More Recent Comments

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Berlinski Quotes

 
In the comments section of Breaking News... Mathematicians Don't Believe in Evolution!, glennd points us to An Interview with David Berlinski on an Intelligent Design Creationist website. (Incidentally, the commenters on that thread do a good job of proving that Berlinski isn't a mathematician.

Here's are some of the eye-popping views of this "famous" mathematician "philosopher" ...
The Panda’s Thumb, on the other hand, is entirely low-market; the men who contribute to the blog all have some vague technical background – computer sales, sound mixing, low-level programming, print-shops or copy centers; they are semi-literate; their posts convey that characteristic combination of pustules and gonorrhea that one would otherwise associate with high-school toughs, with even the names – Sir Toejam, The Reverend Lenny Flank – suggesting nothing so much as a group of guys spending a great deal of time hanging around their basements running video games, eating pizzas, and jeering at various leggy but inaccessible young women.
Darwin’s theory is plain nuts. It is not supported by the evidence; it has no organizing principles; it is incoherent on its face; it flies against all common experience, and it is poisonous in its implications.

And another thing. It is easy to understand. Anyone can become an evolutionary biologist in an afternoon. Just read a book. Most of them are half illustrations anyway. It’s not like studying mathematics or physics, lot of head splitting stuff there.
But Dawkins …

DB: An interesting case, very louche – fascinating and repellant. Fascinating because like Noam Chomsky he has the strange power effortlessly to command attention. Just possibly both men are descended from a line of simian carnival barkers, great apes who adventitiously found employment at a circus. I really should look at this more closely. Repellent because Dawkins is that depressingly familiar figure – the intellectual fanatic. What is it that he has said? “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)”. Substitute ‘Allah’ for ‘evolution,’ and these words might have been uttered by some fanatical Mullah just itching to get busy with a little head-chopping. If he ever gets tired of Oxford, Dawkins could probably find a home at Finsbury Park.
It is a matter of attitude and sentiment, Look, for thousands of intellectuals, becoming a Marxist was an experience of disturbing intensity. The decision having been made, the world became simpler, brighter, cleaner, clearer. A number of contemporary intellectuals react in the same way when it comes to the Old Boy – Darwin, I mean. Having renounced Freud and all his wiles, the literary critic Frederick Crews – a man of some taste and sophistication – has recently reported seeing in random variations and natural selection the same light he once saw in castration anxiety or penis envy. He has accordingly immersed himself in the emollient of his own enthusiasm. Every now and then he contributes an essay to The New York Review of Books revealing that his ignorance of any conceivable scientific issue has not been an impediment to his satisfaction.

Another example – I’ve got hundreds. Daniel Dennett has in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea written about natural selection as the single greatest idea in human intellectual history. Anyone reading Dennett understands, of course, that his acquaintance with great ideas has been remarkably fastidious. Mais, je divague …

In the case of both Crews and Dennett, it’s that God-awful eagerness to explain everything that is the give-away. The eagerness is entirely academic or even literary. But, you know, what sociologists call prole-drift is present even in a world without proles. Look at Christopher Hitchens – very bright, very able. Just recently he felt compelled to release his views on evolution to a public not known eagerly to be waiting for them. What does he have to say? Pretty much that he doesn’t know anything about art but he knows what he likes. The truth of the matter, however, is that he pretty much likes what he knows, and what he knows is what he has heard smart scientists say. Were smart scientists to say that a form of yeast is intermediate between the great apes and human beings, Hitchens would, no doubt, conceive an increased respect for yeast. But that’s a journalist for you: all zeal and no content. No, no, not you, of course. You’re not like the others.
The problem with Berlinski is that he's a fuzzy-headed idiot on some things but on others he hits a little too close to the mark for my comfort level. He's the Christopher Hitchens of the Intellligent Design movement.


[Photo Credit: Turkey's First ID Conference, March 2007]

7 comments :

Anonymous said...

Knight-Ridder article of September 27, 2005:

But in an e-mail message, Berlinski declared, "I have never endorsed intelligent design."

The Ridger, FCD said...

Ummmm... does he REALLY think that the evidence for Allah is the same category as the evidence for evolution?

Anonymous said...

Larry, I'd be curious to know which things you think Berlinski hits close to the mark.

He's a lying shill in a nest of lying shills. I don't see anything more to him.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that any enemy of Dennett's is, if not a friend, than at least a not-total-enemy of Moran's.

Timothy V Reeves said...

‘Head chopping Oxford mullah’, ‘Pustules’, ‘Gonorrhea’ ‘Biology is kids stuff’, ‘Darwin’s theory is plain nuts’…etc etc

I know one thing: A very delicate debate is going nowhere very fast when it’s like this. I'm afraid it's too emotive for me.

Torbjörn Larsson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Torbjörn Larsson said...

No, Berlinski is no mathematician. He has a PhD in philosophy, IIRC on the history of mathematics.

An interesting case, very louche – fascinating and repellant.

And the basis for that description of "questionable taste or morality" would be that Dawkins do science outreach? Not a very convincing argument as seen either frontwards or backwards.

And as it happens, Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

Another unimpressive argument is Berlinski's claim that abandoning an idea that has failed to measure up observationally (psychotherapy) would not without other concerns mean a sense of making away with cluttering. Or that verified research would not mean a more complex view and no challenges.

Btw, either Berlinski tries to be vacuously ironic on Dennett or he needs to look up "fastidious".