Great Dawkins Interview

[Roboramma]

Dawkins is great, but so many interviewers don't give him a chance to go beyond defending his atheism.

This one (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,4410,Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins,Mary-Hynes---Tapestry---cbcca-radio-one) is different. The interviewer actually asks interesting questions and gives him a chance to talk, which in my opinion is always a good thing.

Posted for those who may have missed it. :)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Tapestry is my favourite Woo Woo show on CBC Radio. Would that Mary Hynes was as good an interviewer with the usual brand of fantasists and crystal believers she usually has on.

This is a good interview.

[383LQ4SS]

I will definately listen to this when I get a chance (later tonight hopefully). I have to in order to counter the recent interview Dawkins did on Bill O'reily. O'reily came off as a 5 year old and dragged Dawkins down with him. Terrible terrible interview.

Thanks for the post

[snard!]

I heard the interview too. Thought it was good; actually it's the first time in a long time I haven't rolled my eyes and turned 'Tapestry' off.:)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I heard the interview too. Thought it was good; actually it's the first time in a long time I haven't rolled my eyes and turned 'Tapestry' off.:)

Welcome to the Forum snard. I usually manage to listen all the way through but usually afterwards my eyes are tired from so much rolling and my wife wants to know why I am talking to the radio. :o

I have, over the years, written a letter to the show. One I remember was about a show on Spiritualism that did not mention that the inventors of this nonsense, the Fox Sisters, in later life admitted they had made it all up as a joke on their mother and demonstrated how they made the rapping noises. The response I got was that the producers of the show "did not think this was important". I notice that the Wikipedia page does not mention this either. :(

However this one does: Fox_sisters. :D

[pakeha]

An excellent 54 minutes.
Thanks for the link, Roboramma.

[snard!]

Welcome to the Forum snard. I usually manage to listen all the way through but usually afterwards my eyes are tired from so much rolling and my wife wants to know why I am talking to the radio.

Thanks for the welcome!

Yeah Tapestry, what can you say? It's usually pretty bad. But they also had a good interview with Michael Franti, a musician that I like, so it's been better lately.

The interview with Dawkins reminded me of why he's such a cool guy. I tried to make it through "The Ancestor's Tale". It was so dense, you couldn't lose focus for even a sentence, or you'd lose track. You have to seriously respect someone with that kind of knowledge.

[Mr Clingford]

...I have, over the years, written a letter to the show. One I remember was about a show on Spiritualism that did not mention that the inventors of this nonsense, the Fox Sisters, in later life admitted they had made it all up as a joke on their mother and demonstrated how they made the rapping noises. The response I got was that the producers of the show "did not think this was important". I notice that the Wikipedia page does not mention this either. :(Then get editing with a good source to reference!

[wattie187]

Brilliant interview, you can hear the excitement in Dawkins when he talks about his speciality. Have been told I am getting his new book for Christmas so will have to wait :(

On being new to this board I am lacking some insight into various phrases and particularly 'woo woo'. Anyone care to elaborate?

[LandR]

Anyone have / know of a transcript of the audio ?

[Roboramma]

On being new to this board I am lacking some insight into various phrases and particularly 'woo woo'. Anyone care to elaborate?

Woo refers to ideas that are basically, unfounded. A lot of the stuff we tend to be skeptical of here: homeopathy, UFOs, psychics, ghosts, etc. falls under the category. Things like religion or beliefs derived from religion (creationism, for instance)? Well, the term is less often used to describe them.

Woo can also refer to the people who believe in these things: ie. "Why would you shop at new age bookstore? It's a place full of woo books run by woos."

('Woo woo' is interchangeable with 'woo')

I think it was originally coined by Randi.

[Southwind17]

Such a refreshingly down-to-earth, clear-thinking, highly intelligent chap. I've read many of his books, including the God Delusion, and cannot contest one word he's written. What a downright insult that some people do.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Then get editing with a good source to reference!

Argh. You have caught me out. Of course I should. :o One day I will no longer have to pretend to work for a living and have time to cure all the ills of the World. :D

[wattie187]

Woo refers to ideas that are basically, unfounded. A lot of the stuff we tend to be skeptical of here: homeopathy, UFOs, psychics, ghosts, etc. falls under the category. Things like religion or beliefs derived from religion (creationism, for instance)? Well, the term is less often used to describe them.

Woo can also refer to the people who believe in these things: ie. "Why would you shop at new age bookstore? It's a place full of woo books run by woos."

('Woo woo' is interchangeable with 'woo')

I think it was originally coined by Randi.

Cheers for that :)

[Rosinbio]

Anyone have / know of a transcript of the audio ?

Posting a transcript would be nice if anyone can do it.

I doubt I could even get that radio channel in the U.S.

I suspect, however, that either on that, or any other interview, did anyone bring up the lees than admirable role Dawkins played long ago, in the famous honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy, which concerns the very foundation of the whole field of Behavioral science, that is presumably his specific field of expertise.

It was Dawkins who (in 1969) started the process that soon turned Wenner & his team into pariahs, for daring to, fully justifiably, challenge (in 1967) Karl von Frisch's "dance language" hypothesis, crowned with an undeserved Nobel Prize (in 1973).

Anyone interested in more details, can read about it in my post #17, in the thread"The science-fiction story that won the Nobel Prize etc...", in the Science section of this Forum.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Posting a transcript would be nice if anyone can do it.

I doubt I could even get that radio channel in the U.S.

I suspect, however, that either on that, or any other interview, did anyone bring up the lees than admirable role Dawkins played long ago, in the famous honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy, which concerns the very foundation of the whole field of Behavioral science, that is presumably his specific field of expertise.

It was Dawkins who (in 1969) started the process that soon turned Wenner & his team into pariahs, for daring to, fully justifiably, challenge (in 1967) Karl von Frisch's "dance language" hypothesis, crowned with an undeserved Nobel Prize (in 1973).

Anyone interested in more details, can read about it in my post #17, in the thread"The science-fiction story that won the Nobel Prize etc...", in the Science section of this Forum.

The show is available as a downloadable podcast on the cbc.ca site. With the switch to FM, it is probably not as easy to listen to CBC Radio in the US as it once was as the major CBC AM stations were on Clear Channels. CBC Radio is available as Channel 137 on Sirius Satellite radio.

[Rosinbio]

Such a refreshingly down-to-earth, clear-thinking, highly intelligent chap. I've read many of his books, including the God Delusion, and cannot contest one word he's written. What a downright insult that some people do.

An insult he labored very hard to merit.

His scathing attack on Wenner & his team, in a letter published in Science of 1969, and later also quoted in his book "The Extended Phenotype", was hotly contested by his victims.

The editor denied them the most basic right to self-defence in a rebuttal. The letter, and the rejected rebuttal were much later published in the 1990 book by Wenner & Wells "Anatomy of a Controversy: 'The Question of a "Language" Among Bees'. The rebuttal suffices to show his penchant for deluding himself in his own specific field of expertise.

[Southwind17]

An insult he labored very hard to merit.

His scathing attack on Wenner & his team, in a letter published in Science of 1969, and later also quoted in his book "The Extended Phenotype", was hotly contested by his victims.

The editor denied them the most basic right to self-defence in a rebuttal. The letter, and the rejected rebuttal were much later published in the 1990 book by Wenner & Wells "Anatomy of a Controversy: 'The Question of a "Language" Among Bees'. The rebuttal suffices to show his penchant for deluding himself in his own specific field of expertise.
So you're not keen on him, then? :)

[Rosinbio]

So you're not keen on him, then? :)

Yes indeed!

I appreciate his preaching of atheism, but, having been raised an atheist, (for which I am very grateful to my parents, who did it long before anyone has even heard of Dawkins), I am not overly impressed by it.

In no way am I prepared, however, to overlook his major "contribution" to a disaster in the very foundation of his own field of expertise, i.e. the Behavioral science, through the role he played in attempts to suppress the fully justified criticism of the sensational claim that honeybees have a "dance language" (DL

Dawkins did all that long before he switched to atheism. and might have quit the DL controversy with the misguided conviction that it had been fully properly resolved in favor of "DL supporters, to merit any further attention. He may, thus, not have even realized yet that not one of those dedicated to the religious faith in the existence of that presumed DL, has ever been able to obtain any valid evidence for the very existence of such a honeybee DL, nor for the existence, in honeybees, of any of the capabilities required for using such a DL.

Honeybees themselves have persistently resisted any attempt to impose a DL upon them.

It is against this religious faith in the existence of a honeybee DL, that Dawkins should direct his atheism!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes indeed!

I appreciate his preaching of atheism, but, having been raised an atheist, (for which I am very grateful to my parents, who did it long before anyone has even heard of Dawkins), I am not overly impressed by it.

In no way am I prepared, however, to overlook his major "contribution" to a disaster in the very foundation of his own field of expertise, i.e. the Behavioral science, through the role he played in attempts to suppress the fully justified criticism of the sensational claim that honeybees have a "dance language" (DL

Dawkins did all that long before he switched to atheism. and might have quit the DL controversy with the misguided conviction that it had been fully properly resolved in favor of "DL supporters, to merit any further attention. He may, thus, not have even realized yet that not one of those dedicated to the religious faith in the existence of that presumed DL, has ever been able to obtain any valid evidence for the very existence of such a honeybee DL, nor for the existence, in honeybees, of any of the capabilities required for using such a DL.

Honeybees themselves have persistently resisted any attempt to impose a DL upon them.

It is against this religious faith in the existence of a honeybee DL, that Dawkins should direct his atheism!

Please don't derail this thread with (non) dancing bees. I think you already have a thread on this topic that I have studiously ignored to this point. :(

[Southwind17]

Dawkins did all that long before he switched to atheism.
He switched? From what?

[Belz...]

Great Dawkins Interview

Who's this "Great Dawkins" you mention ? :D

[EHocking]

"Amazing" was taken

[Rosinbio]

Please don't derail this thread with (non) dancing bees. I think you already have a thread on this topic that I have studiously ignored to this point. :(

This is why you fail to see the irony!

[Rosinbio]

Who's this "Great Dawkins" you mention ? :D

Hmm. He is apparently not Catherine The Great, nor the Great Wall of China, or the Great Depression!

[Rosinbio]

Please don't derail this thread with (non) dancing bees. I think you already have a thread on this topic that I have studiously ignored to this point. :(

Switched from his religious faith (that no one was allowed to question or doubt) in the existence of a honeybee "dance language", which (as far as I know) he never relinquished.

[Roboramma]

Rosinbio, your last post is pretty funny, because it makes no sense in relation to what you're quoting. I think you meant to quote post #21, right? :D

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Rosinbio, your last post is pretty funny, because it makes no sense in relation to what you're quoting. I think you meant to quote post #21, right? :D

All my posts are so "Great" that they should be quoted twice . . . just not by someone who has a (non dancing) bee in his bonnet. :(

[negativ]

In no way am I prepared, however, to overlook his major "contribution" to a disaster in the very foundation of his own field of expertise, i.e. the Behavioral science, through the role he played in attempts to suppress the fully justified criticism of the sensational claim that humans have a "body language" (BL

Bawkins did all that long before he switched to atheism. and might have quit the BL controversy with the misguided conviction that it had been fully properly resolved in favor of "BL supporters, to merit any further attention. He may, thus, not have even realized yet that not one of those dedicated to the religious faith in the existence of that presumed DL, has ever been able to obtain any valid evidence for the very existence of such a human BL, nor for the existence, in humans, of any of the capabilities required for using such a BL.

Humans themselves have persistently resisted any attempt to impose a BL upon them.

It is against this religious faith in the existence of a human BL, that Bawkins should direct his atheism!


--------------

See, children? This is why you should avoid alcohol. The rewards are never equal to the risks.

[Rosinbio]

All my posts are so "Great" that they should be quoted twice . . . just not by someone who has a (non dancing) bee in his bonnet. :(

I meant to have some fun!

[Mr Clingford]

Argh. You have caught me out. Of course I should. :o One day I will no longer have to pretend to work for a living and have time to cure all the ills of the World. :DFair point! If you know a respected online source then post it here and I might get round to editing the article.

[joobz]

Very enjoyable. I thought she did an excellent job as an interviewer. her questions and style reminded me of Terry Gross, whose awesome?

[Southwind17]

Very enjoyable. I thought she did an excellent job as an interviewer. her questions and style reminded me of Terry Gross, whose awesome.
"Who's" ;)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"Who's" ;)

on first? :confused:

[EHocking]

I Don't Know

[Humanzee]

Third base!

It was an enjoyable interview with some unusually engaging dialog. Thanks for posting the Robo.