Dawkins trashes sCAM

[Blue Wode]

Just a heads up on the forthcoming 2-part Channel 4 documentary ‘The Enemies of Reason’ presented by Richard Dawkins. It’s scheduled to be broadcast on Monday, 13th August, and Monday, 20th August:

http://richarddawkins.net/event,173,Channel-Four

Good preview here:

New age therapies cause ‘retreat from reason’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/m.../newage105.xml

[Physiotherapist]

Might be an interesting programme to watch, but I have to say that I really can't stand the guy. Every time I have seen or heard him speak, he comes across as being so bloody arrogant, it is unbelievable!!

[Zep]

I think we should be his henchmen!

[Blue Wode]

Originally Posted by Physiotherapist

I have to say that I really can't stand the guy. Every time I have seen or heard him speak, he comes across as being so bloody arrogant, it is unbelievable!!

Maybe it would be better for you to limit yourself to reading what he has to say. You can find another good preview here:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle2198063.ece

Snippet –

Quote:

As Dawkins says: "There might be bad scientists, but that does not mean the methodology of science is bad." For him the acid test is forever and always: "Test it!" This is a principle totally lacking, he charges, at the Royal London Homeopathic hospital, recently refurbished to the tune of £20m, including £10m from the cash-strapped NHS, and with a plaque certifying the endorsement of the Prince of Wales. (His title for episode two of The Enemies of Reason is The Irrational Health Service.)

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

I have to say that I really can't stand the guy. Every time I have seen or heard him speak, he comes across as being so bloody arrogant, it is unbelievable!!

He's not exactly polite and warm and tactful, no. His rudeness is a bit too much for me, too, sometimes. I still really like the guy, though.

Edit: He's 66 years old. Wow. I had no idea.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Physio

Might be an interesting programme to watch, but I have to say that I really can't stand the guy. Every time I have seen or heard him speak, he comes across as being so bloody arrogant, it is unbelievable!!

Overlook his personality and watch the program anyway.

Just a suggestion.

~~ Paul

[Big Les]

I'm nor sure that he's ever really rude. Depends on how justified you feel his confrontational approach is. There's still a lot of residual "don't talk about religion and politics" taboo faux-politeness in British society, he just ignores that. Rightly so in my opinion, "no free ride" and all that.

There's another thread about this (started later than this one).

[T'ai Chi]

Rather it is Dawkins who should tone it down so as to get his message across more effectively. Heck, even Tyson told him this face to face fairly recently.

[JoeEllison]

I always get the feeling that there's a personality defect in people who dismiss Dawkins because of his personality. I wonder why that is?

[Graham Jackman]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Rather it is Dawkins who should tone it down so as to get his message across more effectively. Heck, even Tyson told him this face to face fairly recently.

Unfortunately, he has realised that putting the point politely has little effect on the committed. I suspect, that the forceful approach has not much more effect but it might get more attention. Atheists and agnostics don't have popes, bishops etc and the message is hardly likely to fill a church on Sundays, so the public profile is less. At least Dawkins' arguments are for enlightenment and not for crusades or the persecution of those with different opinions. It's always seemed curious that religion is such a taboo topic and that people are reluctant to criticise, maybe because such criticism causes you to see the weakness of your own beliefs. If pushed, I'm happy to discuss religion's weaknesses but otherwise I can find more profitable uses of my time.

[Beady]

It's been my experience that it's far easier to persuade friends, or at least those who are not hostile toward you, that you might have a point than it is enemies. Seems counterproductive to use language calculated to raise resentment and hostility, which is exactly Dawkins' style.

Actually, that's my whole problem with the "skeptical movement." There's far too much "You're deluded, I'm not, and I'm going to save you from yourself." The way I see it, that is how the Sylvia Browne's of the world manage to do so well in the face of rationality; it's their "bedside manner" and feigned sympathy.

It might help skepticism if skeptics were just a little more understanding and accepting of human needs and human failings. The brain may be a supercomputer, but no computer can be reprogrammed with a hammer.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Beady

The brain may be a supercomputer, but no computer can be reprogrammed with a hammer.

The problem, as I see it, is that if, as you say, a computer cannot be "reprogrammed with a hammer"... how much more effective will a gentle brushing with a feather be? A hammer will at least have some effect... and might force the owner to replace a couple of defective parts(to stretch the metaphor about as far as it will go)

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Rather it is Dawkins who should tone it down so as to get his message across more effectively. Heck, even Tyson told him this face to face fairly recently.

Awesome response from Dawkins.

[nsfw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik[/nsfw]

[Physiotherapist]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

I always get the feeling that there's a personality defect in people who dismiss Dawkins because of his personality. I wonder why that is?

I don't actually think that this is a very helpful thing to say. I have not dismissed Dawkins and have read quite a few of his books. I have not dismissed him on personality grounds either. All I said was that I can't really stand the way in which he appears rude and arrogant when trying to put his point across during the course of interviews and lectures. This kind of behaviour is a good way to allienate people.

As for personality defects - everyone has them and nobody is perfect including you Joe!!

[Beady]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

The problem, as I see it, is that if, as you say, a computer cannot be "reprogrammed with a hammer"... how much more effective will a gentle brushing with a feather be? A hammer will at least have some effect... and might force the owner to replace a couple of defective parts(to stretch the metaphor about as far as it will go)

That's my point: You have to use the right tool for the job, and neither a hammer nor a feather are the right tools.

A hammer will have an effect, all right, but the odds of it having the desired effect are vanishingly small.

[Big Les]

It certainly can provide an excuse for both unintentionally and wilfully ignorant people to dismiss the argument. "He's shrill!" "He's just plain mean!" etc. Shouldn't detract from the truth of what he's saying, and you can argue that the short sharp shock might make a stronger long-term impact on a given person than a softly-softly approach that might not even make it through the shield of woo.

In other words what people say in response to a strong criticism is not necessarily what they go away thinking, or come around to thinking on their own later on. I know I've often responded defensively to being called on something I was wrong about, but after I'd cooled down realised I was wrong, regardless of how stridently I'd been pulled up on it. As long as it's not outright offensive, I think it can be an effective method for all but the most entrenched.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Big Les

Shouldn't detract from the truth of what he's saying, and you can argue that the short sharp shock might make a stronger long-term impact on a given person than a softly-softly approach that might not even make it through the shield of woo.

Odds are, though, that the first impression will be the most lasting. It certainly seems to have been the case, so far, and your argument to the contrary doesn't appear valid.

Otherwise, this particular conversation wouldn't be taking place and you wouldn't find it necessary to make the assertion.

[Ginarley]

I personally think the only reason people think Dawkins is "rude" or "arrogant" is that he is an assertive public figure in an area which we have a historical tradition of not speaking up against. As Dawkins himself has said several times, his approach and language would seem rather unremarkable in a political or sporting arena.

I very much look forward to this documentary, it will be very interesting to see what he brings to these issues.

[Rolfe]

I have to say, when I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was, oh no, I wish he wouldn't.

You don't get more anti-SCAM than me, but I feel we could do without the support of someone who is so good at alienating people. Sigh.

Rolfe.

[Big Les]

Originally Posted by Beady

Odds are, though, that the first impression will be the most lasting. It certainly seems to have been the case, so far, and your argument to the contrary doesn't appear valid.

Otherwise, this particular conversation wouldn't be taking place and you wouldn't find it necessary to make the assertion.

That's a little circular, don't you think? Aside from the vocal (woo-championing) minority who cry foul at what he says, where's the evidence that he has either no effect, or a detrimental effect vis scepticism or atheism? Just because you say it and feel that way yourself, doesn't make it true. This is what I mean when I say it's tough to quantify. On the one hand, some sensitive fence-sitters or mild woos might be turned away, but on the other, many less invested or thicker-skinned types might actually have their eyes opened.

What about all the people who really hadn't thought about religion (or scepticism) enough to be invested either way until they heard about Dawkins? How many of those have been led down the path Dawkins intends?

Also, we (and the woos, and the press) tend to highlight his more controversial stuff. What about the rest of his positive contributions? I suppose you could argue that he's "jumped the shark" in that respect and focusses too much on the aggressive debunking of religion. I don't agree.

[fls]

I will readily concede the idea that sensitivity and avoidance of alienation is useful for garden-variety persuasion. But do we really know whether or not sensitivity simply allows someone to remain complacent about their beliefs when it comes to persuading someone to make a major alteration?

Linda

[Physiotherapist]

There are ways and ways of getting a valid point across though. Assertiveness without rudeness is one and laying out scientific evidence in an understandable way that allows people to become interested and think. If people are allowed to think for themselves, sometimes the 'penny drops'. I know this is not the case with all, but definitely some.

The problem is that the more people are alienated, the more they are not interested in listening, so the message then falls on deaf ears. It is my feeling that Dawkins has a rather unfortunate manner in this respect - many might feel patronised and if people feel patronised, there is a good chance they will not listen. It is like that old addage "If you want your opinion, then I'll give it to you" and not many people like that!!!

[Complexity]

I don't want Dawkins to change a thing.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think that Dawkins chap could learn a lot from me about the art of persuasion.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Physiotherapist

The problem is that the more people are alienated, the more they are not interested in listening, so the message then falls on deaf ears.

Which is why his book is a bestseller, right?

If you think that his speech is bad, then the greatest way to combat it is better speech. The thing is, it's not his speech that you disagree with; it's him talking bad about religion.

What he says is true. His points are meaningful. He tears apart religion.

But everyone ignores that. They always will.

Why is it that whenever people bring up Dawkins about anything, everyone has to go and whine and whine and whine about how rude he is? Seriously. Get a life, people. The message is out there. You don't like Dawkins' message. Guess what? We know already! That message is broadcasted in every frikkin' thread on this forum. Get over it already; you don't like his message, we get it, please move on.

He's going to appear on a program. That's great. That's what the thread was about. If you don't want to watch, then please don't.

Sheesh.

[Complexity]

I lost all interest in trying to persuade others many years ago.

It isn't my responsibility.

Education is an active and solitary endeavor.

It has little to do with the baby-sitting, hand-holding mess that we call 'school'.

Dawkins puts out a well-founded view of reality as he understands it. That is enough, and it is a great gift.

Anyone who truly wishes to learn will take that as a starting point and educate himself / herself.

Anyone who cries, "Persuade me.", is lazy, is not interested in learning, and is asking to be entertained.

[Physiotherapist]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

If you think that his speech is bad, then the greatest way to combat it is better speech. The thing is, it's not his speech that you disagree with; it's him talking bad about religion.

How dare you pressume to tell me or assume that you know what it is about Dawkins that I disagree with.

You have made a massive assumption here and you are in fact, completely wrong. It is not his talking about religion that I disagree with in the slightest.

I myself am not religious and do not belong to any kind of organised religion and I am in agreement with a lot of what Dawkins has written about religion.

Now Lonewulf, sheesh!! How about you go and get over yourself heh!!!!!

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Which is why his book is a bestseller, right?

Crappy argument. The Bible outsells Dawkins. You really want to go down that road? What are the sales figures overall for Mein Kampf?

[Big Les]

Good argument. Both the bible and Mein Kampf have had a significant effect that's related to their consistently high sales. A similar high volume of sales for Dawkin's output suggests that there is strong interest in what Dawkins has to say. How the readers feel about what he writes and what they take away intellectually are harder to establish of course (as both unbelievers and non-Nazis buy the two books you refer to). Depends how you define an "effect", which Beady still hasn't done.

Besides, all of this is, as Lonewulf pointed out, off-topic.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Physiotherapist

How dare you pressume to tell me or assume that you know what it is about Dawkins that I disagree with.

Yeah yeah. I'm sure that if he said the exact same things about any other subject, you'd still hold the same opinion.

I rather doubt it, though.

But you're right, it was rather presumptous of me. I'm just tired of all the whining. The first thing people respond with is, "WAH! Dawkins is rude!" in a thread about him making a new program. Seriously.

I see it in every single thread. We get the picture. Seriously. You don't like how Dawkin says what he says. That's what anyone talks about. You'd think that he had no actual *content*, because no one ever talks about it!

It's rather tiring.

Originally Posted by Gurdur

Crappy argument.

On it's own merits, yes. But it's not the only argument.

Quote:

The Bible outsells Dawkins.

The Bible's had thousands of years to spread. Dawkin's book was best-selling within the few few years it went out the door. That's a crappy counter-argument.

Quote:

You really want to go down that road? What are the sales figures overall for Mein Kampf?

That argument... fails. Really really fails. Seriously.

If you want to bring up the best-selling figures of Mein Kampf and then argue that Mein Kampf wasn't influential, go ahead and do so; I'll laugh in your face.

The fact is, Mein Kampf WAS influential, as was Hitler's speeches. Hitler was very influential.

It doesn't make him right.

The thing is, Dawkins is right. But the argument isn't whether he's right or wrong, but the claim that no one is listening because they dislike Dawkins' speech. Yet, here they are, lining to buy his books!

I guess people line up to buy books that they aren't listening to or something.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Big Les

That's a little circular, don't you think? Aside from the vocal (woo-championing) minority who cry foul at what he says, where's the evidence that he has either no effect, or a detrimental effect vis skepticism or atheism? Just because you say it and feel that way yourself, doesn't make it true.

Where's the evidence that he has a positive effect? It seems to me (and apparently to others who have posted here) rather self-evident that his style offends his allies; I see nothing unreasonable in extending that offense to his opponents or to those in the middle. As for circularity, why is it circular? That we're having this conversation at all is evidence of the controversy, since it also seems rather obvious that non-controversy does not have two or more sides.

Quote:

This is what I mean when I say it's tough to quantify. On the one hand, some sensitive fence-sitters or mild woos might be turned away, but on the other, many less invested or thicker-skinned types might actually have their eyes opened.

I think your adjectives are misplaced. I would say that most people are woos and fence-sitters, and that your "many" with the thick skins is far outnumbered by the "some." Sensitivity is part of being human, and most humans are sensitive about their beliefs. Even at a 1:1 ratio, sensitive to non-sensitive believers, I have to ask just how many people are you willing to write off merely for a personal preference of style? Near as I can tell, Dawkins either doesn't consider the question at all, or considers those driven off as acceptable collateral damage.

An offensive style of argument will drive off the easily-offended. You appear to agree. I would suggest that a more sensitive argument will drive off neither the easily-offended nor the more reasonable.

BTW, I looked up religious affiliation in the 2000 United States census not long ago, and 87% of the population profess some sort of religion, whether organized or not. At roughly 250 million people, therefore, this means a split of 217,500,000 believers to 32,500,000 non-believers (you can quibble about the exact numbers, but they're good enough for back-of-the-envelope calculations). If 10% of those 217.5 million are "reasonable," and if, say, 90% (you said many, not all) of those reasonable people stay and listen, but no one else does, you have written off any chance of reaching 197,925,000 people for the sake of reaching, but not necessarily persuading, less than 219,000.

Bottom line, you have intentionally discarded, out of hand, 91% of your potential audience. Why would you do such a thing?

Quote:

How many of those have been led down the path Dawkins intends?

How many have been driven off? I contend this number is vastly larger than you are willing to admit.

Quote:

Also, we (and the woos, and the press) tend to highlight his more controversial stuff.

Well, that seems to include just about everyone. There's no one left.

Quote:

What about the rest of his positive contributions?

As you seem to say, yourself, no one is listening. Dawkins has drowned himself out.

Quote:

I don't agree.

How did you put it, above? "Just because you say it and feel that way yourself, doesn't make it true."

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Which is why his book is a bestseller, right?

Irrelevent. The God Delusion is #71 on Amazon; Kevin Treudeau's The Weight Loss Cure They Don't Want You to Know About is #16. There are too many editions of the Bible to find a meaningful figure.

Do you really want to base your argument on sales figures?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by Graham Jackman

Unfortunately, he has realised that putting the point politely has little effect on the committed. I suspect, that the forceful approach has not much more effect but it might get more attention.

It gets more attention the same way preaching to the choir does.

I suspect it turns off believers, and in fact widens the gulf between believers and non-believers though. Logically that has to be the case when someone tries to shove their beliefs down your throat.

Quote:

At least Dawkins' arguments are for enlightenment and not for crusades or the persecution of those with different opinions.

If someone like Dawkins can show us how he, or people like him, are "englightened", I'm all for it. Until then, it just seems like he's called believers dumb, something which isn't too productive or convincing.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Beady

Irrelevent. The God Delusion is #71 on Amazon; Kevin Treudeau's The Weight Loss Cure They Don't Want You to Know About is #16. There are too many editions of the Bible to find a meaningful figure.

Do you really want to base your argument on sales figures?

See above. I already pointed out how this was a stupid counterargument. I'm glad that someone is paying attention. As I said, if something is a bestseller, then it's influential and obviously lots of people are reading it. It doesn't matter if the book is right or not, merely that it is popular. If it is popular, then many people are reading it and being influenced by it. Get it now, Beady? Let me draw a diagram:

Lots of books.

Not many books.

Lots of books -- Lots of readers.

not many books -- Not many readers.

Shall I draw a picture? I can include a horsie!

It might behoove you to actually read what I was responding to when I made that post; because you are failing to actually refute anything I argued.

Unless you're actually going to argue that the Bible is not influential? If so:

You would make me laugh all day long.

Anyways...

Yes yes, Dawkins is terrible, Dawkins is the devil, OMG Dawkins says so many evil nasty dirty things.

I mean, THE GOD DELUSION! OMG!

Of course, if he called it The Astrology Delusion, that would be just fine, but the GOD delusion! OMG, he actually includes RELIGION!



Why don't you go and whine to someone who actually gives a ****, Beady? I really don't.

I'll go back to talking about the program. I wonder if they air it on German television.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Why don't you go and whine to someone who actually gives a ****, Beady? I really don't.

You spend an awful lot of writing on things you don't care about.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

If someone like Dawkins can show us how he, or people like him, are "englightened", I'm all for it. Until then, it just seems like he's called believers dumb, something which isn't too productive or convincing.

All of what you said there is obvious proof that you have yet to actually read or watch what Dawkins has said.

He's done a very good job of putting forth his argument in The God Delusion. But certain people seem to yet not be able to actually muster the strength to actually read his stuff.





Hmm, I'm really hoping that this program is on German TV... but I hope it's not in German. Sigh...

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Beady

You spend an awful lot of writing on things you don't care about.

And you spend an awful lot of time dragging someone through the mud while ignoring all that he has to say.

Anyways... back to the original topic. Go onto one of the other many Dawkins threads and continue to spout your gibberish, where they have been spouted again and again and again and again and again and again and again, as if you'll change everyone's minds THIS ONE TIME. I'm honestly very very tired of it.

[Big Les]

Sorry Beady, I think this is a mainly subjective thing. I like his approach, as do many others. If people are so willing to be offended to the point where it influences their world-view, that's their look-out, and I doubt you'd sway them with some sort of insincere, condescending approach either. Arguably Sagan was the best compromise, but how many people have even heard of him? Based on the God Delusion alone (and Sagan being dead and all), I would suggest that Dawkins has a far higher profile at least at present. He's spreading a worthwhile message, and I see nothing wrong with his methods.

I for one will look forward to Dawkin's TV programme.

[Ivor the Engineer]

The suffragettes offended quite a lot of people and successfully persuaded them their opinion was "right".

[Physiotherapist]

Originally Posted by Beady

You spend an awful lot of writing on things you don't care about.

Wow! I couldn't agree more and Lonewulf, you walked straight in to that one!!