Richard Dawkins disapproves of "anti-scientific" literature, like "Harry Potter"

[Jack Flak]

And I agree about Dawkins. I actually have a professor (who does history and philosophy of science and rhetoric of science) who wrote a criticism of Dawkins' popular science work on the basis that what he was doing was rhetorical through and through (which it is), and not necessarily scientific (which is obvious, but during that time calling something by a scientist 'rhetoric' would, and did in the case of my prof, cause furious uproar). Dawkins himself never responded, but wrote later (I forget where, but could find it if pressed) that what he was doing was indeed rhetoric, and that he was proud of that fact. Interesting.

I'm having trouble finding a problem with his intent or execution here. Rhetoric can convince the non-scientifically minded, and I believe that's his goal.

 

[Salomé]

Huh? I was addressing posts by Antisocial One and Edgar, who both seemed to suggest that magic/fantasy = irrational, therefore books with magic are bad for the 'public' because they encourage irrationality. They were the ones agreeing with the article's presentation of Dawkins' opinion (which may not actually be what his opinion is, as kelric and a few others pointed out earlier).

*sigh* If I have to explain this one more time...:rolli:

Yes, I understand your point and your position. I agree.

I just don't understand why it has to be made. The bigger issue is censorship, I would have thought.

 

[bronte]

V profane - Have you read the God Delusion - if not do its very interesting - I enjoyed it but there was no balance in it at all - as an agnostic with a loathing of organised religion - I agree with most of Dawkins views here -but I can still see that not everything about the world's spiritual belief systems are ridiculous.

Perhaps also as a feminist I find his 'old school gent of the empire' persona particularly offensive. On you tube somewhere there is an interesting interview between Dawkins and a professor of philosophy talking about postmoderism - he is angry and I'd say pretty irrational.

 

[Orangey]

Yes, I understand your point and your position. I agree.

I just don't understand why it has to be made. The bigger issue is censorship, I would have thought.

I don't know. I guess the reason some people believe (not necessarily Dawkins) that fantasy books are bad, from a "rational" point of view, is because they promote irrational ideas. At least I think this is what they were saying (ask Antisocial One). That's why they believe that they should be censured. I think this is a non-issue, though, because the article clearly misrepresented Dawkins, and I don't know anyone in the world who would advocate such a position.

I'm having trouble finding a problem with his intent or execution here. Rhetoric can convince the non-scientifically minded, and I believe that's his goal.

Oh, I don't think he was particularly 'wrong' in that instance. I was just bringing it up because I thought it was interesting, and relevant insofar as it related to Richard Dawkins. Hence the "interesting" bit at the end.

I actually like that he admitted that he was 'doing rhetoric' (because he was), even though in general I find him to be a little bit of a blow-hard.

I take issue with your statement that rhetoric can convince the "non-scientifically minded", though, because rhetoric, another word for persuasion, is used in virtually all human interaction, scientific or otherwise.

 

[locke]

Basically he says that fairy tales are unscientific (obviously true), and that he's not sure if that might lead people away from rationality.

Can't have people being led away from Christ^H^H^H^H^H^HScience.

 

[Jack Flak]

I take issue with your statement that rhetoric can convince the "non-scientifically minded", though, because rhetoric, another word for persuasion, is used in virtually all human interaction, scientific or otherwise.

This is true. Let me redefine "rhetoric" as "whatever Dawkins does" for the moment. The science is already out there, in books, etc. He's condensing it, simplifying it, and relaying it.

 

[Salomé]

This is true. Let me redefine "rhetoric" as "whatever Dawkins does" for the moment. The science is already out there, in books, etc. He's condensing it, simplifying it, and relaying it.[

Don't forget corrupting it for his own megalomaniacal ends.

 

[Kanamori]

This makes being an intellectual rebel and badass easier.

 

[Jack Flak]

Don't forget corrupting it for his own megalomaniacal ends.

The pursuit of truth in society I'd hardly call megalomaniacal. But if he's your ex-boyfriend, and you know more than I do, I defer.

 

[Uytuun]

Non politically correct freestyle musing...why not?

 

[edcoaching]

So back to Harry Potter and fantasy...

 

[Salomé]

The pursuit of truth in society I'd hardly call megalomaniacal. But if he's your ex-boyfriend, and you know more than I do, I defer.

Let's just say I know more than you do, and leave it at that.

 

[ragashree]

I take issue with your statement that rhetoric can convince the "non-scientifically minded", though, because rhetoric, another word for persuasion, is used in virtually all human interaction, scientific or otherwise.

Well, it may not help that Dawkins is generally speaking in the guise of "Richard Dawkins, the renowned scientist", and tends (where he is not being purely rhetorical as he certainly is in this instance) to be selectively using scientific evidence in support of his own highly subjective viewpoint. I wouldn't find the man half so objectionable if he was honest enough to present his views as being the personal opinions of an individual who happens to be a scientist, but he almost invariably presents his own position as being THE "Scientific" or "Rational" one, which implies that any opposing viewpoint is neither scientific or rational.

Anyone who is inclined to take at face value Dawkins' self-assumed authority is naturally more likely to find this sort of fallacious reasoning acceptable. Sorry to make the analogy, but someone who assumes that Dawkins is correct because he is who he is and says he is being scientific/rational is behaving just like a believer in a particular faith who recieves the pronouncements from the leaders of that faith as gospel. There are unfortunately an awful lot of people these days who "believe" in science but have only a second-hand idea of what it is really about. I think these people are particularly vulnerable to Dawkins' rhetoric, and will continue being so until they understand the value of a falsifiable hypothesis and how it can be used to distinguish a reasonable theory from mere tendentious speculation.

 

[Jack Flak]

Well, it may not help that Dawkins is generally speaking in the guise of "Richard Dawkins, the renowned scientist", and tends (where he is not being purely rhetorical as he certainly is in this instance) to be selectively using scientific evidence in support of his own highly subjective viewpoint. I wouldn't find the man half so objectionable if he was honest enough to present his views as being the personal opinions of an individual who happens to be a scientist, but he almost invariably presents his own position as being THE "Scientific" or "Rational" one, which implies that any opposing viewpoint is neither scientific or rational.

Anyone who is inclined to take at face value Dawkins' self-assumed authority is naturally more likely to find this sort of fallacious reasoning acceptable. Sorry to make the analogy, but someone who assumes that Dawkins is correct because he is who he is and says he is being scientific/rational is behaving just like a believer in a particular faith who recieves the pronouncements from the leaders of that faith as gospel. There are unfortunately an awful lot of people these days who "believe" in science but have only a second-hand idea of what it is really about. I think these people are particularly vulnerable to Dawkins' rhetoric, and will continue being so until they understand the value of a falsifiable hypothesis and how it can be used to distinguish a reasonable theory from mere tendentious speculation.

This can be explained by his status of INTP in myriad ways. Good at logic, bad at people...Pleasing them, anyway.

 

[Mole]

And I agree about Dawkins. I actually have a professor (who does history and philosophy of science and rhetoric of science) who wrote a criticism of Dawkins' popular science work on the basis that what he was doing was rhetorical through and through (which it is), and not necessarily scientific (which is obvious, but during that time calling something by a scientist 'rhetoric' would, and did in the case of my prof, cause furious uproar). Dawkins himself never responded, but wrote later (I forget where, but could find it if pressed) that what he was doing was indeed rhetoric, and that he was proud of that fact. Interesting.

And what we do here is rhetoric. But because 'rhetoric' has become a pejorative word, no one will admit to writing rhetorically, 'cause we wanna be good and be seen to be good.

But consider, the Romans divided the curriculum into the Trivium of Rhetoric, Grammer and Logic. And they regarded Rhetoric as the greatest of the three.

And you can't understand the modern world without understanding Rhetoric. You can't understand advertising. You can't understand politics. And you can't even understand religion without understanding Rhetoric.

The purpose of Rhetoric is to persuade.

But the purpose of Islamic Jihad is to persuade with violence.

And the purpose of Rhetoric is to persuade peacefully.

This is just what we need today.

Are you persuaded?

 

[Orangey]

And what we do here is rhetoric. But because 'rhetoric' has become a pejorative word, no one will admit to writing rhetorically, 'cause we wanna be good and be seen to be good.

But consider, the Romans divided the curriculum into the Trivium of Rhetoric, Grammer and Logic. And they regarded Rhetoric as the greatest of the three.

And you can't understand the modern world without understanding Rhetoric. You can't understand advertising. You can't understand politics. And you can't even understand religion without understanding Rhetoric.

The purpose of Rhetoric is to persuade.

Heh, I know. I study it.

 

[ragashree]

The purpose of Rhetoric is to persuade.

But the purpose of Islamic Jihad is to persuade with violence.

And the purpose of Rhetoric is to persuade peacefully.

This is just what we need today.

Are you persuaded?

I liked the appeal to primitive emotions. A highly effective Rhetorical non-sequitur which very effectively bypasses the logic centres of the brain in susceptible targets.

 

[Mole]

Heh, I know. I study it.

How wonderful to persuade someone.

It might be to persuade someone to love you or even marry you. It may be to persuade someone to buy their first home. Or it may be to persuade your children to study Rhetoric.

And how wonderful you study Rhetoric.

 

[Orangey]

How wonderful to persuade someone.

It might be to persuade someone to love you or even marry you. It may be to persuade someone to buy their first home. Or it may be to persuade your children to study Rhetoric.

And how wonderful you study Rhetoric.

Believe me, my parents were doing no persuading on that front.

 

[ragashree]

Good at logic, bad at people...Pleasing them, anyway.

Are you sure about that? I thought he seemed pretty damm good at pleasing certain people, particularly those who manage to maintain an elevated view of their own intelligence in the absence of much developement of their faculties for crritical thinking...