5 ms·

Richard Dawkins, what on earth happened to you?

5 points by rhythmvs 12y ago

rhythmvs 12y ago
Dawkins is of a different caliber than someone of the likes of Jacob Bronowski. The latter mathematician-poet, evangelist of science while Blake expert; the first, well, maybe a fanatic, but surely profane. O tempora, o mores.
l33tbro 12y ago
I measure people by their conviction, intellect, and humanity. I cannot fault him in either. Really then - this is tall poppy syndrome at its best (or is that worst?). What's wrong with someone who actually BACKS their own ideas? Dawkins is not a fool. He knows what he is saying is polarizing. Why not give the guy a break for not bothering to care about being "well liked" - which sadly seems to have become the currency of social media. The man's a public intellectual for God's sake.
claudius 12y ago
“To him, the humanities are expendable window-dressing, and the consciousness and emotions of his fellow human beings are byproducts of natural selection that frequently hobble his pursuit and dissemination of cold, hard facts.“ Wait, that’s wrong? How exactly are consciousness and emotions not byproducts of natural selection?
scholia 12y ago
Pathetic, lame-brained attempt at character-assassination... but this is in the "Comment is free" section.
onion2k 12y ago
Dawkins problem is that people stopped asking him for his expertise and started asking for his opinion. He is the victim of society's willingness to appeal to authority[1]. While he's a fantastic scientist and thinker on the topic evolutionary biology, he isn't a particularly great communicator when it comes to everything else. Outside of his subject he doesn't explain his ideas well enough. He should be communicating at the sort of level a layman would need in order to understand what he's talking about, but instead he leaves giant gaping holes in his arguments because he doesn't feel he needs to explain himself in. Consequently he's often misunderstood. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_non-authorities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_...
- revdinosaur 12y ago
  I would argue that his ideas, outside his domain, are not communicated well because they are not well-formed. Criticizing him for being boorish and ill-informed about social issues does not take away from him being an accomplished biologist. Assuming that he's just botching the expression of an otherwise worthwhile thought is furthering that appeal to his inappropriate authority.
richmarr 12y ago
"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." Err... no. Imagine someone holding forth on biology when they have a rational argument that biology is fundamentally incorrect.
richmarr 12y ago
"Dawkins’ narrowmindedness, his unshakeable belief that the entire history of human intellectual achievement was just a prelude to the codification of scientific inquiry, leads him to dismiss the insights offered not only by theology, but philosophy, history and art as well." I suppose vaguely arguable to classify Theology as "human intellectual achievement". Bundling it up with philosophy, history and art and trying to paint Dawkins as being against those other things is just childish.

5 points by rhythmvs 12y ago

Dawkins is of a different caliber than someone of the likes of Jacob Bronowski. The latter mathematician-poet, evangelist of science while Blake expert; the first, well, maybe a fanatic, but surely profane. O tempora, o mores.

l33tbro 12y ago

I measure people by their conviction, intellect, and humanity. I cannot fault him in either. Really then - this is tall poppy syndrome at its best (or is that worst?). What's wrong with someone who actually BACKS their own ideas? Dawkins is not a fool. He knows what he is saying is polarizing. Why not give the guy a break for not bothering to care about being "well liked" - which sadly seems to have become the currency of social media. The man's a public intellectual for God's sake.

claudius 12y ago

“To him, the humanities are expendable window-dressing, and the consciousness and emotions of his fellow human beings are byproducts of natural selection that frequently hobble his pursuit and dissemination of cold, hard facts.“ Wait, that’s wrong? How exactly are consciousness and emotions not byproducts of natural selection?

scholia 12y ago

Pathetic, lame-brained attempt at character-assassination... but this is in the "Comment is free" section.

onion2k 12y ago

Dawkins problem is that people stopped asking him for his expertise and started asking for his opinion. He is the victim of society's willingness to appeal to authority[1]. While he's a fantastic scientist and thinker on the topic evolutionary biology, he isn't a particularly great communicator when it comes to everything else. Outside of his subject he doesn't explain his ideas well enough. He should be communicating at the sort of level a layman would need in order to understand what he's talking about, but instead he leaves giant gaping holes in his arguments because he doesn't feel he needs to explain himself in. Consequently he's often misunderstood. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_non-authorities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_...

revdinosaur 12y ago
I would argue that his ideas, outside his domain, are not communicated well because they are not well-formed. Criticizing him for being boorish and ill-informed about social issues does not take away from him being an accomplished biologist. Assuming that he's just botching the expression of an otherwise worthwhile thought is furthering that appeal to his inappropriate authority.

richmarr 12y ago

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." Err... no. Imagine someone holding forth on biology when they have a rational argument that biology is fundamentally incorrect.

richmarr 12y ago

"Dawkins’ narrowmindedness, his unshakeable belief that the entire history of human intellectual achievement was just a prelude to the codification of scientific inquiry, leads him to dismiss the insights offered not only by theology, but philosophy, history and art as well." I suppose vaguely arguable to classify Theology as "human intellectual achievement". Bundling it up with philosophy, history and art and trying to paint Dawkins as being against those other things is just childish.