Talk:Richard Dawkins
|
|
I'm pretty sure he only has one daughter (Juliet)
What is the "Williams Revolution"? I can't find it in Google.
it is probably a reference to EO Williams, the founder of sociobiology, in the selfish genes Dawkins expose how kin selections and other "evolutionnary stable strategy" arise (how behaviours are subject to evolution). susano 04:31 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
oups, I confused Williams with Wilson... (BTW: should I edit my errors int the talk pages or let them stay as a proof of my stupidity :-)) susano 04:58 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
I also didn't know him, but after looking around with Google it seems that this is George C. Williams, an evolutionary biologist who originally came up with the idea that the gene was the unit of evolution. For some information see:
- http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/d-Contents.html (an on-line book he wrote the first chapter of)
There should be an entry on George C. Williams and The Williams revolution, but I am a bit busy at the moment. -- Jan Hidders 06:18 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
- er, try Williams revolution (or should that be capitalised?) Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Moved from the main article because of severe lack of coherence (Can anyone make sense of this?):
- He uses biology as a tool to propagate his belief system. He bases his thinking on the assumption that there is no God as this would mean that the world would is in a better shape (cf. theodicy).
snoyes 20:34, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
A Knight?
Around the web, there are a few references to "Sir Richard Dawkins". Has he been knighted recently? -- 128.232.242.11 21:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- And never likely to be, I'd bet (he's an avowed atheist and a multiple divorcee - these things still 'count' so far as our beloved Royal Family are concerned!) Jerry 22:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- His scathing observations about the mystical flights of Prince Charles are probably even more of an issue! -- Alan Peakall 17:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Weasels
Even when answersingenesis.org has no standing *whatsoever* on anything related to biology, neither has Dawkins's Weasel example. :p --ZeroOne 21:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- While I'm fond of most of what Dawkins has written, I agree about the "weasels example" being off target. But please try to find a more reputable source for a critical piece on it... Mortene 22:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- OK, so how about The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (http://www.iscid.org/vignere/vignere-text-evolution.php)? Feel free to add it for me. --ZeroOne 00:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Are you trying to be funny? ISCID is just a creationist outfit, with Dembski and his cronies doing their cargo cult science. At least the "Answers in Genesis" (http://answersingenesis.org) guys are open about it. Mortene 18:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Open and ignorant, yes. I sent them the following email:
- "Your article at http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp contains:
- "Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
- "The people who contributed this piece might like to be informed of something I learnt at school, namely that the different forms of carbon mentioned - carbon black, diamond and graphite - are allotropes, all having the same atomic weight and just differing in atomic arrangement. Isotopes, by contrast, are something different. I'm sure your contributors Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten could look up the difference elsewhere if they wanted to learn more about this area of elementary science taught to children at school.
- "However, such an elementary mistake in an article which is presumably portending to present the result of learning tends to make the whole thing rather unconvincing, I'm afraid. But perhaps that doesn't matter too much if your aim is not actually to educate."
- Matt Stan 14:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- Ach, darn. Does no one but creationists criticise Dawkins? --ZeroOne 22:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Zero One is talking nonsense about AiG. There are Ph.D. biologists on AiG's staff. Conversely, Dawkins hasn't done any real experimental biology for decades. In any case, NPOV requires that criticisms be acknowledged not censored. And why is it wrong to criticise evolution from an religious/philosophical basis but not support it on an religious/philosophical basis as Dawkins clearly does? BTW, McGrath, the author of the book I just added, is a theistic evolutionist. 138.130.194.229 06:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Creationist criticism of Dawkin's position shouldn't be taken out. However, it needs to be appropiate (so some of the criticism of books should go in each one), but a general creationist essay on Dawkins himself should be allowed, but it should be under its own heading in the external links. Do not censor. It is worth letting people read this bollocks to see its true colours. Dunc|☺ 14:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What would you know about whether something is "bollocks"? But you're right, it is not right to censor critical reviews of Dawkins' books.138.130.201.227 14:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to see drivel, then hold your own writing up to the mirror. And how do you separate the Dawk from his writings? At the moment, this page is hardly NPOV, since almost all the articles are adulatory of this village atheist who couldn't philosophize his way out of a paper bag. 138.130.201.227 14:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What would you know? And it's just dishonest for an antitheist like you to spout forth about "bad theology". And you need to learn the NPOV rules, which don't make judgements on whether science or theology is bad. But this is par for the course for the likes of you — you obviously can't refute the Weasel problems so you censor them. The Dawk is your high priest who must be protected from criticism.138.130.201.227 17:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You're forgetting that this is a talk page where we are supposed to discuss these things, it's articles that aim to be NPOV. And we do have to decide what is bad science, bad philosophy and bad theology because if we write an article presenting science overwhelmingly accepted by those who practice it as equal to pseudoscientific nonsense the article will not be neutral. There's nothing neutral about presenting an extremist fringe view as equal to other views. Your resorting to attacking anti-creationists as anti-theistic, your claim that Dawkins is my high priest, and references to him in derogatory terms show you have no interest in discussing this matter and no interest in NPOV. Joe D (t) 17:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Peter Vardy (theologian) critisises Dawkins, because he's "not a philosopher", I don't know about his views on creationism though. -- Joolz 01:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The same Peter Vardy behind the Emmanuel Schools Foundation? The Emmanuel Schools hit the news because they taught creationism. Joe D (t) 14:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Remove weasels ans. in gen. - it was about a specific computer prog in a specific book. Might be OK for an article about that program or book. Also removed belief.net stuff - full of adds and two noxious pop-ups, absurd. Vsmith 04:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the Weasel Program itself does deserve its own article. The creationist criticisms of it can then go in there. I'll have to read the book again, (it's in The Blind Watchmaker isn't it?).
- Yes, it's in Watchmaker. I just wrote an article on the Weasel program, please take a look and see if you can improve it! I will put a link in the Blind Watchmaker article.
- --MFNickster 03:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- You did a great job with the new article! Mortene 12:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! It's the first substantial new article I've written. :)
- --MFNickster 15:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- Anyway, the book reviews are all now in the individual articles on the books, though we could do with a few other book reviews to make it a bit more balanced.
- Anon does however have a point about the article being too complimentary of Prof Dawkins. from my experience in academia, he is respected for his ability to communicate with the public, but he's written the same book three times, he hasn't done any real research in a while (I know only of 1 important paper from around 1970), most of his books are based on the work of W.D. Hamilton and John Maynard Smith (and although he acknowledges this lay readers often miss it), and some scientists will object to his evangelising of atheism if it contradicts their personal beliefs on God or religious evangelism. He also commits some fallacies in evangelising (arguments against the existence of God are poor, but they are a lot better than the arguments for her existence). He is master of the over-the-top attack, which might be considered rude. phew/Dunc|☺ 11:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be too hard to find criticism of the selfish gene and stuff; he spends at least one chapter of the extended phenotype rebutting criticism, so all we have to do is find the articles he cites as critical (a lot of Lewontin stuff, some Gould stuff, some Eldridge stuff, if I remember correctly) and summarize their points. Maybe I'll do some of it after I'm done with final exams, but if someone wants to beat me to the punch, they're obviously welcome to it. Dave (talk) 13:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Publicity or legitimacy?
Page 256 (chapter 5.5) of A Devil's Chaplain:
- Instead, what they seek is the oxygen of respectability. We give them this oxygen by the mere act of engaging with them at all. They don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.
Joe D (t) 19:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Thanks. I put it in. It's a lot better than the quote I stuck in a minute ago. Wikipedia is so cool! Dave (talk)