Richard Dawkins responds to "South Park"

[EGarrett]

1:45 into this Q&A session he's asked about the recent South Park episode. His response is brief, but funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXo6Gx_INY8

[Ezekiel]

Oooh, I've been curious to know what he'd think of it.

If it's not too much to ask, could you perhaps transcribe his response here ? I'm stuck at work without headphones or speakers and I'm no good at lip reading :D

Thanks !

[qayak]

Oooh, I've been curious to know what he'd think of it.

If it's not too much to ask, could you perhaps transcribe his response here ? I'm stuck at work without headphones or speakers and I'm no good at lip reading :D

Thanks !

Q- Did you know you were featured on South Park last night?

Dawkins- Yes. You would think they could have gotten an actor with a proper British accent.

[pipelineaudio]

they called it pretty much right. Dawkins, though a hero of mine, is a dick, and a real woo woo on the politics

but hey, cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs...Im sure the south park guys love him too

[CFLarsen]

and a real woo woo on the politics

How so?

[Victor Meldrew]

Q- Did you know you were featured on South Park last night?

Dawkins- Yes. You would think they could have gotten an actor with a proper British accent.

Richard actually said "got" not gotten - we Brits generally don't use "gotten", and certainly some like an Oxford professor would not use it;)

Not being pedantic on our English language, just commented for fun!:)

[Ezekiel]

Thanks for the transcript !

I know EGarrett mentionned it was short but I have to say I was expecting a little more than that ;)

I had hoped he would address the points raised in that episode. That is, the whole "science is a religion too" and "a world without religion wouldn't be better bits, not the stuff about him boning mr/mrs garrison, or concerns over the wii's release date :p

[Gargoyle]

Richard actually said "got" not gotten - we Brits generally don't use "gotten", and certainly some like an Oxford professor would not use it;)

Not being pedantic on our English language, just commented for fun!:)

Heh. :) Reminded me of one of my english teachers - she rendered any test invalid if the student sneaked in any american english. Only Oxford english or it´s a paddlin´ :D

[Jekyll]

How so?

Oh he's probably a freedom hating, anti-libertarian slag fairy.

[ImaginalDisc]

Oh he's probably a freedom hating, anti-libertarian slag fairy.

Clearly, he's a scout for criminal invaders from England. All your colonies are belong to us.

[EGarrett]

Thanks for the transcript !

I know EGarrett mentionned it was short but I have to say I was expecting a little more than that ;) In fairness, you should still watch it. He gives a big pause before answering, and a pause after the "Yes" while he and other people laugh. That lets you know he got a kick out of it.

I had hoped he would address the points raised in that episode. That is, the whole "science is a religion too" and "a world without religion wouldn't be better bits, not the stuff about him boning mr/mrs garrison, or concerns over the wii's release date :pHe could've responded to those. But obviously a world without religion would have at least one less reason for people to do irrational things. And if you teach children more science and curiosity instead of god we'd greatly speed up our advancement by sheer numbers.

The idea of science as a religion is, of course, so off-base that I don't think it needs a response. Religion gives us nothing but false comfort. Science has given us every REAL comfort in our modern lives.

[Small Town Jesus]

Political woo woo? Oh the irony! :rolleyes:

Anyway, Senorpogo links to a rather more expansive Dawkins quote in this thread:-

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2088662#post2088662

[qayak]

Richard actually said "got" not gotten - we Brits generally don't use "gotten", and certainly some like an Oxford professor would not use it;)

Not being pedantic on our English language, just commented for fun!:)

That's not bad then. I watched the clip a long while before I posted and never bothered to check the exact wording. :D

[Dave1001]

The idea of science as a religion is, of course, so off-base that I don't think it needs a response. Religion gives us nothing but false comfort. Science has given us every REAL comfort in our modern lives.

I agree about the real comfort derived from science. And futhermore I think people often are religious about current scientific consensus, deriving false comfort from it.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree about the real comfort derived from science. And futhermore I think people often are religious about current scientific consensus, deriving false comfort from it.

The problem is that the people who treat science as a religion are not the scientists. It is just that people like absolutes and so they like to treat information as absolutes and not best that can be determined at this point.

[Morrigan]

<3 Dawkins

[T'ai Chi]

He does the 'I won't respond to it with serious comments becuase that acknowledges the comments have validity' bit.

Like he refuses to debate ID and creationists.

Of course, it would make it more entertianing and educational if he did.

[pipelineaudio]

some skeptics

read the ancestor's tale and tell me there isnt some political woo

not political *opinion* mind you but actual woo

[CFLarsen]

some skeptics

read the ancestor's tale and tell me there isnt some political woo

not political *opinion* mind you but actual woo

I am asking you what that "political woo" is.

[pipelineaudio]

"This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead."

sorry clause I thought you may have actually read the book, my mistake

[ponderingturtle]

"This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead."

sorry clause I thought you may have actually read the book, my mistake

And that is clearly woo, everyone knows that they didn't protect anything.

[Cleon]

Oh he's probably a freedom hating, anti-libertarian slag fairy.

He might be a facist, too.

[CFLarsen]

"This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead."

Why is that "political woo"?

[ClintonHammond]

"an actor with a proper British accent"

So he doesn't know F all about South Park does he....

Or he'd know

"ALL CHARACTERS AND EVENTS IN THIS SHOW--EVEN THOSE BASED ON REAL PEOPLE--ARE ENTIRELY FICTIONAL. ALL CELEBRITY VOICES ARE IMPERSONATED.....POORLY. THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM CONTAINS COARSE LANGUAGE AND DUE TO ITS CONTENT IT SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED BY ANYONE"

LOL

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Clearly, he's a scout for criminal invaders from England. All your colonies are belong to us.

<cleaning off screen and keyboard>

Dude, you need something like a "Don't drink coffee while reading" warning on posts like this.

[pipelineaudio]

He might be a facist, too.

evidence?

[Soapy Sam]

Fascist. From the Latin "Fasces" , the rod and axe symbol of the lictors.

Or is "Facism" some kind of politics I don't know about?

[CFLarsen]

evidence?

Why is what Dawkins wrote "political woo"?

[Big Al]

Why is that "political woo"?

I do tend to agree, CFL. I've read all Dawkins' books, and I do find him irritatingly right-on and left-wing. Also, possibly rather politically naive.

However, I don't read his books to have my consciousness raised (as he keeps going on about in the otherwise excellent "The God Delusion").

The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Unweaving The Rainbow, et al, other than the liberal crap, are excellent works of scientific literature, and that's why I hail Mr. D.

[Cleon]

Fascist. From the Latin "Fasces" , the rod and axe symbol of the lictors.

Or is "Facism" some kind of politics I don't know about?

It's a joke (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68200).

[CFLarsen]

I do tend to agree, CFL.

OK, you agree that it is "political woo".

But why is it "political woo"?

[pipelineaudio]

It's a joke (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68200).

ha ha ha

so funny

after the four thousandth time

I spelled something wrong

and four thousand times later its still funny

ha ha ha


UH OH!!!!! Someone spelled "apostacy" wrong in a thread title here too!!!!

Call the police

Oh no!!!!

But no you hypocrites will not, because it may not challenge your religion

[pipelineaudio]

I do tend to agree, CFL. I've read all Dawkins' books, and I do find him irritatingly right-on and left-wing. Also, possibly rather politically naive.

However, I don't read his books to have my consciousness raised (as he keeps going on about in the otherwise excellent "The God Delusion").

The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Unweaving The Rainbow, et al, other than the liberal crap, are excellent works of scientific literature, and that's why I hail Mr. D.

This is the same way I see it. Hundreds of pages of true awesomeness, told in a way that even I can understand. Marred by only a few lines.

But those few lines leave a bitter taste

I can think of a few things I could do better than Dawkins, but I dont say it is because he's English

I think the worst of this is when someone has cracked open their mind the tiniest bit to evolution, or a-religiousness, then they go to one of the leading lights of the movement, to see what its REALLY about

What does he come away with to tell his friends who are also possible fence sitters?

"Oh man, those evolutionist ******** piss right in your face! They crowbar your mouth open and gang up for a really thick stream too!"

Richard Dawkins like to say he wont do debates because it actually helps the ID side

Richard Dawkins needs to realize that when he opens his mouth to discuss anything but evolution and *religion in general* he helps the ID side WAY WAY WAY more than a debate with them ever could

[CFLarsen]

This is the same way I see it. Hundreds of pages of true awesomeness, told in a way that even I can understand. Marred by only a few lines.

But those few lines leave a bitter taste

I can think of a few things I could do better than Dawkins, but I dont say it is because he's English

I think the worst of this is when someone has cracked open their mind the tiniest bit to evolution, or a-religiousness, then they go to one of the leading lights of the movement, to see what its REALLY about

What does he come away with to tell his friends who are also possible fence sitters?

"Oh man, those evolutionist ******** piss right in your face! They crowbar your mouth open and gang up for a really thick stream too!"

Richard Dawkins like to say he wont do debates because it actually helps the ID side

Richard Dawkins needs to realize that when he opens his mouth to discuss anything but evolution and *religion in general* he helps the ID side WAY WAY WAY more than a debate with them ever could
Why is what Dawkins wrote "political woo"?

[HarryKeogh]

What does he come away with to tell his friends who are also possible fence sitters?

Sometimes he comes across as very compassionate but other times his arrogance makes me cringe...case in point:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-6,00.html

DAWKINS: ... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them [fundamentalists] the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?

COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.

Dr. Collins does an excellent job of making Dawkins look petty here. Fortunately, Dawkins makes his points quite well in the rest of the interview (a must read and it's free).

Richard Dawkins is the cover story of Time Magazine and is reaching a huge audience and he has to resort to name calling? So silly. Hopefully, that didn't turn off too many people as The God Delusion is the best non-fiction book I've read this year and is so well-written that I think it could open up a lot of people's eyes.

[Marc L]

"This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead."


While I agree that he does seem a little harsh towards Americans at times, I'd have to say I don't see that as being "woo", either. At least not as I understand the term.

Marc

[Cleon]

ha ha ha

so funny

after the four thousandth time

I spelled something wrong

and four thousand times later its still funny

ha ha ha

It's more your attitude that's the joke than the actual mispelling.


UH OH!!!!! Someone spelled "apostacy" wrong in a thread title here too!!!!

Call the police

Oh no!!!!

But no you hypocrites will not, because it may not challenge your religion
Er...Explain this one to me. In what way does calling the police over someone mispelling "apostasy" challenge Judaism?

[ponderingturtle]

Why is what Dawkins wrote "political woo"?

Because all politics is woo, and they do not agree with some of his politics and it is therefor woo.

[CFLarsen]

Richard Dawkins is the cover story of Time Magazine and is reaching a huge audience and he has to resort to name calling? So silly.

I'm not so sure.

If all Dawkins did was name calling, it would certainly be a problem. But we should not - cannot - forget that he backs up his claims with evidence. As hardcore as it can possibly get.

Yes, these fundamentalists are clowns. If ever there were people we could call clowns, these would be the ones.

Dawkins has earned the right to call fundamentalists clowns. The "arrogance" does not stem from merely a feeling of superiority. It stems from scientific knowledge.

And remember, Dawkins is the first to acknowledge that this scientific knowledge is provisional. Dawkins speaks from the weight of scientific evidence, but he is always the first to be wanting to be proven wrong.

In scientific "arrogance" lies infinite humility.

[Phrost]

I've never understood why anyone would care about the political views of an expert in a field that is not politics. It's no different than soliciting insight from Martin Sheen or Ted Nugent; all it accomplishes is lowering the level of discourse.

I don't give a crap about Dawkins' views on politics, and neither should anyone else. He's not a politician or a political insider.

Edit: Chomsky, lol.

[Foster Zygote]

He does the 'I won't respond to it with serious comments becuase that acknowledges the comments have validity' bit.

Like he refuses to debate ID and creationists.

Of course, it would make it more entertianing and educational if he did.

Could someone whom Justin isn't ignoring please ask him what evidence he has that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate IDers and creationists. After all, didn't he himself post in a thread regarding a debate between Dawkins and a creationist?

[bjb]

DAWKINS: ... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them [fundamentalists] the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?

We bother with these clowns because a lot of people in the United States listen to these clowns. Some of these clowns get themselves elected to political offices, like the president. We need to address these people with some personal respect. attack the belief, not the believer. Of course, they'll still get with you for doing so for attacking their beliefs, but that's their problem.

My problem with Dawkins is that he targets a British audience. What works for the BBC doesn't work for American audiences. Even I get frustrated by his approach. He needs to address the issues, not act like he's offended or appalled by the fundamentalists. The British may be amused by fundies, but they piss me off and I want to see them dealt with in an appropriate manner. Address their beliefs in a polite fashion until they get angry and melt down on camera. Now that's good television!

[CFLarsen]

I've never understood why anyone would care about the political views of an expert in a field that is not politics. It's no different than soliciting insight from Martin Sheen or Ted Nugent; all it accomplishes is lowering the level of discourse.

I don't give a crap about Dawkins' views on politics, and neither should anyone else. He's not a politician or a political insider.

Edit: Chomsky, lol.

Very true.

If people complain about Dawkins making what they think is a "political" statement, they should also address the celebrities who do make unequivocal political statements. First.

After all, Dawkins is speaking from evidence. Actors and musicians are speaking from celebrity status.

Which would you listen to? :)

Could someone whom Justin isn't ignoring

You are asking for the impossible. Justin ignores everyone (whenever it pleases him). He is an intellectual coward.

[CFLarsen]

We bother with these clowns because a lot of people in the United States listen to these clowns. Some of these clowns get themselves elected to political offices, like the president. We need to address these people with some personal respect. attack the belief, not the believer. Of course, they'll still get with you for doing so for attacking their beliefs, but that's their problem.

It isn't just that they get elected. They also have a terrible influence on those who do get elected.

It is one thing to have a woo politician. It is quite another to have a politician who is influenced by a woo the public doesn't see.

My problem with Dawkins is that he targets a British audience. What works for the BBC doesn't work for American audiences. Even I get frustrated by his approach. He needs to address the issues, not act like he's offended or appalled by the fundamentalists. The British may be amused by fundies, but they piss me off and I want to see them dealt with in an appropriate manner. Address their beliefs in a polite fashion until they get angry and melt down on camera. Now that's good television!

I don't see Dawkins targeting a British audience. He attacks ignorance wherever it occurs.

And why can't we show that we are offended and appalled by the fundamentalists, as long as we back up our views with evidence? Skeptics shouldn't be cold robots. Skeptics are human beings, with feelings. If we feel offended or appalled, we should say so.

[bjb]

I was re-reading Carl Sagan's book "Broca's Brain" and he complains about the unwillingness of certain scientists to directly address obviously unscientific fringe beliefs. He feels scientists are making a mistake by remaining silent on these issues because the public is only going to see one side of the issue (pro-nonsense) and guess which side they'll agree with? Carl Sagan went through a lot of effort to respectfully discuss fringe ideas with the believers, and he personally criticized by other scientists for doing so. By addressing these issues in a direct manner, the general public can know that real scientists have looked at these subjects to determine their validity. Should the ideas turn out to be without merit, Sagan wanted to provide an alternative, rational explanation for the unusual observations.

It is true that hardcore believers use these discussions with real scientists to give themselves credibility. But so what? We already know the hardcore believers are immune to rational thought. That's why they're hardcore believers in the first place. A common mistake among skeptics is that we often believe our mission is to change the mind of our debate opponent. That is unlikely to happen, but objective observers of the debate can learn and realize why skeptics are right and our opponents are wrong (usually, at least). It is the general public that needs to be reached, and directly taking on the believers is the best way to do it.

[bjb]

About Dawkins and 'British' audience, I meant Dawkins shapes his message to fit a British audience, not that he is attacking ignorance only in the UK. American audiences are different from Europeans because we want to see an agressive approach where ignorant people get nailed. In that video with Ted Haggard, Dawkins looks like he's about to cry. What a wimp. That was the first I'd seen of Dawkins and I was not at all impressed.

Remember that in America, we love heroes. Our heroes smash, shoot, and destroy their opposition. Our heroes don't sit there getting teary eyed when a maniac says something insane, they come right back with something that makes them look really, really stupid. For example, Stephen Colbert has become a master at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWCJetVdaWo

This is what I want to see. Let someone put their ideas forward, then hang them with their own words and beliefs.

[joobz]

Could someone whom Justin isn't ignoring please ask him what evidence he has that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate IDers and creationists. After all, didn't he himself post in a thread regarding a debate between Dawkins and a creationist?
how do we know if we're on ignore or not?

Well, let me try:
Dear T'ai,
Could you provide some interesting evidence to the claim that Dawkins refuses to debate IDers and creationists?
Thank you
Tom
---

[Marc L]

Could someone whom Justin isn't ignoring please ask him what evidence he has that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate IDers and creationists. After all, didn't he himself post in a thread regarding a debate between Dawkins and a creationist?

I know that he mentions it in the preface to The God Delusion. Of course, I'm going off of memory here, but if I remember, I'll double check on it when I get home (unless Mrs. L has returned it to the library already).

Marc

[HarryKeogh]

We bother with these clowns because a lot of people in the United States listen to these clowns. Some of these clowns get themselves elected to political offices, like the president. We need to address these people with some personal respect. attack the belief, not the believer. Of course, they'll still get with you for doing so for attacking their beliefs, but that's their problem.

My problem with Dawkins is that he targets a British audience. What works for the BBC doesn't work for American audiences. Even I get frustrated by his approach. He needs to address the issues, not act like he's offended or appalled by the fundamentalists. The British may be amused by fundies, but they piss me off and I want to see them dealt with in an appropriate manner. Address their beliefs in a polite fashion until they get angry and melt down on camera. Now that's good television!

Exactly. He's quickly becoming the face of atheism in the USA (not that there are many choices here) and I'd hate for it to be associated with his boorish side and not his brilliant, well-reasoned one.

A good argument beats name-calling any day of the week.

[pipelineaudio]

Could someone whom Justin isn't ignoring please ask him what evidence he has that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate IDers and creationists. After all, didn't he himself post in a thread regarding a debate between Dawkins and a creationist?

He doesnt just not debate ID'ers himself, he discourages other scientists from doing so.

I understand his reasoning, but it hurt us in Kansas for sure

[Mr. Scott]

Why is what Dawkins wrote "political woo"?

To some liberals, conservatism is woo, and vice versa.

I really think calling anything you don't like "woo" is a poor use of the word I believe Randi coined.

PS: Some parents discourage their children from associating with children of opposing political parties. On this point, I disagree with Dawkins (see Root of All Evil Part 2).

[nelsondogg]

Sometimes he comes across as very compassionate but other times his arrogance makes me cringe...case in point:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-6,00.html

DAWKINS: ... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them [fundamentalists] the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?

COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.

Dr. Collins does an excellent job of making Dawkins look petty here. Fortunately, Dawkins makes his points quite well in the rest of the interview (a must read and it's free).

Richard Dawkins is the cover story of Time Magazine and is reaching a huge audience and he has to resort to name calling? So silly. Hopefully, that didn't turn off too many people as The God Delusion is the best non-fiction book I've read this year and is so well-written that I think it could open up a lot of people's eyes.

I dunno, seems like Collins remarks in that exchange are a perfect illustration of Sam Harris' point of moderate religious people providing cover for fundy types. Notice how Collins equates an attack on funadmentalist young earth creationism to an attack on faith in general.

[Skeptic]

how do we know if we're on ignore or not?

Well, let me try:
Dear T'ai,
Could you provide some interesting evidence to the claim that Dawkins refuses to debate IDers and creationists?
Thank you
Tom
---

There are articles in "Free Inquiry" and other places by him to that effect. Note he doesn't refuse to discuss their ideas--he does just that, in great detail, in his books. He refuses to go on stage for live discussions with them, since they're really good in misrepresenting and misquoting "live".

[Foster Zygote]

There are articles in "Free Inquiry" and other places by him to that effect. Note he doesn't refuse to discuss their ideas--he does just that, in great detail, in his books. He refuses to go on stage for live discussions with them, since they're really good in misrepresenting and misquoting "live".

Ah yes, Michael Shermer has discussed the same problem. He participated in so many "debates" with creationists in which his opponent had either no idea how to, or no desire to, engage in a formal debate that he has given up trying. Again he is willing to discuss the ideas in question at great length, but he is tired of being played.

I've seen some debates in which the defender of the religious viewpoint is simply performing for the mostly religious audience. One minister said something like: "According to my opponent a human and a monkey (Sorry sir, chimps aren't monkeys. They're apes like us.) are 98% similar. I guess that means a watermelon missed being a cloud by just 2%." The audience roared with laughter.

[joobz]

There are articles in "Free Inquiry" and other places by him to that effect. Note he doesn't refuse to discuss their ideas--he does just that, in great detail, in his books. He refuses to go on stage for live discussions with them, since they're really good in misrepresenting and misquoting "live".

Not just live, but also in online forums. ugh. you can place evidence directly in front of them. You can show exactly where their reasoning is false, and they still deny it. and repeat the argument. As if repetition denial increases the truth of their statements. Sorry, I'm a bit jaded.

[chriswl]

DAWKINS: ... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them [fundamentalists] the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?
Absolutely. What is to be gained trying to engage in rational argument with people who just don't do rational argument.

[joobz]

Absolutely. What is to be gained trying to engage in rational argument with people who just don't do rational argument.
I typically give people the benefit of the doubt. Crazy doesn't always reveal itself until it's too late.

[kbm99]

To some liberals, conservatism is woo, and vice versa.

I really think calling anything you don't like "woo" is a poor use of the word I believe Randi coined.

PS: Some parents discourage their children from associating with children of opposing political parties. On this point, I disagree with Dawkins (see Root of All Evil Part 2).

Some people seem to become distinctly uncomfortable when someone they otherwise respect presents a political opinion they themselves do not hold, as if there were no such thing as an honest difference of opinion.

[pipelineaudio]

""This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead.""

Yet this is woo, and is unnecessarily devisive

SO americans were watching this museum and let it be vanadlized in front of their eyes?

Did they have the power to stop this?

Would RD have found it OK if the americans used the same tactics to protect it as Sadam did?

Were all americans really indifferent?

Did all americans know what was in there and chose to let them be stolen?

[CFLarsen]

""This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead.""

Yet this is woo, and is unnecessarily devisive

SO americans were watching this museum and let it be vanadlized in front of their eyes?

Did they have the power to stop this?

Would RD have found it OK if the americans used the same tactics to protect it as Sadam did?

Were all americans really indifferent?

Did all americans know what was in there and chose to let them be stolen?

Why is what Dawkins wrote "political woo"?

[fsol]

About Dawkins and 'British' audience, I meant Dawkins shapes his message to fit a British audience, not that he is attacking ignorance only in the UK. American audiences are different from Europeans because we want to see an agressive approach where ignorant people get nailed. In that video with Ted Haggard, Dawkins looks like he's about to cry. What a wimp. That was the first I'd seen of Dawkins and I was not at all impressed.

Remember that in America, we love heroes. Our heroes smash, shoot, and destroy their opposition. Our heroes don't sit there getting teary eyed when a maniac says something insane, they come right back with something that makes them look really, really stupid. For example, Stephen Colbert has become a master at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWCJetVdaWo

This is what I want to see. Let someone put their ideas forward, then hang them with their own words and beliefs.


Me Hulk smash?

[bjb]

Here are some old stories about the looting:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/12/looting_030412.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.museum.looting/index.html

http://www.cronaca.com/archives/003939.html

I also remember hearing stories that the museum looters turned out to be people who worked at the museum, but I can't find any sources. In any case, I think Dawkins phrasing his opinion to make the US military look as bad as possible.

[Dark Jaguar]

Ah yes, Michael Shermer has discussed the same problem. He participated in so many "debates" with creationists in which his opponent had either no idea how to, or no desire to, engage in a formal debate that he has given up trying. Again he is willing to discuss the ideas in question at great length, but he is tired of being played.

I've seen some debates in which the defender of the religious viewpoint is simply performing for the mostly religious audience. One minister said something like: "According to my opponent a human and a monkey (Sorry sir, chimps aren't monkeys. They're apes like us.) are 98% similar. I guess that means a watermelon missed being a cloud by just 2%." The audience roared with laughter.


What... I... brain... I have no idea what he's getting at! How does that relate at all? The DNA is what's similar, mostly the same programming, and 2% when it comes to DNA can be a LOT of code. Watermelon and cloud? Huh? That's insane, even by creationist standards!

[T'ai Chi]

Dawkins's politics are about as relevant to me as his commentary on religion.

His biology info --> interesting

His other opinions on areas he's not expert in --> as good as the rest of ours

[Dunstan]

Dawkins's politics are about as relevant to me as his commentary on religion.

His biology info --> interesting

His other opinions on areas he's not expert in --> as good as the rest of ours

Hey, I agree w/ T'ai Chi! Except that I'm a little leery of what "interesting" means in TC-speak. ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.")

Edited to add: that doesn't mean I think Dawkins' political commentary is "woo."

[Foster Zygote]

What... I... brain... I have no idea what he's getting at! How does that relate at all? The DNA is what's similar, mostly the same programming, and 2% when it comes to DNA can be a LOT of code. Watermelon and cloud? Huh? That's insane, even by creationist standards!

That was my reaction too. The audience seemed to think it was a devastating counter to the theory of evolution though. I wish I could remember who the participants were. A physical anthropology professor of mine (great teacher) showed it to me years ago.

[joobz]

Dawkins's politics are about as relevant to me as his commentary on religion.

His biology info --> interesting

His other opinions on areas he's not expert in --> as good as the rest of ours
I'd mostly agree with this. I give anyone the benefit doubt to begin with, and depending upon their logic and reasoning skills I adjust the gain on my attention to that person.

Having demonstrated highly effective reasoning skills, I always turn the gain up for dawkins.

In the similar fashion, Since the Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore (Who I lliked during Roger and me days) has forced me to turn down the credibility gain since.

[Marc L]

Hey, I agree w/ T'ai Chi!

Don't feel bad, Dunstan. I actually agree with him on this one, too...

Marc

[T'ai Chi]

I agree with me too. :)

[Foster Zygote]

Don't feel bad, Dunstan. I actually agree with him on this one, too...

Marc

Yeah. Of course we all probably agree that cat pee stinks.:D

[Roboramma]

Why is what Dawkins wrote "political woo"?

Just in case you have him on ignore, pipelineaudio, this comment was directed at you.

[pipelineaudio]

see post #59

[pipelineaudio]

My biggest problem in bringing up richard dawkins among fence sitters, is that invariably, they find a video called "the atheist tapes" and shove it in my face

I HAVE to use richard dawkins, as he explains evolution in a way that not only puts lots of seemingly far apart pieces together, but ALWAYS makes it entertaining as well. Shermer is great, but not as fun, and can dull out. Massimo is too technical

When you hear "the atheist tapes" they are so full of bigotry and vile for the american public as a whole, it pretty much cancels out emotionally, anything that could be learned from dawkins' other stuff for a lot of people

[CFLarsen]

see post #59

And I asked you a question:

Why is what Dawkins wrote "political woo"?

[pipelineaudio]

And I asked you a question:

Why is what Dawkins wrote "political woo"?

see post #59

[Nancarrow]

And I asked you a question:

Why is what Dawkins wrote "political woo"?

Pipelineaudio explained why he thought Dawkins' comments were 'political woo' in his post #59, as he keeps trying to explain. I don't agree with his explanation, but nevertheless, it is there.

Your next step is to address his points in post #59.

[bjb]

I don't see any points in #59, just a lot of question marks. Even so, I agree his politics are skewed, again, to suit a British audience. This is assuming the links I provided in post #62 are correct. The American military was not under orders to prevent looting and they were still busy fighting Saddam's troops when the looting occured.

[CFLarsen]

see post #59

Pipelineaudio explained why he thought Dawkins' comments were 'political woo' in his post #59, as he keeps trying to explain. I don't agree with his explanation, but nevertheless, it is there.

Your next step is to address his points in post #59.

No. pipelineaudio has not presented any points. He has just asserted that Dawkins's comments are "political woo".

I have repeatedly asked why pipelineaudio thinks this. I have yet to receive a reply.

[pipelineaudio]

No. pipelineaudio has not presented any points. He has just asserted that Dawkins's comments are "political woo".

I have repeatedly asked why pipelineaudio thinks this. I have yet to receive a reply.

back on ignore with you, unless you can tell me why that WASNT political woo, those were real questions, raised by his statement

[pchams]

Pipeline, I don't think Claus will accept questions as statements, nor should he.
Run those questions through your UAD1 Fairchild 670 and come up with some statements why you think it's political woo. ;)

[CFLarsen]

back on ignore with you, unless you can tell me why that WASNT political woo, those were real questions, raised by his statement

The onus is not on me, mate. It is on you.

Do you have an argument or not?

[Nancarrow]

I don't see any points in #59, just a lot of question marks.

The questions are points. Questions *can* be points.

For instance... "Did they have the power to stop this?" = "I consider Dawkins' point invalid as I do not believe the american military had the power to stop this".

I don't much care for 'answer a question with a question' myself. But the points that PA was making are very clear. I think they are clear to you too as you then go on to address them (and I agree with your rebuttal):

The American military was not under orders to prevent looting and they were still busy fighting Saddam's troops when the looting occured.

Oh and pipeline: the onus *is* on you... except that you already fulfilled it!

[pipelineaudio]

Pipeline, I don't think Claus will accept questions as statements, nor should he.
Run those questions through your UAD1 Fairchild 670 and come up with some statements why you think it's political woo. ;)

I think that those questions themselves, being legitamate show that dawkin's statement was false

Running them thru my UAD-1 I get:

"Hey what the hell do I know, Im an old ass video card disguised as a dongle. Though Puttnam's kids may have hired some Buck Rodgers GUI guys, we still got a nasty treble notch caused possibly by a poorly implemented anti-aliasing filter system"

[pchams]

Sorry to sidetrack you. Just thought it might lighten the mood.
They are good questions, just make them assertions.

[CFLarsen]

I think that those questions themselves, being legitamate show that dawkin's statement was false

Running them thru my UAD-1 I get:

"Hey what the hell do I know, Im an old ass video card disguised as a dongle. Though Puttnam's kids may have hired some Buck Rodgers GUI guys, we still got a nasty treble notch caused possibly by a poorly implemented anti-aliasing filter system"

Do you have an argument or not?

[T'ai Chi]

They are good questions, just make them assertions.

No one is under any obligation to suit your whims because you cannot understand that questions can be points.

[pchams]

I understand that perfectly.
From my experience here though, I don't think Claus will accept that, and we will get the never ending appeal for statement as opposed to question.

[CFLarsen]

No one is under any obligation to suit your whims because you cannot understand that questions can be points.

But, if you refuse to explain the questions that you put to other people, who is to to blame for the misunderstanding?

[pipelineaudio]

clause will continue to clause points till the other side gives up. He will even go to forcing you to provide definitions of common words. Its mostly pointless to argue with him, and dangerous anyways, as he can kill armed sky marshalls with his bare hands

[pchams]

No one is under any obligation to suit your whims because you cannot understand that questions can be points.
Please forgive my feeble attempt at moderation.
I simply believed that pipeline could make statements from his questions that
would move the debate forward.
You T'ai Chi seem to want to attack me for some reason so I will withdraw with apologies to pipeline and Claus.
Carry on...

[pipelineaudio]

Please forgive my feeble attempt at moderation.
I simply believed that pipeline could make statements from his questions that
would move the debate forward.
You T'ai Chi seem to want to attack me for some reason so I will withdraw with apologies to pipeline and Claus.
Carry on...

Let me try

""This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead.""

"SO americans were watching this museum and let it be vanadlized in front of their eyes?

Did they have the power to stop this?

Would RD have found it OK if the americans used the same tactics to protect it as Sadam did?

Were all americans really indifferent?

Did all americans know what was in there and chose to let them be stolen?"

I will rephrase the questions as statements

1. In order for RD's statement to not be woo, Americans would have had to have been guarding the museum and willfully allowing the relics to be stolen

2. In order for RD's statement to not be woo, Americans would have had to have the power to stop this

3. This could unfortunately paint RD as an extremely evil human being which I do not believe is the case, however, he seems to be saying it better to use Saddam's tactics to protect the museum than however we did or did not try. I believe this one is best phrased as the original question

4. In order for RD's statement to not be woo, the Americans in question who allegedly were allegedly guarding the museum, had to have been indifferent to the fate of the artifacts.

5. In order for RD's statement to not be woo, the americans in question who were allegedly guarding the relics, allegedly indifferently, had to know what the relics were, and although allegedly guarding them, would have to have been actually guarding the oil instead, though allegedly guarding the artifacts

[Nancarrow]

But, if you refuse to explain the questions that you put to other people, who is to to blame for the misunderstanding?

There's nothing to explain about the questions, because their content is blindingly obvious.

Pchams, in a moment I will come to my senses in the way that you have! :p

[pchams]

"This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead."

I have to agree that the bolded sections of this quote require evidence, and without such are motivated at least, emotionally.

[CFLarsen]

clause will continue to clause points till the other side gives up. He will even go to forcing you to provide definitions of common words. Its mostly pointless to argue with him, and dangerous anyways, as he can kill armed sky marshalls with his bare hands

No argument from you, then.

[wolfgirl]

I'm not so sure.

If all Dawkins did was name calling, it would certainly be a problem. But we should not - cannot - forget that he backs up his claims with evidence. As hardcore as it can possibly get.

Yes, these fundamentalists are clowns. If ever there were people we could call clowns, these would be the ones.

Dawkins has earned the right to call fundamentalists clowns. The "arrogance" does not stem from merely a feeling of superiority. It stems from scientific knowledge.

And remember, Dawkins is the first to acknowledge that this scientific knowledge is provisional. Dawkins speaks from the weight of scientific evidence, but he is always the first to be wanting to be proven wrong.

In scientific "arrogance" lies infinite humility.My husband and I have both been reading The God Delusion, and we both find it refreshing to hear someone NOT tippy-toe around the whole "can't offend the believers" nonsense. He takes a stand and doesn't back away from it. I, for one, appreciate that, especially in a world where everyone is so afraid of offending anyone else's religious beliefs.

[Foster Zygote]

"This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead."

I have to agree that the bolded sections of this quote require evidence, and without such are motivated at least, emotionally.

As for the first bolded section it should be pointed out that soldiers follow orders. Their personal indifference or concern would be irrelevant. However the indifference of those issuing orders is relevant.

As for the second bolded section I have heard soldiers, including my brother-in-law, state that the primary concern of policy makers seemed to them to be the security of the petroleum infrastructure in Iraq. I only offer this anecdotaly so I won't be offended if anyone weights it accordingly.

I do agree that these statements require evidence. But I don't necessarily grant PLA's assertion that they represent "political woo".

[pipelineaudio]

As for the first bolded section it should be pointed out that soldiers follow orders. Their personal indifference or concern would be irrelevant. However the indifference of those issuing orders is relevant.

Its woo till he shows that Americans are indifferent to archeological treasure

I know for some I am blaspheming a religious idol, but in this and especially in "the atheist tapes" I believe richard dawkins has shown himself, like so many other religious figureheads of the religious left to be an anti-american bigot

I wouldnt care so much except that I love richard dawkins' SCIENCE writing. Even his anti religious writings I love. But I cant excuse bigotry, especially when I am the underserving recipient of it

[Foster Zygote]

I know for some I am blaspheming a religious idol, but in this and especially in "the atheist tapes" I believe richard dawkins has shown himself, like so many other religious figureheads of the religious left to be an anti-american bigot

I call political woo.:D

[pipelineaudio]

I call political woo.:D

It could be, surely you can understand how americans might feel this way though

Still, Im not sure thats woo

[CFLarsen]

I know for some I am blaspheming a religious idol, but in this and especially in "the atheist tapes" I believe richard dawkins has shown himself, like so many other religious figureheads of the religious left to be an anti-american bigot

You haven't paid any attention whatsoever to what Dawkins says. It isn't anti-Americanism, but anti-religionism.

Dawkins isn't criticizing the American way of life in general. He is criticizing the rather large part of it that is religious.

Is that OK with you?

[Foster Zygote]

It could be, surely you can understand how americans might feel this way though

Still, Im not sure thats woo

Well, as an American, I haven't taken any offense. He seems to be critical of the present presidential administration's foreign policy, but then again, so am I. I don't sense any tone of anti-Americanism.

[pipelineaudio]

Well, as an American, I haven't taken any offense. He seems to be critical of the present presidential administration's foreign policy, but then again, so am I. I don't sense any tone of anti-Americanism.

have you hear "the "atheist" tapes" ?

[ImaginalDisc]

have you hear "the "atheist" tapes" ?

Did you ever cite anything speciifc to back up your allegations?

[hodgy]

I do tend to agree, CFL. I've read all Dawkins' books, and I do find him irritatingly right-on and left-wing. Also, possibly rather politically naive.

However, I don't read his books to have my consciousness raised (as he keeps going on about in the otherwise excellent "The God Delusion").

The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Unweaving The Rainbow, et al, other than the liberal crap, are excellent works of scientific literature, and that's why I hail Mr. D.

My opinion completely 100% - are you reading my mind :)

Me reading Dawkins is like this:

Yes, Yes, Correct, Obvious, Perfect, Eh what are you talking about you bloody idiot?, exactly!, true, logically obvious, certainly, you are so right...

He's a flawed diamond.

[Checkmite]

"This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead."

Did Dawkins actually say that? Wow.

[Art Vandelay]

"an actor with a proper British accent"

So he doesn't know F all about South Park does he....

Or he'd know

"ALL CHARACTERS AND EVENTS IN THIS SHOW--EVEN THOSE BASED ON REAL PEOPLE--ARE ENTIRELY FICTIONAL. ALL CELEBRITY VOICES ARE IMPERSONATED.....POORLY. THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM CONTAINS COARSE LANGUAGE AND DUE TO ITS CONTENT IT SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED BY ANYONE"

LOLIt seems to me that the guy who voiced the Robert Smith character did a decent British accent...

Could someone whom Justin isn't ignoring please ask him what evidence he has that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate IDers and creationists. After all, didn't he himself post in a thread regarding a debate between Dawkins and a creationist?By "ignoring" do you mean "has on his ignore list"? Because it seems to me that T'ai Chi ignores pretty much everyone, regradless of whether they're on his ignore list.

Pipelineaudio explained why he thought Dawkins' comments were 'political woo' in his post #59, as he keeps trying to explain. I don't agree with his explanation, but nevertheless, it is there.

Your next step is to address his points in post #59.No, his next step is to continually one post that he has decided proves his position. That's how he argues: once he decides on an "argument", he simply repeats it over and over, and ignores anything anyone says.

The onus is not on me, mate. It is on you.You are not lord of the universe. No one has an "onus" to answer every single question that you pose.

I don't much care for 'answer a question with a question' myself. But the points that PA was making are very clear. I think they are clear to you too as you then go on to address them (and I agree with your rebuttal):More importantly, it points out his hypocrisy, as he insists on his question being answered, while refusing to answer other people's questions.

I understand that perfectly.
From my experience here though, I don't think Claus will accept that, and we will get the never ending appeal for statement as opposed to question.Even if it were put in the form of a statement, that would be no guarantee that Claus would shut up.

Richard actually said "got" not gotten - we Brits generally don't use "gotten", and certainly some like an Oxford professor would not use it;)

Not being pedantic on our English language, just commented for fun!:)Is "gotten" considered "wrong" in England?

[pipelineaudio]

No, his next step is to continually one post that he has decided proves his position. That's how he argues: once he decides on an "argument", he simply repeats it over and over, and ignores anything anyone says.

Not quite, read the rest of the thread

More importantly, it points out his hypocrisy, as he insists on his question being answered, while refusing to answer other people's questions.

I hope you are not referring to me, I tried hard to answer, maybe you should read the rest of the thread

[Art Vandelay]

Not quite, read the rest of the threadI am responding to my entire experience of his posting history, not just this thread.

I hope you are not referring to me, I tried hard to answer, maybe you should read the rest of the threadI said that he is insisting that you answer his question. That implies that I think that he is implying that you haven't answered it; it does not mean that I am implying that you haven't answered it.

[pipelineaudio]

too much tyrptophan (sic?) in my bloodstream tonite I think

ignore me

[Euromutt]

If I may attempt to intercede, even though I should probably know better, I'd say that the first stage in this conflict is that you, pipelineaudio, didn't give a direct and clear response to Claus's question "why do you think this is 'political woo'?" but skipped straight onto the next step, and didn't do a very good job of it. Perhaps the conversation would have been more constructive if it had gone more along these (extremely hypothetical) lines:

CFL: Why do you think Dawkins is expressing 'political woo'?

PLA: Because he's interpreting events in such a way as to ascribe motives to certain parties without providing any evidence that said parties were operating from said motives. He also uses prejudicial language.

CFL: Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but could you give an example of what you mean?

PLA: Dawkins ascribes the failure on the part of American forces to intervene in the looting of the Baghdad Museum entirely to lack of will; he does not explore, let alone refute, the alternative possibility that said failure to intervene was the result of lack of ability or foresight to do so. Furthermore, he refers to the Americans as "invaders," a term which, while technically accurate, carries a certain amount of odium in common usage. The term invader, is not, for example, usually applied to Allied forces entering Germany in 1944/1945, or UN forces entering North Korea in 1950.

CFL: Could you be more specific with regard to flaws in the passage you quoted?

PLA: Certainly. Dawkins states that the "vandalisation" of the museum took place "under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead." As it concerns the troops specifically tasked to guard the Ministry of Oil (a not unimportant objective, given that this is where records of Iraq's oil supply were kept), they could not be expected to simply abandon their assigned post, or to open fire on civilians without duly issued orders. As for the higher echelon, they may have failed to assign troops to guard the museum because they had not foreseen that Iraqi civilians would vandalize their own (supposed) cultural heritage, or even if they did, they may not have had sufficient manpower to assign troops to guard the museum, even if they had wanted to. Dawkins provides no evidence to refute these scenarios, and is therefore not justified in dismissing them outright.

[T'ai Chi]

Dawkins found out that having "God" on a book cover sells pretty well, all the time denouncing God, especially in the US. :)

[Darat]

Dawkins found out that having "God" on a book cover sells pretty well, all the time denouncing God, especially in the US. :)

What number of books published in the USA have had "God" in their title?

[Mojo]

In the mid 1970s, Alan Coren noticed that a high proportion of bestselling books seemed to be about cats, golf or Hitler. This (http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/c/alan-coren/golfing-for-cats.htm) was his next book.

[Jekyll]

"This is the cradle of human civilization whose irreplaceable relics in the Baghdad Museum were vandalized in 2003, under the indifferent eyes of American invaders whose priorities led them to protect the Ministry of Oil instead."

I have to agree that the bolded sections of this quote require evidence, and without such are motivated at least, emotionally.

It's hard to demonstrate a negative so you'll have to just put up with the "indifferent eyes" point unless you have a counter example. Maybe a culture exchange was organised with trips around the museum for American troops? Failing that, you could always demonstrate orders to protect the Baghdad Museum.

Regarding the second point: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172643895.html

[Mr. Scott]

Here's a definition of woo-woo that I've up until now considered accurate, from an old Randi forum post by Segnosaur:

"Simply put, a 'woo woo' is a believer... someone who believes there is some supernatural effect going on with psychics, homeopaths, faith healers, religious beliefs, etc. regardless of the evidence against it."

The origin of the term has to do with the sound of the theremin as it represents supernatural forces.

How do Dawkins' comments on American priorities, oil, and the Baghdad museum demonstrate he believes in supernatural forces?

[bjb]

I think connecting 'woo' only with supernatural claims is the biggest mistake would-be skeptics make. The root cause of these beliefs is an irrational thought process. Look at how the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, and moon-landing hoax believers defend their ideas. They concentrate on the few fragments of evidence that support their claim while ignoring the enormous amount of evidence that goes against it. Instead of believing in supernatural forces they believe in large government conspiracies. Now if you look at the creationists, intelligent design believers, etc. you'll see the same thought process at work. They use existing gaps in scientific knowlege as 'evidence' that proves supernatural forces are at work but ignore that massive amount of evidence that goes against it. There are many other similarities between these and other fringe beliefs, but to me, a 'woo' idea is something that is created and perpetuated by this type of thought process. As a skeptic, whether the idea is supernatural or not is much less important to me that its ability to withstand skeptical inquiry.

When we apply skeptical standards to any beliefs, the 'woo' ideas are identified very quickly. However,skeptics often are unable to remain skeptical on their own political beliefs. In the case of Dawkins' statement, he likely was against his country's involvement in the invasion of Iraq. The story about the oil ministry being protected while other buildings were not can be used to support the idea that oil was more important that other things in Iraq. But the same story could also be used to support the idea that it was impossible for the US military to stop the looting. It took 50 tanks to guard one building, so many hundreds or thousands of tanks would have been needed to stop the looting in Baghdad. There are two ways to look at this story but could the military really have stopped the looting? I think it might have been possible if the soldiers had more tanks. They might have stopped the looting simply by gunning down every unarmed civilian in the streets, but that would probably be a war crime. Dawkins' arguement seems to focus on just a few key details of the story while ignoring the rest it. He's the one making the claim that the US military did not choose to protect the museums and buildings even though they were perfectly capable of doing so, but the evidence just isn't there. He is using the same faulty thought process that the 'woo' believers are using, so I also call 'woo' on Dawkins. I'm sure there is a better word to use than 'woo' but maybe someone else can figure out what word we should use.

[Mr. Scott]

I think connecting 'woo' only with supernatural claims is the biggest mistake would-be skeptics make. The root cause of these beliefs is an irrational thought process.

I'd prefer to see the term "woo" preserved with it's original association with the supernatural and the spooky theremin sound. Unsound thought processes regarding politics just don't evoke a theremin soundtrack for me.

But using your definition -- was Bush thinking like a woo when he assumed the Iraqis would welcome the USA military with smiles and open arms for toppling their government?

[Jekyll]

In the case of Dawkins' statement, he likely was against his country's involvement in the invasion of Iraq. The story about the oil ministry being protected while other buildings were not can be used to support the idea that oil was more important that other things in Iraq. But the same story could also be used to support the idea that it was impossible for the US military to stop the looting. It took 50 tanks to guard one building, so many hundreds or thousands of tanks would have been needed to stop the looting in Baghdad. There are two ways to look at this story but could the military really have stopped the looting? I think it might have been possible if the soldiers had more tanks. They might have stopped the looting simply by gunning down every unarmed civilian in the streets, but that would probably be a war crime. Dawkins' arguement seems to focus on just a few key details of the story while ignoring the rest it. He's the one making the claim that the US military did not choose to protect the museums and buildings even though they were perfectly capable of doing so, but the evidence just isn't there. He is using the same faulty thought process that the 'woo' believers are using, so I also call 'woo' on Dawkins. I'm sure there is a better word to use than 'woo' but maybe someone else can figure out what word we should use.
Can you justify this?
At the moment you appear to be agreeing with Dawkins that:
1)The US military did protect the ministry of oil over and above any surrounding buildings.
2) They were (relatively) indifferent towards what happened to the museum.

Now Dawkins' or at least Dawkins' 3-4 years ago disagreed with the military priorities of the time and felt that the largest archive of several thousand years worth of culture was irreplaceable and significantly more important than the paperwork contained in ministry of oil. At no point did he say the military should have prevented all the looting in Baghdad.

This isn't "woo", this isn't even "political woo", this is just political idealism.

[pipelineaudio]

thats a pretty narrow read. However I can personally guarantee at least one army specialist serving in Iraq at the time who was CERTAINLY not indifferent to looting of archaeological artefacts

[Mr. Scott]

pipelineaudio:

In your opinion, as Bush thinking like a woo when he assumed the Iraqis would welcome the USA military with smiles and open arms for toppling their government?

[pipelineaudio]

pipelineaudio:

In your opinion, as Bush thinking like a woo when he assumed the Iraqis would welcome the USA military with smiles and open arms for toppling their government?

When ISNT Bush thinking from a deep inner well of woo?

Truthfully though, the Iraqis did seem pretty damn happy about it. Until they realized the water and power werent coming back on anythime soon

[Mr. Scott]

When ISNT Bush thinking from a deep inner well of woo?

Truthfully though, the Iraqis did seem pretty damn happy about it. Until they realized the water and power werent coming back on anythime soon

I was checking to see if you felt all liberal lefty democrat opinions were woo, or if you believed any idea you disagree with is an idea based on woo. Clear us up on this one, would you? What's the difference between disagreeing with pipelineaudio, and woo?

[CFLarsen]

When ISNT Bush thinking from a deep inner well of woo?

Truthfully though, the Iraqis did seem pretty damn happy about it. Until they realized the water and power werent coming back on anythime soon

Is that a problem now?

[bjb]

Mr. Scott, the short answer is that there is a difference between honest disagreements and disagreements caused by irrational thought. It is ok for someone to be a conservative and believe in a small government and lower taxes. It is also reasonable for someone to be liberal, who wants social programs to help the needy and wants businesses and the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. Honest disagreement in politics should be expected, however, we normally only see arguements based upon emotion. The liberals want to tax and spend and help the terrorists win, and the conservatives are corrupt and want tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor while going into debt to fight endless oil wars. This is how politicans talk about their opposition but these are examples of the false dichotomy (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy) fallacy, a tactic also used in post #122.

In practice, political decisions don't need to be based upon rational thought so long as they can be justified by emotional reasons, usually fear (of terrorists) and hate (of homosexuals). Of course, there's also the practice of pork-barrel politics so greed can also be a factor. Therefore, anything Bush or any other politician does has a good probability of be woo. Of course, they get away with it because we voters fall for this way of thinking. Unfortunately, we self-proclaimed skeptics don't seem to be much better than the average person in this respect.

This is why I continue to be very disappointed by skeptics in general. When it comes to politics, anyone who disagrees with them is an ultra-leftist terrorist-hugger or ultra-neocon Nazi-vampire. If anyone should We should have our brains on at all times, but that doesn't seem to be happening. We may be good at destroying arguements of people who disagree with us, but we can't do it to people we otherwise like, and we certainly don't want to be skeptical towards our own beliefs.

I'm also noticing that anyone who disagrees with a 'liberal' skeptic immediately becomes suspected of being a neocon. This is something I first saw on the 9/11 conspiracy nutcase boards, where anyone who disagreed with any aspect of the 9/11 conspiracy must be a neocon or disinformation agent. It's pretty sad to see skeptics using the same way of thinking but I suppose this is what happens to all extremists.

[Art Vandelay]

Am I the only one irritated by "arguement"?

[T'ai Chi]

This is why I continue to be very disappointed by skeptics in general.


You mean people who consider themselves part of the organized skeptical movement rather than just someone who is skeptical.

[Mr. Scott]

Mr. Scott, the short answer is that there is a difference between honest disagreements and disagreements caused by irrational thought.

Sure, I agree with that, but it's mostly noecons who I've heard say plainly that the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are right and liberals are wrong. And they really mean it! It's a short jump from that to saying liberals are woos.

I'm still waiting to be convinced that Dawkins' claim of a flaw in American troops' priorities when they protected the records of the oil ministry over the artifacs in the Baghdad museum. I'd imagine Dawkins, being the type of academic he is, feels more strongly about historical museum pieces than the oil business. It's his perspective -- not a loss of critical facilities. But calling his thinking "woo" sounds like a shallow partisan quip that devalues the skeptic's most treasured derogatory label.

[Dark Jaguar]

You mean people who consider themselves part of the organized skeptical movement rather than just someone who is skeptical.

What organized skeptical movement? Never heard that referenced here except in your posts.

[CFLarsen]

You mean people who consider themselves part of the organized skeptical movement rather than just someone who is skeptical.

Oh, you mean yourself? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68791)

[Darat]

What organized skeptical movement? Never heard that referenced here except in your posts.

Oh, you mean yourself? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68791)

It's the only way to make sense of the claim. It is a self identifying label so T'ai Chi is referring to the "organized skeptical movement" that he is a member of.

Therefore he considers this Forum (where he is a Member) and the Skeptical Society's forum (where he is also a member) as the "organized skeptical movement". So when he makes a comment such as "You mean people who consider themselves part of the organized skeptical movement rather than just someone who is skeptical." He is referring to people like himself i.e. members of the "organized skeptical movement" (as he defines it).

[RandFan]

Mr. Scott, the short answer is that there is a difference between honest disagreements and disagreements caused by irrational thought. It is ok for someone to be a conservative and believe in a small government and lower taxes. It is also reasonable for someone to be liberal, who wants social programs to help the needy and wants businesses and the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. Honest disagreement in politics should be expected, however, we normally only see arguements based upon emotion. The liberals want to tax and spend and help the terrorists win, and the conservatives are corrupt and want tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor while going into debt to fight endless oil wars. This is how politicans talk about their opposition but these are examples of the false dichotomy (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy) fallacy, a tactic also used in post #122.

In practice, political decisions don't need to be based upon rational thought so long as they can be justified by emotional reasons, usually fear (of terrorists) and hate (of homosexuals). Of course, there's also the practice of pork-barrel politics so greed can also be a factor. Therefore, anything Bush or any other politician does has a good probability of be woo. Of course, they get away with it because we voters fall for this way of thinking. Unfortunately, we self-proclaimed skeptics don't seem to be much better than the average person in this respect.

This is why I continue to be very disappointed by skeptics in general. When it comes to politics, anyone who disagrees with them is an ultra-leftist terrorist-hugger or ultra-neocon Nazi-vampire. If anyone should We should have our brains on at all times, but that doesn't seem to be happening. We may be good at destroying arguements of people who disagree with us, but we can't do it to people we otherwise like, and we certainly don't want to be skeptical towards our own beliefs.

I'm also noticing that anyone who disagrees with a 'liberal' skeptic immediately becomes suspected of being a neocon. This is something I first saw on the 9/11 conspiracy nutcase boards, where anyone who disagreed with any aspect of the 9/11 conspiracy must be a neocon or disinformation agent. It's pretty sad to see skeptics using the same way of thinking but I suppose this is what happens to all extremists. Good post.