgh!
hav u bin accepted newhere else? i have, to leeds. o and by the way, i am doing French with Linguistics, just to be precise.

Reply 79

Evil Phoenix