This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to MG:
Oh god, Dawkins.
As always, your point (particularly "the result was a puerile display of sniggering frivolity such as only Twitter can serve up") is valid, but you are making yourself look like an arse.
People took the piss out of you and made some puns about bees. You really don't need to write an article in the Guardian to explain why you are so much cleverer and better than them (although of course you are).
Oh god, Dawkins.
As always, your point (particularly "the result was a puerile display of sniggering frivolity such as only Twitter can serve up") is valid, but you are making yourself look like an arse.
People took the piss out of you and made some puns about bees. You really don't need to write an article in the Guardian to explain why you are so much cleverer and better than them (although of course you are).
In reply to Tim Chappell: Send a piece to CiF.
In reply to Tim Chappell: I thought the self-important smugness was impressive.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
The beauty of it is that now we know just how thin-skinned Dawkins is - he actually reads these comments and gets infuriated by them. It's like replying to a spam email.
It also staggers me that Dawkins can't understand the difference between a pointless rule and the fact that security employees have to follow the rule or lose their jobs.
The beauty of it is that now we know just how thin-skinned Dawkins is - he actually reads these comments and gets infuriated by them. It's like replying to a spam email.
It also staggers me that Dawkins can't understand the difference between a pointless rule and the fact that security employees have to follow the rule or lose their jobs.
In reply to MHutch:
He's an academic, never had a proper job.
Sits back, opens wine bottle.......
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> It also staggers me that Dawkins can't understand the difference between a pointless rule and the fact that security employees have to follow the rule or lose their jobs.
He's an academic, never had a proper job.
Sits back, opens wine bottle.......
In reply to Postmanpat:
One of those mornings?
> (In reply to MHutch)
> [...]
>
> Sits back, opens wine bottle.......
> [...]
>
> Sits back, opens wine bottle.......
One of those mornings?
In reply to The New NickB:
It's Friday..... !
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> One of those mornings?
> [...]
>
> One of those mornings?
It's Friday..... !
In reply to MHutch:
He is human, even supposed 'clever' people have feelings and reactions and their supposed intelligence might not be in a way which allows him to rise above it. He also feels he is making a valid point
I think he probably does understand this. While the whole 'just following orders' is a bit extreme for this situation but it is infuriating when the security staff impose stupid rules and use no common sense. It's even more infuriating when it is the rude, skinhead, grunt at Manchester airport
The article doesn't seem too petty to me. I personally think he is making a valid point. But as one of the comments rightly said, Dawkins has unfortunately riled so many people in the past that even when he makes a valid point people will have a problem with it just because it's Dawkins.
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> The beauty of it is that now we know just how thin-skinned Dawkins is - he actually reads these comments and gets infuriated by them. It's like replying to a spam email.
>
> The beauty of it is that now we know just how thin-skinned Dawkins is - he actually reads these comments and gets infuriated by them. It's like replying to a spam email.
He is human, even supposed 'clever' people have feelings and reactions and their supposed intelligence might not be in a way which allows him to rise above it. He also feels he is making a valid point
>
> It also staggers me that Dawkins can't understand the difference between a pointless rule and the fact that security employees have to follow the rule or lose their jobs.
> It also staggers me that Dawkins can't understand the difference between a pointless rule and the fact that security employees have to follow the rule or lose their jobs.
I think he probably does understand this. While the whole 'just following orders' is a bit extreme for this situation but it is infuriating when the security staff impose stupid rules and use no common sense. It's even more infuriating when it is the rude, skinhead, grunt at Manchester airport
The article doesn't seem too petty to me. I personally think he is making a valid point. But as one of the comments rightly said, Dawkins has unfortunately riled so many people in the past that even when he makes a valid point people will have a problem with it just because it's Dawkins.
In reply to myth:
Well although I think Dawkins can be a pompous ass at times I think he is spot on here. People put up with all sorts of nonsense that if more folk got annoyed with things would be done and life would be so much happier. I wonder how many people watched that woman stuggle with her ointment... what would the jobsworth UKBA staff have done with mass complaint?
Well although I think Dawkins can be a pompous ass at times I think he is spot on here. People put up with all sorts of nonsense that if more folk got annoyed with things would be done and life would be so much happier. I wonder how many people watched that woman stuggle with her ointment... what would the jobsworth UKBA staff have done with mass complaint?
In reply to myth: I agree with you, it seems an OK article to me - and I don't think the acceptance of trivial, patently absurd a*se covering regulations is something to be taken that light heartedly, the more areas that governments are able to impose Kafka-esque rules, the more it becomes a habit with them.
In reply to MHutch:
It staggers me that you can't understand that Dawkins does understand that difference full well, and that having a pointless rule that security employees have to follow is exactly what he is complaining about.
> It also staggers me that Dawkins can't understand the difference between a pointless rule and the fact
> that security employees have to follow the rule or lose their jobs.
> that security employees have to follow the rule or lose their jobs.
It staggers me that you can't understand that Dawkins does understand that difference full well, and that having a pointless rule that security employees have to follow is exactly what he is complaining about.
In reply to Coel Hellier: Its not just that though is it. Its pushing the pointless rule in the face of decency. I have no concern for his honey but I do for that ointment and he clearly understands the difference as well.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well if he does understand it full well, why is he (claiming) to have tried to point the official at a website pointing out the ludicrous nature of the rule? Reasons would seem to be
a) He doesn't actually understand
b) He wanted to cause a fuss in the airport
c) He didn't really do this but wrote that he did
I don't believe it's a). b) and c) both point to a arrangance and need to project a sense of superiority to all and sundry. As Jon Stewart said, he's right but is coming over as an arse, which he does more than is good for him, or for persuading people that his more serious arguments are correct.
> (In reply to MHutch)
>
> [...]
>
> It staggers me that you can't understand that Dawkins does understand that difference full well,
>
> [...]
>
> It staggers me that you can't understand that Dawkins does understand that difference full well,
Well if he does understand it full well, why is he (claiming) to have tried to point the official at a website pointing out the ludicrous nature of the rule? Reasons would seem to be
a) He doesn't actually understand
b) He wanted to cause a fuss in the airport
c) He didn't really do this but wrote that he did
I don't believe it's a). b) and c) both point to a arrangance and need to project a sense of superiority to all and sundry. As Jon Stewart said, he's right but is coming over as an arse, which he does more than is good for him, or for persuading people that his more serious arguments are correct.
In reply to MG:
I think it was most likely option (d):
(d) Thinking it a good thing that people protest about petty and pointless rules, rather than meekly submit to them. As REW said:
"I don't think the acceptance of trivial, patently absurd a*se covering regulations is something to be taken that light heartedly, the more areas that governments are able to impose Kafka-esque rules, the more it becomes a habit with them."
I think it was most likely option (d):
(d) Thinking it a good thing that people protest about petty and pointless rules, rather than meekly submit to them. As REW said:
"I don't think the acceptance of trivial, patently absurd a*se covering regulations is something to be taken that light heartedly, the more areas that governments are able to impose Kafka-esque rules, the more it becomes a habit with them."
In reply to Coel Hellier: Well if he did do that then he is essentially bullying airport staff. They have no power to change anything and if they don't follow the rules are risking their livelihood. He will also have inconvenicenced many other passengers by slowing things down.
Object by all means to petty rules but in a way that's likely to be effective, and don't use objecting to try and raise your public profile.
Separately, are you so sure the ban on fluids is so patently absurd? There have been several attempts to blow up aircraft using fluids, I understand.
Object by all means to petty rules but in a way that's likely to be effective, and don't use objecting to try and raise your public profile.
Separately, are you so sure the ban on fluids is so patently absurd? There have been several attempts to blow up aircraft using fluids, I understand.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Just out of interest, Coel, do you think that Dawkins has ever been wrong about anything at all?
If so, please do give examples
Just out of interest, Coel, do you think that Dawkins has ever been wrong about anything at all?
If so, please do give examples
In reply to MG:
I simply don't believe that. I'm sure the airport staff could have found a container for that ointment without it being in breach of their responsibilities. I've been lucky enough to work with international airport security experts: the rule is about image and risk reduction rather than neccesity.
I simply don't believe that. I'm sure the airport staff could have found a container for that ointment without it being in breach of their responsibilities. I've been lucky enough to work with international airport security experts: the rule is about image and risk reduction rather than neccesity.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Why sure, and so indeed does he!
The preface to the 30th-anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene is an interesting account of all the things he got wrong in the first edition. If you want a specific example, Dawkins was wrong on his attitude to Zahavi and Zahavi's handicap principle (Dawkins considered it to be a non-starter and wrong, it was later proved mathematically to be viable).
> Just out of interest, Coel, do you think that Dawkins has ever been wrong about anything at all?
Why sure, and so indeed does he!
> If so, please do give examples
The preface to the 30th-anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene is an interesting account of all the things he got wrong in the first edition. If you want a specific example, Dawkins was wrong on his attitude to Zahavi and Zahavi's handicap principle (Dawkins considered it to be a non-starter and wrong, it was later proved mathematically to be viable).
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Fixed that for you.
> (
>
> The preface to the 30th-anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene is an interesting account of all the things he realises he got wrong in the first edition.
>
> The preface to the 30th-anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene is an interesting account of all the things he realises he got wrong in the first edition.
Fixed that for you.
In reply to Tim Chappell:
While noting your correction, does it amount to much? Are there things he got wrong in it that he has not yet realised?
> Fixed that for you.
While noting your correction, does it amount to much? Are there things he got wrong in it that he has not yet realised?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Almost certainly and he doesn't always give the human impression that is the case... ie he gives the impression of lacking proper scientific modesty at times (although its obvious in the small print and philosophy that he doesn't): a better science communicator would realise this point is not obvious to the general public and would be clearer.
Almost certainly and he doesn't always give the human impression that is the case... ie he gives the impression of lacking proper scientific modesty at times (although its obvious in the small print and philosophy that he doesn't): a better science communicator would realise this point is not obvious to the general public and would be clearer.
In reply to Offwidth:
OK, but "better" science communicators are a bit thin on the ground! There is for example, ... um, well ... Anyhow, no human is faultless.
> a better science communicator would realise this point is not obvious to the general public and would be clearer.
OK, but "better" science communicators are a bit thin on the ground! There is for example, ... um, well ... Anyhow, no human is faultless.
In reply to Offwidth:
I've been lucky enough to work with international airport security experts: the rule is about image and risk reduction rather than neccesity.
Well of course its about risk reduction not necessity - we could get rid of all checks and most flights would be fine. The point is there are rules in place and it's not in the hands of security staff to adjust them so attempting to brow-beat them in to ignoring them is just bullying. Then publishing the fact you did so is self-aggrandisment and nothing more.
He could of course tried engaging with those who make the rules and making the case for adjusting them. He could have written how he sympathised with airport staff doing a difficult job and being forced to implement apparently arbitrary rules. He would have probably come over much better and been more likely to make things change. But he didn't.
I've been lucky enough to work with international airport security experts: the rule is about image and risk reduction rather than neccesity.
Well of course its about risk reduction not necessity - we could get rid of all checks and most flights would be fine. The point is there are rules in place and it's not in the hands of security staff to adjust them so attempting to brow-beat them in to ignoring them is just bullying. Then publishing the fact you did so is self-aggrandisment and nothing more.
He could of course tried engaging with those who make the rules and making the case for adjusting them. He could have written how he sympathised with airport staff doing a difficult job and being forced to implement apparently arbitrary rules. He would have probably come over much better and been more likely to make things change. But he didn't.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
That would be why he describes them as 'dundridges' in his messages to the nation.
Yes, I had to look it up, but it doesn't exactly seem like he's complaining about just the rule.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dundridge
> (In reply to MHutch)
>
> [...]
>
> It staggers me that you can't understand that Dawkins does understand that difference full well, and that having a pointless rule that security employees have to follow is exactly what he is complaining about.
>
> [...]
>
> It staggers me that you can't understand that Dawkins does understand that difference full well, and that having a pointless rule that security employees have to follow is exactly what he is complaining about.
That would be why he describes them as 'dundridges' in his messages to the nation.
Yes, I had to look it up, but it doesn't exactly seem like he's complaining about just the rule.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dundridge
In reply to MG: The article wasn't written to change anything, it was written to make himself look good. It's not even subtle.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Just think, if we were republicans we could get read of Queenie, and have dear old Dickie Dawkins as our president instead. What a blessing that would be!
--- save our gracious Dawk
long live our noble Dawk
--- save the Dawk!
Just think, if we were republicans we could get read of Queenie, and have dear old Dickie Dawkins as our president instead. What a blessing that would be!
--- save our gracious Dawk
long live our noble Dawk
--- save the Dawk!
In reply to 1poundSOCKS: Yes I know. My point. Except of course it doesn't.
In reply to MG: It does make you wonder, because he's a very smart guy. Does he comprehend, or care for that matter, what people will think of him when they read it?
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I don't think that popularity has ever been Dawkins's prime concern. However, for someone who is so often criticised for doing things wrong, it's remarkable how popular he is (books sales, ranking in Prospect Mag reader vote, twitter following, etc).
Suggesting that he is doing things wrong is a bit like suggesting that Sir Alex Ferguson went about winning the Premier League completely wrong!
> Does he comprehend, or care for that matter, what people will think of him when they read it?
I don't think that popularity has ever been Dawkins's prime concern. However, for someone who is so often criticised for doing things wrong, it's remarkable how popular he is (books sales, ranking in Prospect Mag reader vote, twitter following, etc).
Suggesting that he is doing things wrong is a bit like suggesting that Sir Alex Ferguson went about winning the Premier League completely wrong!
In reply to Coel Hellier: No, but why write an article to make yourself look good then? I imagine most people who read it won't be thinking 'Go on Richard, stick it to the man!'.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I suspect that his primary motive -- as he sees it -- is exactly what he says it is, raising the issue of petty rules and complaining about the assumption that everyone is always motivated by self-interest.
As for writing it to make himself look good, well I guess most writers word things that way. Does anyone ever write things deliberately trying to make themselves look bad?
> No, but why write an article to make yourself look good then?
I suspect that his primary motive -- as he sees it -- is exactly what he says it is, raising the issue of petty rules and complaining about the assumption that everyone is always motivated by self-interest.
As for writing it to make himself look good, well I guess most writers word things that way. Does anyone ever write things deliberately trying to make themselves look bad?
In reply to Coel Hellier: I think most writers are better at it than Dawkins.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Yep, and most writers sell vastly more books than Dawkins.
> I think most writers are better at it than Dawkins.
Yep, and most writers sell vastly more books than Dawkins.
In reply to Coel Hellier: I think you are missing the point that he comes over badly very often in public as a person. This is entirely separate to the succes of his books which, particularly in biology, have been astoundingly successful and well-regarded. Incidentally I knew someone who was lectured by him and it is the same story - on the one hand great insightful lectures, on the other arrogant pompous aloof person. Of course there is nothing wrong with being arrogant, pompous and aloof as such, but it does make him look a bit of a prat, and also I suspect gives ammunition to those who disagree with his anti-religous writing.
In reply to Coel Hellier: Yeah, I didn't mean better at selling books.
In reply to MG:
I think the thing about Dawkins is that if you agree with him you love him and if you don't agree with him you hate him.
Outside biology his very considerable achievement is to have preached to the generally already converted and made them feel comfortable in their atheism; he seems to have almost single handedly made popular atheism respectable and nothing to feel just a little bit ashamed of.
His biology books are simply beautiful and inspirational in the clarity of the writing.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier) I think you are missing the point that he comes over badly very often in public as a person.
I think the thing about Dawkins is that if you agree with him you love him and if you don't agree with him you hate him.
Outside biology his very considerable achievement is to have preached to the generally already converted and made them feel comfortable in their atheism; he seems to have almost single handedly made popular atheism respectable and nothing to feel just a little bit ashamed of.
His biology books are simply beautiful and inspirational in the clarity of the writing.
In reply to Robert Durran:
True, and particularly in America, where it was really needed. For example, I think it is true that no current American Senator or Member of Congress will state that they are an atheist.
However, it is not only to the already coverted, he has also had an effect on large numbers of teenagers and young adults who had absorbed their culture but not really thought about it for themselves. If you look at percentages of young American adults saying they are atheists it is rising rapidly (from a very low base of course), and Dawkins and a few others take a lot of credit for that for, as you say, "normalising" atheism.
> ... he seems to have almost single handedly made popular atheism respectable
True, and particularly in America, where it was really needed. For example, I think it is true that no current American Senator or Member of Congress will state that they are an atheist.
However, it is not only to the already coverted, he has also had an effect on large numbers of teenagers and young adults who had absorbed their culture but not really thought about it for themselves. If you look at percentages of young American adults saying they are atheists it is rising rapidly (from a very low base of course), and Dawkins and a few others take a lot of credit for that for, as you say, "normalising" atheism.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Totally agree. He states what I had thought for a long time but couldnt articulate.
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> he seems to have almost single handedly made popular atheism respectable and nothing to feel just a little bit ashamed of.
>
>
Totally agree. He states what I had thought for a long time but couldnt articulate.
In reply to Coel Hellier: ' I think it is true that no current American Senator or Member of Congress will state that they are an atheist. '
Although the President comes awfully close in his books...
Although the President comes awfully close in his books...
I too find it difficult to report problems for the general good.
Frequently Ocado give me refunds and vouchers when I contacts them to report inaccuracies that would affect others, eg Rhubarb yoghurt actually being Strawberry, even though the mistake doesn't affect me (I like both). They don't fix the problem, so presumably others get the same mix up.
Frequently Ocado give me refunds and vouchers when I contacts them to report inaccuracies that would affect others, eg Rhubarb yoghurt actually being Strawberry, even though the mistake doesn't affect me (I like both). They don't fix the problem, so presumably others get the same mix up.
In reply to MG:
But he knows that whatever he says or does, his disciples like Coel will immediately take to the web to defend him!
> (In reply to Coel Hellier) I think you are missing the point that he comes over badly very often in public as a person. This is entirely separate to the succes of his books which, particularly in biology, have been astoundingly successful and well-regarded. Incidentally I knew someone who was lectured by him and it is the same story - on the one hand great insightful lectures, on the other arrogant pompous aloof person. Of course there is nothing wrong with being arrogant, pompous and aloof as such, but it does make him look a bit of a prat, and also I suspect gives ammunition to those who disagree with his anti-religous writing.
But he knows that whatever he says or does, his disciples like Coel will immediately take to the web to defend him!
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Obama may have been fairly atheistic earlier in his life, but if so he's long gone native. E.g.:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/02/remarks-president-nat...
> Although the President comes awfully close in his books...
Obama may have been fairly atheistic earlier in his life, but if so he's long gone native. E.g.:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/02/remarks-president-nat...
> I think the thing about Dawkins is that if you agree with him you love him and if you don't agree with him you hate him.
Not really. I think it is very possible to have mixed feelings about him. His early biology books are models of clear and elegant popular science writing. The later ones are good in parts but should have had a much firmer editorial hand. This is often the case with very successful writers, it must get harder and harder to say no to them. He is a very bad philosopher however and his forays into this world are frequently embarrassing.
In reply to flaneur:
Can you give some examples (quoting what he actually says) of his "very bad" philosophy?
> He is a very bad philosopher however ...
Can you give some examples (quoting what he actually says) of his "very bad" philosophy?
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Well, if he's not trying to do philosophy then he can't be doing it badly, any more than he can be a very bad ice-hockey player without playing ice hockey.
Well, if he's not trying to do philosophy then he can't be doing it badly, any more than he can be a very bad ice-hockey player without playing ice hockey.
In reply to Robert Durran: Now I know where he got that huge ego from.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...