Every time Dawkins dumps on religion, my feed is full of people patiently explaining to him how he gets it wrong. And yet he keeps doing it. Is it too much to ask that a proponent of science and rationality should rationally update his beliefs in light of new evidence? Ah...https://twitter.com/ErikAngner/status/1103604440970469376 …
-
I don't think Erik was making an argumentum ad populum, I think he was implying that enough people have corrected Dawkins that it's reasonable to believe Dawkins should have noticed at least some of those corrections by now.
Begs the question. A religious person could say exactly the same. It amounts to the claim that if enough philosophers explain why philosophy is useful, philosophy must be useful. Well, no.
-
-
Isn't it more like, enough people have messaged Dawkins that the message should have reached him by now. Not that the message is correct BECAUSE many people said it.
-
Begs the question again. It's entirely possible Dawkins doesn't think the message is correct. Switch it around. A religious person could make exactly the same point, and you wouldn't think numbers were relevant, nor that it were a matter of you ignoring the message.
-
Yes, it's possible Dawkins has read the responses and found them unconvincing. Whether the message is correct is a different question. It could be that the rebuttals to Dawkins were in fact strong.
-
Well, exactly, in which case it's entirely unreasonable to suggest that Dawkins is ignoring evidence in not being convinced by the arguments. I could certainly make a convincing argument for the disutility of philosophy.
-
I don't think it's entirely unreasonable. Maybe somewhat unreasonable. It depends on the quality of the arguments doesn't it? It's likely Dawkins has read the arguments, though.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.