About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 3:24pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Dawkins is in his element talking about the stupid pseudo-science film hit called, "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" It pretends to be a documentary made of so-called science experts right out of the yogi school of mysticism.
 
Here is the full crtitique of the film by Dawkins. (More to be posted on SOLO science).
 
This film is even more pretentious than it is boring. And it is stupefyingly boring - unless, of course, you are fooled by its New Age fakery, in which case it might indeed be - as many innocent dupes have stated - "life-changing". The one redeeming feature is the enigmatic charm of the deaf heroine, whose depressive journey down the rabbit hole of life is punctuated by gobbets of bogus sagacity from a dozen talking heads. But no amount of charm could redeem the unforgivable phoniness of the script.
 
Over-use of the word "paradigm" is a pretty good litmus for inclusion in the scientific equivalent of Pseud's Corner, and the film's "expert" talking heads score highly. Perhaps the leading one is "Ramtha", a dead warrior from Atlantis who addresses us (in a fake accent) through his "channeler", a woman called JZ (Judy) Knight, founder of the Ramtha Cult which sponsored the film. Thirty-five thousand years in the grave have not dulled Ramtha's business sense: he charges $1,000 per counselling session. Poor JZ has her work cut out.
 
The authors seem undecided whether their theme is quantum theory or consciousness. Both are indeed mysterious, and their genuine mystery needs none of the hype with which this film relentlessly and noisily belabours us. Not surprisingly, we get no enlightenment on either topic, nor on the alleged connection between them. Instead, we are told that indigenous peoples were "literally" unable to see early European vessels arriving off their shores - presumably because the ships lay outside their "paradigm". We are told that "All emotion is holographically imprinted chemicals"; that "Each cell has a consciousness"; and that "God is the superposition of all the spirits from all things".
 
What drives me to despair is not the dishonesty of the charlatans who peddle such tosh, but the dopey gullibility of the thousands of nice, well meaning people who flock to the cinema and believe it.
 
· Richard Dawkins FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. His latest book is The Ancestor's Tale.
 




Post 1

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 6:55amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Looks like Dawkins may have got one right,  but one can hardly admire the man's Stalinist tactics in preventing books and acticles from being printed that he believes do not protect 'scientific truth'. 




Post 2

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
What "Stalinist tactics?" Dawkins doesn't even have a GULAG.



Post 3

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Dawkins actively intervenes with the publication of certain articles, on topics of which he does not approve, by personally calling editors and publishers and telling them not to publish.  There articles are generally critiques of the status quo.  A champion of freedom of speech and press can not approve of this behavior.



Post 4

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Robert D
I don't have any details, but will take your word for it.

However, do you really mean to suggest that because he expresses strong opinions about
who or what should not be published he is Stalinist and suppressing freedom of speech?

Or is he an exception because he is well known and can exercise influence?





Post 5

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 11:16amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
He is a quasi government official, virtually irresistable.



Post 6

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 1:11pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
He is a quasi government official, virtually irresistable.
As I understand it he holds a chair that is privately endowned at a university that is a private instituition (and has been for nearly 800 years.)



Post 7

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 1:46pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
As it states at the bottom of post 0, he is a professor at Oxford.

I've never heard of him blocking publications that challenge the orthodoxy. But if publishers send him a manuscript to look at and he says "it is crap, don't publish it", then he is hardly acting like Stalin.




Post 8

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 3:10pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The accusations are ironic, since Stalin, the graduate of an Orthodox Christian priest's seminary, had a pet anti-evolution theory - propounded by his political proteges, the pseudo-scientists Michurin and Lysenko - with strange similarities to some of the "Intelligent Design" pseudo-science of current Christianists. In the name of Lysenkoism, Stalin ordered the murder of hundreds of biological scientists - nearly every geneticist in the old Soviet Union.

Dawkins is a forceful advocate of primacy of existence - Rand's term for objective science - and therefore does not look kindly on giving "equal time" to supernatural bullshit. That is, in historical fact, the exact opposite of Stalin's record. RD: please stop taking whatever drugs you must have been on when you posted this.



Post 9

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 3:27pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest champions of reason and science that we will know in our lifetimes. His books are very readable and aimed at the layman.

Any one of Dawkins books on evolution can fill the hole that our US education left wide open on the topic. I have read all his books, with the exception of the "Ancestors Tale" which I am currently reading.

If you know next to nothing about evolution, I recommend "River out of Eden" as a great primer.

On the downside, he is as best as I can make out a socialist, and sometimes utters truly horrible political statements. Such is my respect for him otherwise that I will overlook it.




Post 10

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 3:34pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
On the downside, he is as best as I can make out a socialist, and sometimes utters truly horrible political statements. Such is my respect for him otherwise that I will overlook it.


I will not.



Post 11

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 5:25amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Steve Zarwulkoff made some worthy observations of Richard Dawkins.  I had the privilege of meeting Dawkins at the Atheist Alliance International convention in Tampa, Florida over Easter weekend in 2003 and felt duly impressed with his passionate convictions regarding reason and science.  I also observed unfortunate socialistic tendiencies there, less with Dawkins than with some of the other speakers, especially regarding education.

To his credit, I saw Dawkins challenge one of the speakers in the hallway during break regarding what he considered her misuse of her eight year old son for advancing her own political agenda in a public school.  To an audience of hundreds, the speaker had shared minutes earlier her lawsuit against her son's school for allowing the Boy Scouts, a theistic organization, to proselytize in that school.  I could detect Dawkins' anger with this woman when he confronted her during break and asked her why she was using her son, who clearly was not old enough to understand what was happening, to push her atheist political agenda.  I was not in a position to stay and poke my nose into the conversation, but I respected the man for breaking ranks and speaking his mind while also exercising discretion in how he did it.




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.