Irish Times Waffle Alert

Morgase · 18-07-2012 8:40pm

Quatermain wrote: »

10,000 years ago, people were just arriving in Ireland, having migrated from Continental Europe. We know they had knowledge of navigation and boatmaking. They fished and preserved food for the voyage. Given that their descendants also built Newgrange, Knowth, and Dowth, they had knowledge of architecture and astronomy.

This speaks of a tremendous amount of intelligence for "cavemen", a term which is both nebulous and misleading.

To be fair, the goalposts have just been moved. I'm sure most would agree that there is a massive difference between humans of only 10,000 years ago and cavemen.

Sulla Felix · 18-07-2012 8:41pm

From the writer of God's Enterpeneurs... Not too surprisiing.

Nodin · 18-07-2012 9:02pm

speaking wrote: »

when I said cave men I was refering to stone age people lets say around 10000 years ago in ireland .

Right then. Thats one thing cleared up. Humans, circa 10,000 years ago.

speaking wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Sartre.27s_philosophy

See Camus, Fredrick N for what I am trying to get at.

As both are dead and are probably not your personal aquaintances, I doubt that would be helpful.

From your own link.

There has never been general agreement on the definition of the term. The first
prominent existentialist philosopher to adopt the term as a self-description was
Jean-Paul Sartre. Existentialism as a term,
therefore, has been applied to many philosophers in hindsight. According to
philosopher Steven Crowell, defining existentialism has therefore
been relatively difficult, and argues that it is better understood as a general
approach used to reject certain systematic philosophies rather than as a
systematic philosophy

Thus I'd rather you laid out what you were getting at, rather than have me play guessing games.

speaking · 18-07-2012 9:31pm

Quatermain wrote: »

10,000 years ago, people were just arriving in Ireland, having migrated from Continental Europe. We know they had knowledge of navigation and boatmaking. They fished and preserved food for the voyage. Given that their descendants also built Newgrange, Knowth, and Dowth, they had knowledge of architecture and astronomy.

This speaks of a tremendous amount of intelligence for "cavemen", a term which is both nebulous and misleading.

But did these men not also worshipped the Sun, engaged in ridiculas rituals around large stones believed in the cult of the dead. Now that's what I call stupid, or maybe.............................................................?

Sycopat · 18-07-2012 9:36pm

speaking wrote: »

I care about people more than blindly following the assumption that scientific thinking will lead us to some utopia, while along the way we fail to properly address some of the ethical questions that science seems to bring about.

I am all for science don't get me wrong. I just cant believe it will free us to the extent that other atheists do.

I am willing to be wrong.

I dont understand what you mean by subjective answers?

First up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Questions with no single answer, but different answers for different people depending on how they approach the question, their personal philosophies, outlooks, modes of thinking, values. Subjective. The opposite of objective. "Which of the many available possible courses of action is most ethical?" for instance.

I feel I should point out here, existentialism is a heavily subjective philosophy.

Who is making this assumption that blindly following scientific thinking will lead to a utopia by the way? I think that's a bit of a straw man. Science is not a social guidebook, or political ideology, it is a method by which we attempt to observe and explain the world around us. Nothing more.

Science is wrong, regularly and openly. It is far from perfect, but it is the best we have. The point of science is to change the explanation to better fit the evidence. I think that is why it tends to appeal to atheists. Equally I think that as scientists are required by their profession to question everything and trust nothing except the observable, atheism/agnosticism appeals to them.

speaking · 18-07-2012 9:37pm

Nodin wrote: »

Right then. Thats one thing cleared up. Humans, circa 10,000 years ago.

When I said "Palaeolithic era" I was referring to the point that we are all cave men for another more advanced time. Its pointless and stupid in my opinion for one age to claim superiority over another (we are more clever, we have science they did not that makes them more ignorant to us etc.)

People just did nt pick up on the point I was trying to make so I said 10000 years ago hoping someone would mention the people in newgrange. Which allowed them to make my point for me, i.e that these people were actually advanced in their own way.

As both are dead and are probably not your personal aquaintances, I doubt that would be helpful.

Although I dont know them neither are strangers to me either, thus I cant say I have spoke to them either.

Quatermain · 18-07-2012 9:38pm

speaking wrote: »

But did these men not also worshipped the Sun, engaged in ridiculas rituals around large stones believed in the cult of the dead. Now that's what I call stupid, or maybe.............................................................?

And how is that any different from eating the body and blood of the son of a god?

It's not stupidity. It's simple ignorance. Were the Egyptians stupid despite the fact that they built the pyramids, a massive undertaking in terms of architecture and manpower? All in the name of burial rites.

speaking · 18-07-2012 9:40pm

Who is making this assumption that blindly following scientific thinking will lead to a utopia by the way?

From reading this thread it seems a lot of atheists do think that science has the power to lead to a utopia in the future that it can cure all ills so to speak.

Science is not a social guidebook, or political ideology, it is a method by which we attempt to observe and explain the world around us. Nothing more.

Science is wrong, regularly and openly. It is far from perfect, but it is the best we have. The point of science is to change the explanation to better fit the evidence. I think that is why it tends to appeal to atheists. Equally I think that as scientists are required by their profession to question everything and trust nothing except the observable, atheism/agnosticism appeals to them.

There is nothing I disagree about with this accept that in the hands of people science can be used to corrupt, so as ordinary people we should not just accept science without questioning the people who would use it to do bad in the world all in the name of good.

Kind of what the catholic church have been doing for a 1000 years.

speaking · 18-07-2012 9:42pm

Quatermain wrote: »

And how is that any different from eating the body and blood of the son of a god?

Its not.

It's not stupidity. It's simple ignorance. Were the Egyptians stupid despite the fact that they built the pyramids, a massive undertaking in terms of architecture and manpower? All in the name of burial rites.

No. Thats my point.

18-07-2012 10:01pm

I know this whole "are the ancients/"cavemen" as smart as we are" debate is a little off topic, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The whole argument depends upon how "smart" is defined. Is it defined as the capacity for intelligence? Or is it defined in terms of the extent of the body of knowledge possessed by an individual? Or is it somewhere inbetween? I suspect using an individual's capacity for intelligence is a more accurate measurement, as the latter (how much knowledge a person possesses) is likely dependent on it.

What if an average newborn baby born in the Iron age (let's say about 1000 B.C.E.) was magically transported to our own time. Ignoring medical factors (such as the child's immune system not being suited to our own time), if that child were to be raised in a modern family, subjected to modern schooling and teaching, would it hold the capacity to be as intelligent as an average child born in our own time? Would that child be indistinguishable from other modern children (ignoring ethnicity; just in terms of intelligence and ability to absorb and use knowledge)? The human brain hasn't changed that significantly in the past few thousand years as far as I'm aware (I'm open to correction on this, though, of course), so I suspect that child would adapt perfectly well to our own times.

Does the same hold true for a child born 12,000 years ago? I've no idea. But I think this is the only interesting avenue of debate for the whole argument that "cavemen" are as "smart" as we are. I don't think they were as smart as we are now if you define smartness in terms of the body of knowledge they possess. This topic of discussion is probably more suited to the anthropology forum. (:D)

speaking · 18-07-2012 10:08pm

gvn wrote: »

I know this whole "are the ancients/"cavemen" as smart as we are" debate is a little off topic, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The whole argument depends upon how "smart" is defined. Is it defined as the capacity for intelligence? Or is it defined in terms of the extent of the body of knowledge possessed by an individual? Or is it somewhere inbetween? I suspect using an individual's capacity for intelligence is a more accurate measurement, as the latter (how much knowledge a person possesses) is likely dependent on it.

What if an average newborn baby born in the Iron age (let's say about 1000 B.C.E.) was magically transported to our own time. Ignoring medical factors (such as the child's immune system not being suited to our own time), if that child were to be raised in a modern family, subjected to modern schooling and teaching, would it hold the capacity to be as intelligent as an average child born in our own time? Would that child be indistinguishable from other modern children (ignoring ethnicity; just in terms of intelligence and ability to absorb and use knowledge)? The human brain hasn't changed that significantly in the past few thousand years as far as I'm aware (I'm open to correction on this, though, of course), so I suspect that child would adapt perfectly well to our own times.

Does the same hold true for a child born 12,000 years ago? I've no idea. But I think this is the only interesting avenue of debate for the whole argument that "cavemen" are as "smart" as we are. I don't think they were as smart as we are now if you define smartness in terms of the body of knowledge they possess. This topic of discussion is probably more suited to the anthropology forum. (:D)

I would define smart as something which each age defines for itself and comparisons between the ages are probably pointless.

Anyway I think i Might give this one a miss from now on. Obviously I am talking crap.

Fellow atheists. May the force be with you.

18-07-2012 10:21pm

Anyway I think i Might give this one a miss from now on. Obviously I am talking crap.

You're not at all. Besides, this forum (and all forums) would be incredibly boring if we all agreed with each other.

Galvasean · 18-07-2012 10:29pm

I'd side with the "We aren't much smarter than cavemen" school of thought. Sure I can switch on a lightbulb, but I can't build one. As gvn said, give a modern person and a 'caveperson*' the exact same opportunities from birth and I would not imagine there would be much of an intellectual gulf, if any. There are some seriously dumb people out there in this day and age. Plus most of the really cool technological advances we have were the result of the efforts of a very small percentage of people. The vast majority of us do not produce anything of real intellectual contribution to our species in our lifetime.

*I'm talking about the first proper Homo sapiens for the sake of clarity.

Sycopat · 18-07-2012 10:31pm

speaking wrote: »

From reading this thread it seems a lot of atheists do think that science has the power to lead to a utopia in the future that it can cure all ills so to speak.

I have not noticed that in this thread. Most of the commentary I've read about science in this thread has been various people attempting to explain that science is simply a tool for gathering knowledge and understanding the world, not deciding social policy.

There is nothing I disagree about with this accept that in the hands of people science can be used to corrupt, so as ordinary people we should not just accept science without questioning the people who would use it to do bad in the world all in the name of good.

Kind of what the catholic church have been doing for a 1000 years.

In the hands of people a hammer can be used as a deadly weapon to kill and torture. That's not the hammers fault. It's just a tool. And the vast vast majority of people who work with them use them as intended.

Science also suffers from people misinterpreting it, willfully or not, in order to advance their own agenda's. The anti-vaccine lobby, quack cancer treatments, homeopathy etc. These are things which are not actually based on science but which are presented as being scientific in order to fool the gullible.

Sycopat · 18-07-2012 10:45pm

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd side with the "We aren't much smarter than cavemen" school of thought. Sure I can switch on a lightbulb, but I can't build one. As gvn said, give a modern person and a 'caveperson*' the exact same opportunities from birth and I would not imagine there would be much of an intellectual gulf, if any. There are some seriously dumb people out there in this day and age. Plus most of the really cool technological advances we have were the result of the efforts of a very small percentage of people. The vast majority of us do not produce anything of real intellectual contribution to our species in our lifetime.

*I'm talking about the first proper Homo sapiens for the sake of clarity.

I'd probably agree with you. I'd like to think we would skew slightly higher in general though, just because people do seem to select for intelligence. (No one I've known has ever really wanted a dumb mate. I realise it's anecdotal, and my peer group may not be average. But I think most people want to be able to respect their partners intellect.)

However intelligence is a range. It's quite likely our smartest people would be smarter than their smartest could be. (Although their smartest would still probably be well above what might be considered the modern average)

Dades · 18-07-2012 11:10pm

speaking wrote: »

As an atheist I am surprised you think people have inherent morality?

You think morality is something that is part of us. That we are inherently good?

I never said anything about being inherently good. Yes, I believe we each possess our own morality. Different moralities - not a universal morality. It's a product of our genes and our upbringing.

What we read or learn has not much effect on this - we just zone in on the ideologies that reflect what we actually believe. It's why so many Catholics are actually not. Culturally they are, but the reality is they follow their own morality and are Catholics in nothing more than name.

speaking wrote: »

From reading this thread it seems a lot of atheists do think that science has the power to lead to a utopia in the future that it can cure all ills so to speak.

That suggests to me you haven't being following what's being said about science. Utopia a al Star Trek won't be achieved until humans learn to behave better and then use science to create the tech needed to compliment it.

Nodin · 18-07-2012 11:14pm

speaking wrote: »

Although I dont know them neither are strangers to me either, thus I cant say I have spoke to them either.

...which still doesn't explain to me what you're referring to.

Mardy Bum · 18-07-2012 11:44pm

Article wrote:

I studied humanities and feel more at home in that camp and am therefore prone to downplaying the achievements of science.

A sentence like this makes it clear the man knows little about either discipline.

Galvasean · 19-07-2012 1:33am

"Now, I don't know anything about science BUT... let me tell you something about science."

jank · 19-07-2012 10:04am

Penn wrote: »

Many of the basics of "old" wisdom would still be relevant today, or been adapted with the times. But to suggest we're not smarter than cave men is pretty ridiculous. In the period between cave men and now, people have been able to rely less on basic instinct and been able to judge situations rationally and logically. As time has moved forward, we as a species have been able to think more about what we're doing and rely on more than just basic instinct, because instinct is not always correct.

That depends on what smart is. If smart is sending a rocket to the moon then yes, however if it means surviving by means of hunting and gathering then we as a population in general wouldn't last a week i.e we are dumber. Our smarts have evolved with the environment we occupy so to speak, doesn't mean we are smarter per say.

Penn · 19-07-2012 10:26am

jank wrote: »

That depends on what smart is. If smart is sending a rocket to the moon then yes, however if it means surviving by means of hunting and gathering then we as a population in general wouldn't last a week i.e we are dumber. Our smarts have evolved with the environment we occupy so to speak, doesn't mean we are smarter per say.

Again, I'm not talking about environment or time. Obviously, environment is a huge factor, hence why I fully agree with gvn that a child born thousands of years ago and instantly brought to this time would do just as well here as any child would.

However, we're mostly talking about cave men. In my opinion (I'm far from an expert on this so if an actual expert wants to weigh in on this and tell me I'm wrong, feel free), if you told a cave man that you could give him food for that night, or if he waited until tomorrow, you'd give him enough food for two nights. He'd probably take the food for that night because they worked more on instinct than rationality. Their instinct would be that they needed food.

CerebralCortex · 19-07-2012 11:28am

Penn wrote: »

Again, I'm not talking about environment or time. Obviously, environment is a huge factor, hence why I fully agree with gvn that a child born thousands of years ago and instantly brought to this time would do just as well here as any child would.

However, we're mostly talking about cave men. In my opinion (I'm far from an expert on this so if an actual expert wants to weigh in on this and tell me I'm wrong, feel free), if you told a cave man that you could give him food for that night, or if he waited until tomorrow, you'd give him enough food for two nights. He'd probably take the food for that night because they worked more on instinct than rationality. Their instinct would be that they needed food.

Are we talking early humans or proto hominids here. Our ability to reason has evolved and hasn't changed much since early humans hence all the nonsense thinking we have around today. I think you could easily convince early humans. However again I'm far from an expert.

Penn · 19-07-2012 11:50am

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Are we talking early humans or proto hominids here. Our ability to reason has evolved and hasn't changed much since early humans hence all the nonsense thinking we have around today. I think you could easily convince early humans. However again I'm far from an expert.

I was mostly basing my answers on "cave men" as per the previous posters comments. Though in general, I still think that, mostly due to our environment, we've been conditioned to look for answers more nowadays than thousands of years ago. Even if you believe in religion, a lot of people come to that answer themselves (whether it's true or not, they've looked for an answer and they believe it to be true)

Galvasean · 19-07-2012 1:05pm

Penn wrote: »

However, we're mostly talking about cave men. In my opinion (I'm far from an expert on this so if an actual expert wants to weigh in on this and tell me I'm wrong, feel free), if you told a cave man that you could give him food for that night, or if he waited until tomorrow, you'd give him enough food for two nights. He'd probably take the food for that night because they worked more on instinct than rationality. Their instinct would be that they needed food.

With the greatest respect, I think you are severely underestimating the intelligence of cavepeople and this comment shows a bit of ignorance on the topic (are we even on topic anymore?). Much evidence has been found to show that even pre-Homo sapiens cavemen stored food and water to be had later, most likely in anticipation of harsher times eg: drought.
Even neandertals, our much maligned evolutionary 'cousins', buried their dead in complex rituals (which may even have been religious curiously enough). Such things are not instinctual, but the learned behaviour of very complex minds.

Gbear · 19-07-2012 1:16pm

Galvasean wrote: »

With the greatest respect, I think you are severely underestimating the intelligence of cavepeople and this comment shows a bit of ignorance on the topic (are we even on topic anymore?). Much evidence has been found to show that even pre-Homo sapiens cavemen stored food and water to be had later, most likely in anticipation of harsher times eg: drought.
Even neandertals, our much maligned evolutionary 'cousins', buried their dead in complex rituals (which may even have been religious curiously enough). Such things are not instinctual, but the learned behaviour of very complex minds.

Saw this in the "Bawwwwwwwww" thread over on cool pics and vids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqTUG8MPmGg

If even a gorilla is capable of understanding something as abstract as being told that their kitten is dead and being able to understand the implications and, via sign language, be self-aware enough to be able to convey emotions about it, it's not stretching it at all to assume that 10,000 year old or even 100,000 year old humans, with the same brain sizes and structures as us (from what we can tell from imprints inside their skulls), had similar cognitive abilities to ourselves.

Sometimes I think we overestimate how clever we really are. Intelligence isn't a recent evolution.
I'd say, in terms of intelligence, we just about reached a tipping point not a million miles away from some of our primate relatives, some birds and cetaceans, that gives us amazing abilities.

PopePalpatine · 19-07-2012 1:39pm

joseph brand wrote: »

You've obviously put a lot of faith in your pc/ laptop/ smartphone and internet.

More like confidence. I am confident that my laptop and modem are working right now, based on previous experience. I would define "faith" as trying/believing something without any idea how that thing would work - for example, buying a car without test driving it or finding out about its performance.

Penn · 19-07-2012 2:04pm

Galvasean wrote: »

With the greatest respect, I think you are severely underestimating the intelligence of cavepeople and this comment shows a bit of ignorance on the topic (are we even on topic anymore?). Much evidence has been found to show that even pre-Homo sapiens cavemen stored food and water to be had later, most likely in anticipation of harsher times eg: drought.
Even neandertals, our much maligned evolutionary 'cousins', buried their dead in complex rituals (which may even have been religious curiously enough). Such things are not instinctual, but the learned behaviour of very complex minds.

Fair enough.

*still think we're smarter than cave men though. I am anyway. I'm a f*cking genius

fitz0 · 19-07-2012 3:31pm

Galvasean wrote: »

(are we even on topic anymore?)

There was a topic?

doctoremma · 19-07-2012 3:39pm

fitz0 wrote: »

There was a topic?

Too much concern for staying on topic around here (well, certainly on the dark side).

I am currently participating in a single debate thread elsewhere that has meandered through the height of Francois Hollande (short), the frequency of pedophilia in Belgium (high), the best vintage motorbike to own (no idea, zoned out there) and whether you can kill a dog by pulling apart its front legs (undecided, I'm in the "no" camp).

(I'm not seriously questioning the moderation, BTW).

Nodin · 19-07-2012 4:46pm

fitz0 wrote: »

There was a topic?

Sort of, but as it was waffle, what it was may forever be unknown.

CerebralCortex · 19-07-2012 5:18pm

Nodin wrote: »

Sort of, but as it was waffle, what it was may forever be unknown.

Something about having true beliefs is a bad thing, which is absurd!

Nodin · 19-07-2012 6:38pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Something about having true beliefs is a bad thing, which is absurd!

There was that in the beginning, I think, then something about "cavemen" and whether they were as "smart" as us, which translated into modern humans 10,000 years ago and their "existential understanding". We had begun to wring blood out of the stone to discover precisely what "existential understanding" meant, and he left.....presumably the deadline at the times was looming.

equivariant · 19-07-2012 9:43pm

fitz0 wrote: »

There was a topic?

As op I can definitively say that there was no topic worth staying on

expectationlost · 19-07-2012 11:54pm

its strange, joe humphreys is a news editor for the irish times, apart from having columns. it like the irish times gives people hobby (hobbyhorse) columns. same with peter murtagh and his trip around ireland, and all the other columnist who don't get fact checked.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-07-2012 2:39am

'Fact checked' - Peter Murtagh's personal impressions on a trip along the coast aren't factual so can't be fact checked. He did call out Shell to Sea's BS though. Maybe it's Waters you're getting at but he gives all the signs of never quite recovering from a 70s bad acid trip.

I wonder is this Humphries/Humphreys related to the other Humphries the Irish Times dare not speak about? Still awaiting his trial date isn't he..?

I've said it before, over something much more important than this (impugning the reputation of a suicide victim at the behest of Terry Prone) but the current editor of the Irish Times is rapidly destroying the credibility of the paper.

expectationlost · 20-07-2012 7:04pm

all this kinda stuff happening under the previous editor and the one before that...

expectationlost · 26-04-2014 4:33am

you know this guy is now the IT education correspondent

Brian Shanahan · 26-04-2014 2:07pm

equivariant wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0717/1224320251262.html

I know that its not strictly speaking about atheism/agnosticism but its
verging on Waters-esque. How can the IT publish anything by someone who can proudly declare that he knows "f**k all" about science?

Any chance you could do a copy/pasta job (if legal)? I'm not paying to view the IT archives.

Scratch that, I didn't realise that the OP was from 2012. Sorry.

expectationlost · 25-09-2014 12:49pm

I don't how the irish times can employ somebody with such enmity towards the none religious as their education correspondent

Cog Notes: All together: what’s in a word?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/cog-notes-all-together-what-s-in-a-word-1.1933661

another hobby column from joe humphreys

Irish Times Waffle Alert

Comments