[...]
>
>I agree with Gillian that what is recorded does not answer the question.
>
OK, it seems my point didn't make itself clear. Of course
this may merely reflect that my point wasn't a good one.
But, as I'm very stubborn (almost as stubborn as you :),
I'll try again. The point is twofold, (a) the tape in its final
form suggests that Dawkins was stumped by the question
and (b) the transcript shows (IMHO) otherwise. Now,
I believe you mentioned that that material was presented
elsewhere in the video. Fine, but if the video leaves the
impression that Dawkins was stumped, then they included
this material at the wrong place. Or so it seems to me.
Let's review the nature of Dawkin's answer on the
transcript. First he provides a more precise definition
of what information means in terms of complexity. Not
as precise as we might like but perfectly acceptable for
the situation. He then divides complexity into two types,
an inherent complexity of the structure itself and a
complexity associated with how the structure is adapted
to its environment, adaptive complexity. In view of this
he then says that organisms can be considered to possess
information about their environment. This in itself is, I
think, a valuable insight which indicates that Dawkins
has given some thought to the notion of "information" as
it relates to evolution. Anyway, Dawkins goes on to say
that the gradual process of evolution by natural selection
can slowly build the adaptive complexity (information)
of organisms.
In view of this, how can it be said that Dawkins was stumped
by the question? IMHO, the only way his answer might be
considered unresponsive is if one were to key in on what
seems to me to be an oddity in the way the question was
phrased: "...can be seen to...". I would like to suggest this is
a possible (partial) explanation for the long pause. I say
partial because Dawkins indication in his e-mail that he was
considering terminating the interview seems also to be
a possible explanation, but perhaps something else was
going through his mind closely related to the possibility of
closing the interview. Once again we are taking into account
here the context of what Dawkins has already said about
information and complexity. After having said that he gets
the same question again. Perhaps the interviewer failed to
understand the question, why? Ah, perhaps its on account
of the phrase "...can be seen to...", perhaps the
interviewer suffers from this common misunderstanding
of evolution wherein they expect to be able to look around
the world and see our ancestors. They expect to be able to
see the intermediates between fish and reptiles that would
enable them to see how the process of evolution has resulted
in an increase in information.
Yes, I know this is speculation, but my point is that, given
the context, Dawkins response may not be as unresponsive
as it seems at first. But context is exactly what's missing on
the video.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It appears to me that this author is asking
much less than what you are refusing to answer"
-- Galileo (as Simplicio in _The Dialogue_)